Loading...
City Council Agenda 02-08-2016MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Pieper at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, Califomia. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Councilmembers Absent: Others Present: CONSENT CALENDAR Black, Dieringer, Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Pieper. None. Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Howard Weinberg, Attorney. Charlie Raine, 2 Pinto Road. Jim and Laurie Hynes, 23 Crest Road East. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road. Mike Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. Kirt Behera, 12 Ringbit Road East. Matt Seabem, 14 Portuguese Bend Road. Laura Gregorin, 45 Eastfield Drive. Hal Light, Attorney. Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of January 25, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as presented. Councilmember Black seconded the motion, which carried without objection. COMMISSION ITEMS None. Recognizing that the applicant wasn't present and at the request of their attorney, Mayor Pieper stated that the public hearing pertaining to Zoning Case No. 869 would be moved to later in the meeting. Item 9A was taken out of order. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE/INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE FOR A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR A LOS ANGELES COUNTY PHARMACEUTICALS AND SHARPS COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL STEWARDSHIP ORDINANCE. City Manager Cruz stated that this matter was brought forward for the City Council's consideration at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer stated that she feels that the County adopting a pharmaceuticals and sharps v DRAFT collection and disposal stewardship ordinance that could be adopted by the City would make sense for Rolling Hills' residents and she feels the City should support this request. Discussion ensued concerning the purpose of the ordinance and the pharmaceutical manufacturer's involvement in the process. Councilmember Black stated that he is not opposed to the concept, but he would like to see the language of the ordinance before committing his support. Following discussion, staff was directed to provide the City Council with a copy of the draft ordinance for review at the next meeting. Consideration of this matter was continued to the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, February 22, 2016 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 869, SUBDIVISION NO. 94, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72775 — A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING LOT TOTALING 7.05 ACRES GROSS INTO 2 PARCELS OF LAND AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1: 3.70 GROSS ACRES, 3.0 NET ACRES; PARCEL 2: 3.34 GROSS ACRES, 2.67 NET ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT LOT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CREST ROAD EAST, KNOWN AS 23 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 32 -A -MS), PARCEL NO.: 7567-011-020 IN THE RA -S-2 ZONE, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL -SUBURBAN 2 -ACRE MINIMUM NET LOT AREA, TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY MR. JIM HYNES. PURSUANT TO CEQA REQUIREMENTS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WITH APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES AND THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz briefly reviewed the applicant's request for a two -lot subdivision and stated that the City Council previously reviewed and discussed the request; visited the site; as well as reviewed the various environmental reports and correspondence from property owners located to the south of the project. She further reviewed the background on this case stating that after several discussions the City Council requested that the applicant provide further, independent information with regard to the hydrology on the site and its effect on the development of the two lots; and on the properties south of the development that are located in the Flying Triangle. Staff issued a Request for Proposal for the independent hydrology study, including the infiltration rate and a peer review of the previous reports received, to which two companies responded with proposals in the amount of approximately 530,000. She further reviewed the applicant's request for subdivision stating that if/when the lots are developed additional soils, geology and hydrology studies would have to be done specific to the proposed development. She stated that the studies done to date have been for feasibility and the City engineer has deemed the subdivision compliant with the subdivision act. She further stated that additional correspondence has been received which included a letter from the property owner below at 58 Portuguese Bend Road expressing concern about the project and a letter from the applicant objecting to the additional independent hydrology study. She further reviewed the options before the City Council which include to either approve or deny the subdivision based on the findings which are listed in the staff report or to continue with the request for additional hydrology information. Mayor Pieper called for public comment. Howard Weinberg, Attorney addressed the City Council stating that they do not feel that an additional hydrology study is necessary. He further reviewed the hydrology calculations originally provided and stated that the hydrologists both concluded that there will be no additional water coming off the surface of the property after the lots are developed. He asked the City Council to rescind the request for additional studies and approve the subdivision as approved by the Planning Commission and confirmed by the City Engineer. Charlie Raine, 2 Pinto Road addressed the City Council to express concern regarding the project and the effect any additional water from the lots will have on the properties below. Jim Hynes, 23 Crest Road East addressed the City Council stating that there will be no additional water coming off the lots as has been confirmed by their engineer and the City engineer. In response to Mayor Pieper, City Attorney Jenkins stated that if the applicant is unwilling to provide the Minutes City Council Meeting 02-08-16 DRAFT additional information requested, the City Council should make a decision to either approve or deny the request. Discussion ensued concerning the need for the additional hydrology information. Councilmember Black commented that he is concerned about effect of the subdivision on the downhill neighbors given the soil stability issues and would not be in favor of approving the subdivision without the additional hydrology information requested. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer expressed concern that there was no Environmental Impact Report (EIR) conducted and she is not willing to risk people's safety. Following further discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer moved that the City Council direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial in Zoning Case No. 869 at 23 Crest Road East. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. OPEN AGENDA - APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME None. OLD BUSINESS SECOND READING, WAIVE FULL READING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 346 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 881 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-03. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Mayor Pieper introduced the item stating that this is consideration of an Ordinance amending the City's existing View Ordinance and does not relate to Measure 13. He stated that the discussion regarding Measure 13 interpretation is a separate item on the agenda and will be discussed later. Mayor Pieper called for public comment. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Council to suggest that the language in the Ordinance regarding restorative actions be changed to eliminate the word "topping" and instead use words like "crown reduction" to be consistent with the language that the Committee on Trees & Views uses. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer, Planning Director Schwartz confirmed that the Committee on Trees and Views does not typically use the word "topping" in its resolutions. In response to Mayor Pieper, City Attorney Jenkins stated that if the City Council makes any changes other than to correct typographical errors, the Ordinance would have to be reintroduced for first reading. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Black moved that the City Council waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 346 amending Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code relating to View Preservation as presented. Mayor Pieper seconded the motion. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented that she feels that the language regarding restorative action should be changed as suggested by Dr. Gill. She further commented that she feels that the term informational "document" should be further explained. She commented that she also feels that binding arbitration should be offered to reduce litigation. Following discussion, the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 346 carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Black, Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Pieper. NOES: Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Minutes City Council Meeting • 02-08-16 t DRAFT CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1182 ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. Mayor Pieper introduced the item stating that the City Council will review and discuss the information presented; and then open the item for public comment. He stated that the purpose of the Administrative Regulations is to provide definitions so that the Committee on Trees and Views can apply it evenly and consistently. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the background and previous discussion and testimony on this item. She stated that the matter was originally discussed by a City Council Ad Hoc Committee and then by the Planning Commission to provide clarity on the portions of Measure B that were not clearly defined when the measure was adopted by the voters. She stated that the three issues needing clarification were the terms "mature" vs. "maturing"; what constitutes "acquisition" of property and the term "retroactivity." She further reviewed the correspondence received since the City Council last discussed this matter, which offered several varying opinions as to the definition of "mature." She stated the Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer has also provided a memo expressing her opinion regarding the definition of mature and other matters related to the interpretation of Measure B. In response to Mayor Pieper as to how to best proceed, Planning Director Schwartz stated that the City Council may wish to refer to the Planning Commission's recommendations as included in the Resolution that is attached to the staff report and discuss each of the items. DATE OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the interpretation of "acquisition" of property as suggested by the Planning Commission. Mayor Pieper commented that he feels the "acquisition date" should be the last time money was conveyed for the ownership of the property. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented that she feels "acquisition date" should be the date when the current owner acquired property regardless of whether money changed hands or not and it became legally recordable as theirs. Discussion ensued concerning how the rule would be applied when a property is put into a "trust." Further discussion ensued concerning revocable vs. irrevocable trusts. City Attorney Jenkins commented that there are varying definitions of "acquire" which is what makes it difficult to interpret Measure B. He suggested that it may make more sense to view it from the point of view of the property not the people. He explained that the property comes with certain rights and the concept would be that there is a relationship between what was paid for the property and the rights that were held by the property at the time the money was transferred. He stated that it could be looked at as a property issue not a people issue whereby the last time the property was purchased in an arms length transaction where title was conveyed and consideration was paid for the full value of the property then the property was paid for with the attributes of that property at that time. He further explained that the other way to look at would be from a people perspective where whoever lives in the house, however they might have acquired it, they only get the view they had when they obtained the right to live in the house without regard to whether money changes hands or not. Further 'discussion ensued concerning the different types of scenarios including trusts and irrevocable trust and how they affect acquisition. City Attorney Jenkins suggested that the City Council focus on what the outcome should be in certain hypothetical situations rather than the technical terminology. Further discussion ensued concerning types of property acquisition and the varying definition of acquire. Mayor Pieper called for public comment specifically regarding the matter of "acquisition." Mike Schoettic, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council stating that he feels that acquisition should be when someone's name goes on title. Lynn Gill, 31 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council stating that he feels that acquisition should be when consideration is given and the property rights that were included with the purchase should be able to be passed on to anyone who is a beneficiary of the trust. Minutes Fr City Council Meeting 02-08-16 DRAFT Kii l Behan, 12 Riughit Road East stated that lie cuuews with Di. Gill. Matt Seabcm, 14 Portuguese Bend Road stated that he concurs with City Attorney Jenkins that the issue - 'F? should be considered from a "property" perspective and that using the "people" perspective will cause problems. :. • r Howard Weinberg, Attorney (Nuccion) stated that he feels that ownership should be pegged to a monetary transaction and he believes the reference to property tax law should be removed. Mayor Pieper suggested again that the acquisition date should be when money changes hands. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer expressed concern that using that approach could create a dynasty through legal documents. City Attorney Jenkins stated that the City Council simply needs to determine what its approach to the matter is. He stated that if the City Council is looking to tie the view to the value of the property when it was last purchased, it is greatly simplified. He stated that looking at who lives there and when that person took control of the property is the other way to look at it and the City Council needs to make a decision as to the broad concept whether its should be viewed from a property or a person perspective. Following discussion, Councilmembers Black, Mirsch Wilson and Mayor Pieper indicated that they are in favor of viewing the matter from the "property" perspective and directed City Attorney Jenkins to draft language that conveys that sentiment for the City Council's consideration at the next meeting. "MATURE" VERSUS "MATURINU"FKEES Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the definitions of "mature" vs. "maturing" as suggested by the Planning Commission. She stated that that the Planning Commission suggested using the International Society of Arboriculture's definition of "maturity height" as being the maximum height that a plant is likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site arc favorable and referencing Sunset Western Garden Book as a reference for potential heights by species. She stated that the Planning Commission further recommended that a tree that had been previously cut should not be considered mature because it never reached its highest mature height. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented based on the correspondence from Ruben Green that she feels that height alone cannot be used to determine the maturity of a tree. She further stated that she feels that Measure B requires that the definition has to be based on industry standards predominantly used by arborists. She stated that she feels the City should ask for an independent opinion on what maturity means. Mayor Pieper called for public comment on the issue of maturity. Laura Gregorio, 45 Eastfield Drive/65 Saddleback Road addressed the City Council regarding the provision in Measure B that allows a property owner to restore the view they had when they purchased their property. Mike Schoettle addressed the City council stating that he does not feel that a tree that has been previously trimmed should be exempt from being considered mature. Lynn Gill stated that he feels that Sunset Western Garden Book is a good resource to use as a guide for determining maximum tree height but warned against using the maximum height. He suggested getting an opinion from a consulting arborist. Harold Light, Attorney (Hassoldt) addressed the City Council to further explain the declaration he submitted from Mr. Green's. He stated that he also does not feel a tree that has been previously trimmed should be exempt from being considered mature and that maximum height should not be used as the determining factor. Howard Weinberg, Attorney (Nuccion) addressed the City Council in support of using height as the determining factor, but suggested using a percentage of the maximum height rather than the absolute maximum height. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented that the language used to define "maturity" has to be consistent with Measure B and must be defined by industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists. She • Minutes City Council Meeting • 02-08-16 DRAFT suggested obtaining an opinion from a Registered Consulting Arborist with regard to the definition of mature on a case -by -case basis. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she feels it is the City Council's responsibility to set a standard that can be used in each case and in doing so, the City is meeting its obligation by deliberating in good faith and coming to a conclusion that is simple and subject to as little interpretation as possible. In response to Mayor Pieper, City Attorney Jenkins commented that it seems clear that there is no single accepted industry standard of the definition of mature. He stated that he feels what is needed is uniformity — a uniform definition to apply to every case so that there is certainty as to what the word means in cach case. He stated that the City Council's task is to come up with a uniform definition based on an industry standard that reasonably derives from industry standards. Mayor Pieper commented that he believes that the definition should be simple and easy to apply consistently. He further commented that he believes that whether or not a tree has been trimmed previously complicates the matter and should be eliminated. Councilmember Black stated that he feels that there are scenarios where a mature tree should not be exempted from being trimmed; for example, if a tree had been trimmed to maintain a view but circumstances prevented the trimming the tree should not be allowed to grow into the view simply because it is a mature tree. With regard to maximum height, he suggested that using a percentage of the mature height, possibly 90% may be a better way to go. Councilmember Wilson commented that he feels, the definition needs to be simple bit also objective and measurable. He stated that although the Sunset Western Garden Book might not be his favorite resource, it is what is available and suggested using a percentage of the maximum height. He further commented that he agrees that trees that have been trimmed should not be exempted. He suggested using 75-80% of the maximum height as the guideline. Discussion ensued concerning the tree height ranges shown in Sunset Westem Garden Book. Mayor Pro Tem Dicringer further expressed concern that Sunset Western Garden Book is not an industry standard used by arborists and using it will lead to litigation. In response to Councilmember Wilson, City Attorney Jenkins stated that what the City Council comes up with regarding the definition of maturity should be informed by the information received. He stated that the City Council has been provided with several pieces of information in the staff report, including the opinions from arborists and the public. He stated that if the City Council believes it needs more information, as Mayor Pro Tem Dicringer suggests, an expert could be hircd to provide additional information. He further stated that if the City Council believes it has received enough information to make a decision, which reflects a consensus or merger of what constitutes an industry standard, such a decision would be sustainable. Further discussion ensued concerning the differing opinions on the definition of maturity, the height ranges listed in Sunset Western Garden Book and whether or not a mature tree that has been previously trimmed should be exempted from being trimmed to maintain a view. Following discussion, consideration of this matter was continued to the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, February 22, 2016 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, Califomia. NEW BUSINESS None. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS DISCUSSION REGARDING MOVING THE OPEN AGENDA ITEM ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TO EARLIER IN THE MEETING. (ORAL) Mayor Pieper commented that Councilmember Mirsch suggested, and he concurs that it would make sense to move the open agenda itcm on the City Council agenda to earlier in the meeting so that those wishing to speak don't have to wait until 8pm or later. Following discussion, staff was directed to place the "Open Agenda" item as the first item on the agenda after the roll call. Minutes City Council Meeting 02-08-16 DRAFT COYOTE CONTROL. (ORAL) Mayor Pieper commented that there seem to be many reports of coyote issues on the social networking web site, Rolling Hills Nextdoor. Following brief discussion, staff was directed to continue to monitor and address the coyote issues. MATTERS FROM STAFF UPDATE ON CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY WATER BUDGET ALLOCATIONS FOR NEW RESIDENTS. (ORAL) City Manager Cruz reported that Cal Water has come up with a process for more fairly assigning water budget numbers to new Rolling Hills' residents. Staff was directed to ask the RHCA to be sure that new residents are provided with Cal Water's contact information. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS None. CLOSED SESSION None. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Pieper adjourned the meeting at 10:43 p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, February 22, 2016 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, le I ' ieper ayor Minutes City Council Meeting 02-08-16 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within proceeding; my business address is 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. On the 5'" day of February, 2016, I serve the within City Council Meeting - 02/08/2016 a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, on the person, or persons, named below by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Rolling Hills, California addressed as follows: E -MAILED MAILED DropBox NONE RH Web site listSery Interested parties DELIVERED City Attorney City Manager CouncilMembers City Council Dieringer, Pieper, Black, Mirsch and Wilson Also posted at City Hall, at www.Rolling-Hills.org and pdf's in DropBox. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 5th day of February, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California. auQ- Ewa Nikodem Administrative Assistant INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2016 7:30 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of January 25, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 4. COMMISSION ITEMS NONE. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ZONING CASE NO. 869. SUBDIVISION NO. 94. VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72775 — A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING LOT TOTALING 7.05 ACRES GROSS INTO 2 PARCELS OF LAND AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1: 3.70 GROSS ACRES, 3.0 NET ACRES; PARCEL 2: 3.34 GROSS ACRES, 2.67 NET ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT LOT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CREST ROAD EAST, KNOWN AS 23 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 32 -A -MS), PARCEL NO.: 7567-011-020 IN THE RA -S-2 ZONE, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL -SUBURBAN 2 -ACRE MINIMUM NET LOT AREA, TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY MR. JIM HYNES. PURSUANT TO CEQA REQUIREMENTS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WITH APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES AND THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. Page I of 3 6. OLD BUSINESS A. SECOND READING, WAIVE FULL READING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 346 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 881 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-03. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). B. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1182 ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. 7. NEW BUSINESS NONE. 8. OPEN AGENDA - APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME 9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS A. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE/INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE FOR A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR A LOS ANGELES COUNTY PHARMECEUTICALS AND SHARPS COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL STEWARDSHIP ORDINANCE. B. DISCUSSION REGARDING MOVING THE OPEN AGENDA ITEM ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TO EARLIER IN THE MEETING. (ORAL) C. COYOTE CONTROL. (ORAL) 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF A. UPDATE ON CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY WATER BUDGET ALLOCATIONS FOR NEW RESIDENTS. (ORAL) 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS NONE. 12. CLOSED SESSION NONE. City Council Agenda 02/08/16 Page 2 of 3 13. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION NONE. 14. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Monday, February 22, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item. Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the Deputy City Clerk at (310) 377- 1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting. City Council Agenda 02/08/16 Page 3 of 3 DRAFT Agenda Item No. 3-A Meeting Date: 02/08/16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Pieper at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Black, Dieringer, Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Pieper. Councilmembers Absent: None. Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Terry Shea, Finance Director. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Kirt Behera, 12 Ringbit Road East. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road. Norm Miller, 4 Chesterfield Road. Howard Weinberg, Attorney. James Wald, 7 Quail Ridge Road South. Cathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of January 11, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Financial Statement for the Month of October, November and December 2015. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. D. Allied Recycling Tonnage Report for November 2015. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. E. Correspondence from Republic Services confirming the following dates for the 2016 bi- annual clean up and shred events in the City of Rolling Hills: April 9 (greenwaste), April 16 (bulky items), April 30 (shred), September 10 (greenwaste), September 17 (bulky items) and September 24 (shred). RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Councilmember Black moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as presented. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Mayor Pieper suggested taking New Business item 10A pertaining to the Quarterly Investment Report out of order. Hearing no objection, he so ordered. MATTERS FROM STAFF QUARTERLY SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015. Finance Director Shea presented the investment report for the quarter ending December 31, 2015. He noted that interest income is down slightly compared to the same quarter from FY 14/15. He further noted that the City funded its Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) liability using the CaIPERS CERBT Strategy 1 and the ending balance is down slightly compared to the previous year with a balance of $490,000; but is up overall when compared to the starting balance of $325,000 when it was funded four years ago. In response to Councilmember Mirsch and Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer, Mr. Shea stated that staff will continue to monitor the fund and if necessary, the funds could be moved to a less aggressive investment strategy if the earnings continue to decline. Mr. Shea further reviewed the schedule of investments, the comparative interest data, the investment allocation summary and liquidity calculation. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Black moved that the City Council receive and file the quarterly investment report for the quarter ending December 31, 2015 as corrected. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer seconded the motion, which carried without objection. COMMISSION ITEMS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS WAIVE FULL READING AND INTRODUCE ON FIRST READING ORDINANCE NO. 346. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 881 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-03. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the City Council held a public hearing on this ordinance at its January 11'" meeting and took public testimony which is summarized in the staff report. She stated that several correspondence have been Minutes City Council Meeting 01-25-16 0 received since the last meeting and are either attached to the staff report or in the case where it was received after the agenda packet was prepared, placed on the dais. She briefly reviewed the correspondence received and stated that also included with the staff report is a summary of all of the view cases prior to and after Measure B. She further stated that at the last meeting, the City Council proposed to go item by item over each of the proposed changes and a table including the proposed changes is included in the staff report to facilitate that activity. In response to Councilmember Black, Ms. Schwartz stated that there have been 21 view cases since 1988 and a total of 22 trees were ordered to be removed, one of which was a dead tree. Mayor Pieper commented that the objective of these ordinance amendments is to make the ordinance more clear and proved useful tools for the Committee on Trees and Views to use so that the Ordinance can be applied consistently. The City Council then proceeded to review the proposed amendments item by item. 17.12.220 "V" words, terms and phrases Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed amendment that adds to the definition that bathrooms, closets, garages and hallways are not considered viewing area and adds a definition for "view corridor" as added to the ordinance by Measure B. Councilmember Black commented that he feels that there are some houses where the house is specifically designed to take advantage of views from bathroom and/or hallways and he feel those items should not be included in the list of exclusions. Discussion ensued concerning the number of "view locations" allowed. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested that the City Council first consider the number of views that will be allowed and come back to this item after that discussion. 17.26.040(13) Eligibility Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested that only two views be allowed where the second view is completely different and from an opposite direction than the first view. In response to Mayor Pieper, Ms. Schwartz stated that to date, there haven't been any applications seeking to restore multiple views. Discussion ensued concerning properties that have multiples views with homes designed to take advantage of those views. Councilmember Mirsch commented that there is a fairly high threshold to be eligible for view restoration and she feels if an applicant meets the criteria, they should be entitled to the view they had when they purchased their property and the number of views should not be limited. Mayor Pieper commented that the Committee on Trees and Views has never provided panoramic views and the City has always strived to have a balance between trees and views when applying the ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer further commented that the word "disjointed" is unclear. Councilmember Mirsch stated that she is in favor of the proposed language. Councilmember Wilson, Councilmember Black and Mayor Pieper concurred. 17.12.220 "V" words, terms and phrases Following discussion concerning the definition of "view", the City Council concurred to eliminate bathrooms and hallways from the list of exclusions. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed definition of "view corridor" and stated that it is necessary to add Minutes City Council Meeting 01-25-16 this definition because Measure B added the term to the Ordinance but did not define it. Following discussion, the City Council concurred that the proposed definition is appropriate. 17.26.010 Intent and purpose. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed changes that would delete the word "panoramic" and add the word "views" to clarify the intent and purpose to be consistent with Measure B. Following brief discussion, the City Council concurred. 17.26.040 Abatement of view impairment — Procedure Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed changes that add reference to the definition of "view impairment" in the introductory sentence; clarify the process and submittal requirement for mediation and for a hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views in Paragraph A; and add new Paragraph B to allow a property owner to file an application for view impairment even if there are trees/foliage on their property that contribute to the view impairment and that a person may file against multiple property owners for the same view. Discussion ensued concerning Paragraph B. She reviewed the additional proposed changes in Paragraph C to clarify the mediator's role and provisions for when an agreement is reached in arbitration; and in Paragraph D to clarify the public hearing process and provide a deadline by which an application for a public hearing has to be submitted after the mediator's notice that the mediation is finished and to add the term "without prejudice." Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested removing the term "without prejudice". In response to Councilmember Black, Ms. Schwartz reviewed the application process and associated fees. Discussion ensued concerning the proposed 30 -day deadline for submitting an application after mediation has concluded. Councilmember Black suggested that the time should be 60 or 90 days rather than 30. Mayor Pieper commented that he feels an applicant should not be prohibited from reapplying and that the term "without prejudice" is appropriate. Following additional discussion ensued concerning the 30 day deadline the City Council decided to change the deadline to 60 days and to keep the term "without prejudice." 17.26.050(C) Conduct of Hearing Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change that clarifies what happens during the public hearing proceedings and allows for additional information to be submitted. The City Council concurred with this change. Ms. Schwartz further reviewed the proposed change that provides the Committee on Trees and Views with the discretion to allocate the costs to the applicant or both parties, under certain circumstances when an expert opinion/report is necessary and adding provisions to provide for how such an opinion should be obtained. Councilmember Black expressed opposition to having the tree owner share in the cost for expert services because the process could be stalled if the payment is not received. Mayor Pieper also expressed opposition to shared cost stating that the applicant should bear the cost solely. Councilmember Mirsch concurred. Following discussion, the City Council concurred to eliminate the language that allows the Committee to allocate the cost for expert services to both parties. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested adding language as shown in the document she distributed at the Minutes City Council Meeting 01-25-16 0 beginning of the meeting, to specify that any expert advice shall be provided by a consulting arborist who is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists and the International Society of Arboriculture and sign a certification of performance. She further reviewed the proposed provisions for the certificate of performance. Mayor Pieper expressed concern that there may be multiple associations and how would the City confirm which is the appropriate association. Councilmember Black stated that he likes the proposed provision for the certificate of performance but he too, is not sure about which associations are appropriate. To provide further clarification, City Attorney Jenkins stated that the expert would be selected by the City and it is not necessary to have the requirements in the ordinance but rather direction could be given to staff as to the specifics with regard to the type of expert that should be hired and what should be included in the Scope of Work and Certification of Performance. Discussion ensued concerning the provision recommend by Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer. City Attorney Jenkins further clarified that the City does not place affirmative obligations upon City staff in City ordinances. Following discussion, the City Council concurred to direct staff to use the information provided by Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer when it is necessary to hire an expert. City Attorney Jenkins suggested, in the last paragraph where the issue of abandonment is addressed, to add a third provision that the application can also be considered abandoned if the complainant fails or refuses to provide supplemental information or fails or refuses to pay the cost of the expert services. Following discussion, the City Council concurred. 17.26.050(E) Action Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change that deletes the phrase "and to restore the complainant's view" from the first sentence and adds language that if restorative action is precluded due to various limiting factors, the Committee shall make specific findings to that effect. City Attorney Jenkins clarified that the change to delete the phrase "and to restore the complainant's view" is suggested because the current language suggests an end result that may be no longer possible due to the provisions set forth by Measure B. He stated that the Committee's decision may abate the view impairment but in doing so, may not restore the view and as such, that language should be removed. The City Council concurred with those changes. With regard to the restorative actions listed, Councilmember Mirsch asked if the term "topping" should be removed from the list recognizing that is typically referred to as not a good practice. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented that she feels the term should be eliminated and language should be added that the restoration and type of pruning should be pursuant to the best management practices for tree pruning of the International Society of Arboriculture. Mayor Pieper commented that the ordinance should not prescribe how the tree is to be trimmed; and how the work is done is up to the arborist ultimately hired by the tree owner. Councilmember Black stated the he is not in favor or removing the term "topping." Following brief discussion the City Council decided to leave the term in the ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer was opposed. Discussion ensued concerning the various factors that may limit restorative action, including the privacy issue. Following discussion, the City Council concurred to include the proposed added language. 17.26.050(F) Environmental Review. M inutes City Council Meeting 01-25-16 Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change which adds a new paragraph to specify that environmental review pursuant to CEQA requirements shall be conducted by prior to adoption of a final decision and if the project is deemed not to be exempt from CEQA, the complainant shall bear the cost for the environmental review. In response to Councilmember Black regarding CEQA review, City Attorney Jenkins clarified that staff will determine what level of review is necessary and the City dues not allow the property owner or tree owner to dictate the level of environmental review. The City Council concurred with the addition. 17.26.050(G) Finality of Decision. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change, which changes finality of the decision to at 30 days rather than 20 days so that is it consistent with other applications of the Zoning Ordinance. No objection was expressed. 17.26.060(A) Implementation of restorative action. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change, which clarifies that the complainant pays for the initial restorative action. No objection was expressed. 17.26.060(B) Implementation of restorative action. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change, which clarifies the date by which restorative action should be done and adds that if additional time is necessary, it must be dune within one year. Following brief discussion, no objection was expressed. 17.26.060(C) Implementation of restorative action. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change, which adds a provision that the cost for subsequent maintenance may be allocated to both parties if the written findings justify such an allocation. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she feels that the cost for all subsequent maintenance should be borne by the tree owners. She further commented that it should not be subjective and she feels that there should be no provision for an altemative cost allocation. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented that she feels there should be a provision to allow for an alternative cost allocation. Mayor Pieper and Councilmember Black concurred with Councilmember Mirsch that there should be no provision for an alternative cost allocation. Following discussion, the City Council deleted the provision for an alternative cost allocation. 17.26.060(D) Implementation of restorative action. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change, which deletes the language in Paragraph D regarding the implementation method recognizing that these issues are addressed elsewhere in Section 17.26.060 and the language is vague and not applicable. Following brief discussion concerning hedges, no objection was expressed. 17.26.070 Enforcement Minutes City Council Meeting 01-25-16 Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented that many cities issue a decision in view matters, but enforcement of the decision is done by the parties so that the City has no liability. She suggested adding such a clause as Section 17.26.075. Mayor Pieper commented that this matter is part of the indemnification issue which will be discussed later. He further commented that he feels it is the City's responsibility to defend its ordinance. Discussion ensued concerning enforcement and indemnification. Councilmember Black commented that he is opposed to indemnification. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she would like for the City not to be in the tree and view business, but since views are part of the City's General Plan and there is an ordinance in place, the City should have enforcement powers. In response to Mayor Pieper regarding getting out of view matters, City Attorney Jenkins stated that without the existing ordinance, Measure B would not make sense. 17.26.080 Notification of subsequent owners. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change, which adds clarification that an informational covenant for both properties that would run with the land. She commented that the correspondence from Mr. Weinberg suggests that the covenant should only be recorded against the tree owner's property. City Attorney Jenkins explained the considerations where recording the covenant makes sense for both properties. Following brief discussion, no objection was expressed. 17.26.100 Indemnification (new provision) Following brief discussion and with Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer opposed, the City Council decided to remove the indemnification clause based on the discussion above. Following an explanation by City Attorney Jenkins regarding the procedure for introduction of the ordinance, Mayor Pieper called for public comment limited to two minutes per speaker. Kirt Behera, 12 Ringbit Road East addressed the City Council to express concern that current ordinance as amended by Measure B does not allow for restoration of a view that existed when a property was purchased. He further expressed concern that Measure B will cause the city to become a no view city. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Council to further explain the changes he recommended in the correspondence he provided including striking the terms pruning and topping and thinning and replace with words that achieve the same objection ie: crown reduction, crown raising and lacing. Norm Miller, 4 Chesterfield Road addressed the City Council regarding Measure B. Mayor Pieper explained that Measure B will be discussed later. Mr. Miller further commented that the ordinance should include reference to consulting arborists as suggested by Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer. He further commented that mandatory arbitration should be required to reduce litigation. Howard Weinberg, Attorney addressed the City Council to suggest the following text changes: 17.26.080 change the word informational covenant to a memorandum of the ordinance; regarding the requirement for additional evidence, the applicant should not be forced to pay for additional evidence. Minutes City Council Meeting 01-25-16 James Wald, 7 Quail Ridge Road South addressed the City Council to ask for clarification as to whether or not the arborist hired by the City is allowed to do the work. He further suggested regarding arborists, that there be more research done as to what is the accepted organization and the public should be able to comment on it. He further suggested that the term topping should be removed from the ordinance and the City should require arbitration to reduce litigation. The City Council discussed the matters raised by the public. With regard to Mr. Weinberg's suggestions, City Attorney Jenkins suggested changing the word covenant to "instrument." Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested using the word "document" instead. The City Council concurred to change the word covenant to document. Discussion ensued concerning Mr. Weinberg's suggestion regarding additional evidence. Following discussion, the City Council concurred to leave the language as proposed by City Attorney Jenkins earlier. Discussion ensued concerning the suggestion that the City require arbitration. City Attorney Jenkins explained the issues associated with mandatory arbitration and enforcement means available to the City. He commented that he feels it is impractical and may not be doable legally. Following discussion, the City Council decided not to add mandatory arbitration. Following public testimony and discussion, Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council waive full reading and introduce on first reading Ordinance No. 346 amending Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code relating to View Preservation as amended above (shown in bold/italic). Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried with Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer opposed because it did not incorporate the changes she recommended. OPEN AGENDA - APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME Cathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed ordinance pertaining to restrictions on medical marijuana in the City stating that she feels it takes away people's rights granted under the compassionate use act. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West addressed the City Council regarding the proposed ordinance pertaining to medical marijuana stating that he uses some derivative of marijuana for his sheep. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed ordinance pertaining to restrictions on medical marijuana in the City. He expressed concern that ordinance was not given proper consideration by the Planning Commission because it was presented by the Assistant City Attorney as a matter that required urgent action. Norm Miller, 4 Chesterfield Road addressed the City Council regarding the need for microphones in the Council Chamber, regarding the proposed ordinance pertaining to medical marijuana and regarding how the City Council handles public comment specifically that feedback is not provided when a person provides comments. As an explanation regarding the proposed ordinance pertaining to medical marijuana, City Attorney Jenkins stated that proposed ordinance will be before the City Council next month. He provided the Minutes City Council Meeting 01-25-16 background and reasoning as to why the matter is being brought before the City Council. He stated that nothing in the proposed ordinance will affect the right of a Rolling Hills resident to posses marijuana for personal use; to drive to a dispensary to purchase medical marijuana and bring it into City; or from ordering marijuana online or by phone from a reputable source and having it delivered by US mail, FedEx, UPS or another means. He further stated that the State legislature passed a bill stating that if cities do not act by March 1, certain regulatory authority would be vested in the State and the cities would lose any and all opportunity to regulate under their own police powers. He further explained that the author of the bill has since said that he did not intend to establish the March 1 deadline and there is a bill currently pending in the legislature that would eliminate the deadline. He stated that if the pending bill is passed and signed by the Governor, the City can take its time in considering this matter. He further provided a brief overview of the proposed ordinance as it relates to delivery and cultivation of medical marijuana. OLD BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1182 ADOPTING ADMINIS 1'RATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. Mayor Pieper suggested that this matter be further continued so that the item can be given proper consideration. Hearing no objection, consideration of this matter was continued to the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on February 8, 2016 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. NEW BUSINESS None. MATTERS FROM STAFF WILLDAN ENGINEERING ANNUAL UPDATE. (ORAL REPORT) Planning Director Schwartz reported that since 2008, Willdan Engineering has provided building and safety services for 25 projects — 11 of which are complete and the remainder of which are in plan check or being constructed. She noted that Willdan provided services for multiple projects at three properties. RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY UPDATE. (ORAL REPORT) Regarding the status of adding an additional SAT Detective to the Regional Law Enforcement Contract, City Manager Cruz reported that the two other cities in the Regional Law Contract have approved the proposal and the objective is to have the additional detective in place in a month. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS Mayor Pieper suggested that the City Council test starting the meetings at an earlier time beginning in March. Following brief discussion, staff was directed to notify residents via the citywide newsletter that beginning with the March 14th City Council meeting, the start time will be moved to 7:00 p.m. In response to Councilmember Black regarding the water usage reductions imposed by the State, City Minutes City Council Meeting 01-25-16 Manager Cruz stated that the City has submitted several comment letters and is continuing to monitor the status of the issue. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS None. CLOSED SESSION None. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Pieper adjourned the meeting at 10:43 p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, February 8, 2016 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, Jeff Pieper Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 01-25-16 -10- CHECK CHECK CO. DATE • 24167 • 24168 24169 24170 24171 24172 24173 24174 24175 24176 24177 24178 24179 24180 24181 24182 24183 24184 24185 24186 24187 24188 24189 24190 24191 24192 24193 • PR LINK * PR LINK City 0,ed 6i'l, Agenda Item No: 3-B Mtg. Date: 02/08/16 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 2/82016 - CHECK RUN PAYEE 01/26/2016 CALPERS- 01262016 DE MICH CONCRETE CO. 02/022016 ARMSTRONG CORPORATE 02/022016 BEA DIERINGER 02/022016 BLUEPRINT SERVICE & SUPPLY CO. 02/02/2016 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO. 02/02/2016 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 02/022016 EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC. 02/02/2016 FOUNTAINHEAD CONSULTING INC. 02/022016 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFCRS ASSN 02/02/2016 HASLER 02/022016 HOWARD WIENBERG, 02/022016 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS 02/022016 LA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT 02/02/2016 LANCE, SOLL & LUNGHARD, LLP 02/02/2016 MAILFINANCE 02/02/2016 MASTER PLUMBING 02/022016 MCGOWAN CONSULTING 02/02/2016 MICHAEL WHITE 02/022016 Pb I rY CASH-EWA NIKODEM 02/022016 RAYMOND CRUZ 02/022016 REMOTE SATELLITE SYS INFL 02/022016 ROGERS, ANDERSON, MALODY 02/02/2016 SMART SOURCE OF CALIFORNIA LLC 02/022016 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 02/02/2016 USCM 02/022016 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS - 1222016 PR LIMO- PAYROLL PROCESSING 1/22/2016 PR LIMO - PAYROLL 2 & PR TAXES Total DESCRIPTIO RETIREMENT JAN 2016 UTILITY POLE ©6 HACKAMORE RD 2015 Holiday Open House Tree TRAVEL FOR EDUCATION SUMMIT DIGITAL BOND COPIES ZONING BILLING PERIOD 12/30 - 128 ANIMAL HOUSING COSTS DEC 2015 JANITORIAL SRV JAN 2016 IT CONSULTING FEBRUARY 2016 Membership T Shea 3/16-2/17 POSTAGE JAN 2016 REIMB FOR OVERPAYMENT Monthly Meter Maintenance SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC ENFOR 2015 AUDIT REPORT POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE QTRLY ROOTER UNSTOP KITCHEN SINK CONSULTING SRV NOV & DEC 2015 REIMB. BATTERIES FOR SECURITY PETTY CASH JAN 2016 PER DIEM FOR CCCM CONFERENCE SATELLITE PHONES FEB 2016 ACCOUNTIING SUPPORT DEC 2015 BUSINESS CARDS FOR PLANNER BILLING PERIOD 1223 - 1/25 457 PAY PERIOD 2/52016 457 PAY PERIOD 2/52016 Processing Fee Pay Period - January 6, 2016 Through January 19, 2016 I, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, California cenify that the above demands are accurate and there is available in the General Fund a balance of 572,691.24 for the payment of above items. Raymond It Cruz, City Manager • Previously Disbursed AMOUNT 5,167.52 9,000.00 380.45 536.46 21.80 651.98 571.92 460.00 516.00 160.00 69.81 33.00 117.28 3,017.86 16,420.00 590.14 200.00 5,297.50 174.23 247.52 85.00 97.90 6,855.00 99.12 735.15 780.00 364.00 59.95 19981.65 S 72,691.24 31,64964 Printed on Recycled Paper TO: FROM: THRU: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 5-A Mtg. Date: 02/08/16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR 1 RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANGER APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ATTACHMENTS: ZONING CASE NO. 869, SUBDIVISION NO. 94 AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72775 23 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 32 -A -MS) RA -S-2, 7.055 ACRES GROSS MR. JAMES HYNES BOLTON ENGINEERING MAY 28, 2015 JANUARY 28, 2016 Correspondence from the applicant (2/3/16) (Pages: 13-14) Planning Commission Resolution, Various correspondence and Environmental Documents (from previous City Council meetings). (Pages: 15-150) Revised RFP (Pages: 151-162) Responses to RFP (Pages: 163-228) RECOMMMENDATION AND PREVIOUS ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL 1. It is recommended that the City Council re -convene the public hearing, review the staff report accept input from the applicant and interested parties and provide direction to staff. Should the applicant wish not to deliver payment to the City for a hydrology study requested by the City Council, Council members should direct staff to prepare either a Resolution of approval or a Resolution of denial of this project. The applicants could also withdraw the application for the subdivision, in which case no resolution would be prepared. 2. The applicants requested to subdivide one existing lot located on the south side of Crest Road East, between Georgeff Road and Caballeros Road, known as 23 Crest Road East, totaling 7.055 acres (gross) into 2 parcels. Parcel 1 is proposed to be 3.70 acres gross and 3.00 acres net and Parcel 2 is proposed to be 3.34 acres gross and 2.67 acres net, (net lot area means as calculated for development purposes). ZC 869 - TPM 72775 3. Following Plannnig Commission recommendation to the City Council to approve the subdivision, the City Council on August 24, 2015 held a public hearing, inlcuding a field trip, in the matter of the proposed subdivision. At the 8/24/15 meeting the City Council requested that the City engineer for this project and the applicants engineer be present at subsequent meeting to answer questions. 4. At the September 14, 2015 meeting, following staff's and engineers' input the City Council directed staff to prepare and circulate a request for proposal to obtain a cost estimate from a third -party independent geotechnical consultant, to be selected by the City, to provide a geotechnical, geological and hydrological report and evaluation on the feasibility of construction on the lots and the effect of the construction and water runoff on adjacent properties and adjacent canyons. Staff prepared a RFP and submitted it to four geotechnical/soils consultants. Two consultants repsonded. 5. After reviewing the proposed project and the consultants' responses, the City Council at their November 23, 2015 meeting directed staff to revise the scope of work for a third party independent review to concentrate on the effect the proposed project would have on the hydrology of the area, both on the subject lots as well as on the lots adjacent thereto and below in the Flying Triangle Area of the City of Rolling Hills and Rancho Palos Verdes, including the natural drainage course, and have a third party peer review of the existing geotechnical reports. 6. Staff prepared a revised scope of work and submitted to the same two consultants who responded to the first RFP. The revised RFP and the responses are enclosed. The following costs were received from the consultants: 1. GMU Geotechnical, Inc. $31,700 2. Group Delta, Inc. $30,000 Both consultants are well respected in the field and are capable of conducting, analyzing and reporting on all aspects of the scope of the RFP. Both are familiar with the Peninsula geotechnical conditions and worked in this area previously. Both proposals include attendance at one meeting and the project will be billed on a time - and -material basis and will not be exceeded without written authorization by the City. Attendance at additional meetings and/or additional scope will be billed hourly as follows: GMU $255/hour Principal Geotechnical Engineer $225/hour Associate Engineering Geologist GROUP DELTA $295/hour Senior Principal $225/ hour Principal GMU's hydrologist recently prepared Storm Drain Master Plan for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and has access to their analysis of the hydrology of the conditions within that city down canyon of the subject site, which will be used to assist their analysis, as needed. ZC 869 - TPM 72775 GMU provided geotechnical services to JPIA during the remediation of Poppy Trail lots and the construction of the permanent road, following the landslide. Group Delta Inc. is on call to the Cty of RPV for geotechnical services as needed and in emergencies. Group Delta Inc. provided geotechnical services to the City of Rolling Hills just after the Poppy Trail landslide occurred and during the construction of the temporary road. Both consultants stated that a time frame of 5-6 weeks would be necessary to conduct the study from receipt of a Notice to Proceed. 7. The property owners, the Hynes', reviewed both proposals but have not submitted funds in order for the City to enter into an agreement with a consultant. They have requested to address the City Council at tonight's meeting and submitted a letter, which is attached. NOTIFICATION 8. The property owners within 1,000 -foot radius, Klondike Canyon Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) representative and RPV Engineer were notified of this public hearing. SUBDIVISION REQUEST AND SUBDIVISION STANDARDS REQUIREMENTS 9. The lot is vacant and was not previously developed. No plans, other than showing feasibility for future construction, have been submitted for new development. New driveways will be constructed for each of the two lots from Crest Road East and access to the future stables is shown along the interior side property line of each lot in the side easement, and will require RHCA review and approval. 10. The project site is bounded on all sides by properties in the City of Rolling Hills that are similarly zoned (RA -S-2) and developed with single family homes on minimum two -acre lots. A natural drainage course is located along the western portion of the lot and a blue line stream, which is a part of the Klondike Canyon System, is located approximately 200 feet south of the southern property line of the lot. The lot is also located in proximity to the Geotechnical Hazardous area of the City, known as the Flying Triangle. A geotechnical and geological report prepared for this project states that the crown of a landslide (Flying Triangle) lies about 230 feet west of the westerly most portion of the property line and approximately 425 feet southwest of the site development. 11. The Planning Commission is an advisory agency to the City Council on Tentative Parcel Map applications and the Commission makes its recommendation on the map and the environmental findings to the City Council. The City Council must hold a public hearing and decide on the subdivision application by adopting a Resolution. Prior to the applicant finaling the subdivision for recordation of a Final Map, the City ZC 869 - TPM 72775 Council will be required to hold another meeting to adopt a resolution approving the Final Map. This subdivision case is subject to separate review and approval by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA). PLANNING, TRAFFIC AND OTHER AGENCIES ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12. The Planning Commission held three public hearings and a field trip to the site to view the proposed subdivision project. At the meeting on May 19, 2015, the Planning Commission, by a 4-0 vote, adopted resolution of approval relative to this project recommending that the City Council approve Vesting TMP No. 72775 and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The resolution is enclosed. 13. The Planning Commission made affirmative findings that the Tentative Parcel Map complies with the City's Subdivision Ordinance and General Plan and specifying that it does not require rejection pursuant to Section 16.12.150 of the Municipal Code. That section specifies that a Tentative Parcel Map shall be rejected if it is found that: a. The proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans; b. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans; c. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed; d. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development; e. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause Substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat; f. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause serious public health or safety problems; g. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the subdivision. In this connection, the City Council may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these shall be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public." 14. Willdan Engineering, acting as the City Engineer, has reviewed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 72775 for feasibility pursuant to the California Subdivision Map Act and Chapter 16 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (Subdivisions) with standards in areas including streets, soils, geology, fire prevention, health services (septic tank review), water availability, drainage and grading. The City Engineer has recommended approval of the project, as the subdivision meets the criteria and requirements for a lot split. Additional soils, geology, seepage pit and hydrology studies will be required prior to approval of a development on either of the lots. Due to residents concerns, the Planning Commission required that a detailed drainage plan and method of containment of storm water run-off be prepared at this stage of the review, rather than wait until the project is submitted for construction. Willdan ZC 869 - TPM 72775 Engineering reviewed the proposed containment (cisterns) system and deemed it adequate to protect the down hill properties from water run-off from subject site (see item #20). 15. Willdan has also coordinated map review by several agencies, including fire prevention, health services and sewage disposal with Los Angeles County and water availability with California Water Service. 16. The conditions that are recommended by Willdan Engineering, other reviewing agencies including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or identified in the Initial Study were incorporated in the Resolution of approval adopted by the Planning Commission and will be included in the Resolution of the City Council, if this subdivision is approved. The City Council may recommend additional requirements and conditions for this project as deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the Municipal Code and General Plan, including any that are recommended by the biological consultant. 17. Two new 20' wide driveways with 26' wide aprons are proposed, one to each lot and two access roads to the future stables area are also proposed. The Traffic Commission at their January 25, 2015 meeting recommended approval of the driveways and access to the stables. ROLLING HILLS SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE STANDARDS 18. Pursuant to Title 16, Subdivision Ordinance and Title 17, Zoning Ordinance of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the following issues of code compliance are subject to evaluation by the Planning Commission: A. Lot Size. The subject property is located in the RAS-2 zone, requiring that each lot be a minimum of two acres net in size (87,120 square feet). The applicants propose to subdivide one existing 7.05 (gross) acre lot into two lots, consisting of Parcel 1 having 3.70 acres gross and 3.00 acres net, Parcel 2 having 3.34 acres gross and 2.67 acres net. The proposed net lot areas exceed two net acres in size required and therefore the proposed subdivision complies with the minimum lot size requirement for the RAS- 2 zone. B. Lot sideline angles. Where practicable, the sidelines of lots shall be at approximate right angles to or radial to the street upon which such lot fronts. The proposed lots meet this requirement. C. Setbacks. A subdivision shall not create a non -conforming situation for any of the proposed lots. The map shows the required setbacks that will be maintained for future development. Any future development, on both lots will be subject to City's development standards, including setbacks. D. Easements. 25 -foot wide easements are proposed along all sides of the proposed lot lines. The roadway easement exists along Crest Road E. and will not be ZC 869 - TPM 72775 affected by this subdivision. The width of the easements will be confirmed when the project is reviewed by the Rolling Hills Community Association. The City's Subdivision Ordinance (section 16.16.090) requires 60 -feet roadway right of ways or easements. Crest Road East has a 100' wide roadway easement and therefore it complies. E. Lot width along street frontage. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that the width along the street easement line shall be equal to the lot depth divided by 2.5, but in no case less than 150 feet. All of the proposed frontages, along Crest Rd. E. will be at least 150 feet and therefore comply: Parcel 1 will have approximately 221 feet of frontage and Parcel 2 will have approximately 226 feet of frontage. F. Lot width along all points. The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that the width along all points of new parcels be not less than 150 feet. The two proposed parcels will meet or exceed the minimum requirement, except that the southern most portions of the proposed lots, for approximately 220 feet, will be narrower than the minimum required. The applicants request that the Commission waive this requirement and allow the rear of the lots to be less than 150' wide, as no development is proposed in these areas and the areas shall remain densely vegetated. The City Council has the authority to waive certain elements of the design of lots, per Section 16.12.130, Modifications. G. Building pad. Pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance, a minimum of 12,000 square foot building pad must be shown as being able to be created on each home site. The tentative map proposes a 22,135 square foot pad for Parcel 1, and 24,700 square foot pad for Parcel 2 and both lots also provide building pads in the rear for a future minimum 450 square foot stable and 550 square foot contiguous corral. All of the proposed pad areas are shown on the tentative map for demonstration and feasibility purposes only. The building pads size and location will be finalized when future home development is designed. All new construction will be subject to the City's development standards. H. Grading. In order to create building pads and driveways the total amount of grading for the subdivision (both lots) is shown for demonstration as 19,500 cubic yards total (11,000 c.y. for Lot 1 and 8,500 c.y. for Lot 2). Factoring in fill with shrinkage, over -excavation and recompaction, the grading will be balanced overall on each lot independent of the other lot. The amount of disturbed areas proposed as a result of grading is as follows: Parcel 1: a total of 39,637 square feet is proposed to be disturbed (30.3%) and Parcel 2: 40,925 square feet (35.1%). The amount of proposed disturbed area for both lots complies with the maximum amount of permitted disturbed net lot area (40%). Future construction on both parcels will be required to meet this standard. I. Street Grades. The city's subdivision standards require that no street may have a grade of more than 6%, except where impractical with a grade no steeper than a 10% slope and maximum slope of 17% for a distance of not more than 150 feet. Both parcels will have access from an existing street; therefore this standard does not apply. ZC 869 - TPM 72775 J. Roadway access/Driveways. Two new driveways will be constructed, providing independent vehicular access for each lot from Crest Road E. Stable access will also be provided on each lot. Each of the two new primary driveways will have a 26 -foot wide apron, which will taper to a 20 -foot wide driveway. For Parcel 1 the driveway will have a slope of 7% at the entry off Crest Road E. and 12% at the steepest point. For Parcel 2 the driveway will have a slope of 6% at the entry off Crest Road E. vary from 7%to 10% at the steepest point. The access to the area set aside for a future stable and coral is proposed from Crest Rd E. along the side easement lines of both lots. The driveway aprons, including stable access were reviewed by the Traffic Commission at their January, 2015 meeting and the Traffic Commission recommended approval. RHCA approval of the access to the future stables over the side easements will be required when the lots are submitted for development. Section 16.16.170 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that the grade for access to the building pad have a maximum slope of 12%, and to stables 25% maximum. The Zoning Code also requires that the width of a driveway not exceed 20 feet. Both of the proposed driveways and stable accessways will meet the applicable slope and width criteria. The proposed 20 -foot driveway width is also in compliance with Fire Department requirements. K. Soils/geology. A Geotechnical and Geological Investigation Study, including percolation was prepared for this project and the future development. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and provide geotechnical and geological recommendation for the proposed future construction. Upon the review of the study and percolation reports, Willdan Engineering, (City's Engineer on this project) has deemed the lot feasible for a subdivision. However, additional studies will have to be performed prior to issuance of any grading or construction permit. The applicant's geotechnical consultants have concluded that the future construction is geotechnical and geologically feasible provided that the recommendations and design guidelines specified in the study are incorporated and implemented for the construction. Slope stability investigation and analyses were performed for the proposed development. The study concludes that bedrock at the site has relatively good strength characteristics and that the planned development could meet or exceed the minimum Factor of Safety required for slope stability. L. Utility lines. There is no electric power or other utility lines provided to the site. As a condition of final map approval the applicant will be required to place all utility service to the parcels underground. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 19. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and after reviewing the application, staff prepared an Initial Study (IS) for the proposed ZC 869 - TPM 72775 subdivision. The Initial Study is a preliminary evaluation of potential impacts and also identifies mitigation measures to address impacts. As required by CEQA, staff mailed the Initial Study to local cities, and state agencies for their comments. Comments from the Fire Department, CA Department of Fish and Wildlife and several residents were received. Staff has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, subject to incorporation of mitigation measures, including those in the Biological Resources Assessment Study, the geological study and the preliminary drainage plan and storm water management method proposed by the applicant and reviewed by the City Engineer. The applicant conducted a Geotechnical and Geological Study in which it is described that a future development of two single family units will not cause landslide condition on the site nor will it affect the existing designated landslide area below this site, providing construction follows the recommendations of the geological and soils engineer and meets the LA County Building Code requirements. The report is available at City Hall. Further geological testing and updated report will be required and will be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to issuance of permits for grading and construction. At the 8/24/15 City Council meeting it was mentioned that the Initial Study did not address the potential drainage and geological issues. Based on the information received to date, and based on the City engineers' review of technical reports prepared by applicants' consultants and the engineers' recommendation for the lot split, it was determined that the project, with implementation of the mitigated measures, will not have a significant negative effect on the environment. Should additional studies be conducted and if it is found that such finding cannot be made, the applicants will be required to address the issues or the project could be denied. Accordingly, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. As part of the approval process for future development, conditions will be imposed protecting any discharge to the blue line stream and compliance with the City's Low Impact Development Ordinance will be required. As a result of the comments received and the recommendations of the Biological Resources consultants, staff prepared responses and prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and MMRP (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program), all of which are included. Conditions, which are listed in the MMRP are included in the Planning Commission resolution of approval to protect the natural drainage course and the blue line stream from any debris, sediments other pollutants and storm water run-off, and will be included in the City Council Resolution, if approved. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix is included as an Exhibit to the Planning Commission Resolution specifying the biological resources and water quality conditions that must be met prior to the issuance of a grading permit, such as a gnatcatcher study to determine if present, and recordation of a drainage covenant. ZC 869 - TPM 72775 Unless the City Council amends those conditions, they will be included in the City Council Resolution, if the project is approved. Biological Resources Assessment A Biological Resources Assessment Study was prepared for the proposed project. The consultant found that the area that would be affected by grading and construction is mostly disturbed and supports few native plant species and therefore the potential for the project to have substantial adverse impact on biological resources is limited. However, they recommended that prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant conduct a survey for sensitive plants, as some are annuals and may be present only in certain seasons. They also found that based on the literature and the comments from the Department of Fish and Wildlife the project could have adverse impacts on jurisdictional waters and number of sensitive animal species. To determine if the gullies that straddle the project site would be considered a jurisdictional stream, wetland or riparian habitat, a field delineation of the features would be required and submitted to the relevant agencies (RWQCB, US Army Corps of Engineers, Dept. of Fish and Wildlife) for their concurrence. If the features are found to be jurisdictional, the applicant could amend the grading plan to avoid impacts on the jurisdictional waters. In addition, no species of animals listed as threatened or endangered were observed on the property. One species of protected bird, the red-tailed hawk and American kestrel were observed. No other plants or wildlife considered sensitive or protected by any state, local of federal regulations were observed and no features indicative of wildlife movement corridors were observed. However, the project may support protected nesting birds; therefore the consultants recommend that grading occur outside the peak bird nesting season (February -September) or precaution should be taken if the clearing of vegetation and grading activities are necessary during that period. The consultant found that although there is very limited vegetation to support two federally endangered animals, the Palos Verdes butterfly and the coastal California gnatcatcher, a survey for the host plants should be undertaken to ensure that the species is not inadvertently impacted. The MMRP contains such a condition, which will be implemented prior to issuance of a grading permit. PUBLIC INPUT 20. During the Planning Commission proceedings several letters were received from neighbors expressing their concern with increased traffic, increased density, appearance of the area from Crest Road East, and loss of views on Crest Road, should new homes be developed. Some expressed concern regarding the impact future development would have on the Flying Triangle area to the south of the project site as well as the drainage, given that both lots would feed additional (from hardscape) run-off into Little Klondike Canyon. One resident stated that the canyon is blocked off at the top of the slide area and catastrophic rain events may result in mudflow. ZC 869 - TPM 72775 These issues were considered and discussed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was unable to make a finding recommending disapproval of the subdivision (pursuant to Section 16.12.150 of the Municipal Code). The same concerns were expressed at the City Council meetings, including a letter from the Rancho Palos Verdes GHAD. As a result of those concerns, the City Council asked for a third party independednt hydrology study and peer review of the technical reports already prepared by the applicants. During the Planning Commission's reivew, as a result of the neighbors concerns, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant provide information and design on post -development drainage and storm water management of the lots. The applicant's engineer prepared two different plans, which were reviewed by the City's Engineer (Willdan Engineering) and approved in concept. The engineers deemed the second design to be superior method of controlling the run-off. The City Engineer was present at the May 19, 2015 Planning Commission meeting and described and explained the proposed design of the water retention system. He was also present at one of the City Council meetings. The proposed system will store all new volume of water in underground cisterns, which will be located under the driveway on each lot. '1'he cisterns will collect run-off from the driveway, roof downspouts and the general upper pad area. The run-off will first pass through a pre-treatment system and then enter into the storage barrels. An overflow system would be installed to address times when the volume exceeds the capacity in the tanks, such as a pump, which would release the excess volume, possibly for irrigation. The proposed method would not release more volume into the canyon than is currently released from the vacant lot. To assure that any future owners are aware of the drainage concerns and the requirement to contain the run-off, the engineer suggested that a covenant be recorded against each property. He developed a suggested language, which is incorporated into the Resolution of approval. Such Drainage Covenant would be recorded prior to, or concurrently with City approval of the Final Map. The covenant would be developed with the assistance of the City Attorney. The suggested language reads as follows: "Any development proposed for the lots created by this Parcel Map is required to provide on -site retention of any additional volume of stormwater that would be created by the site. Specifically, retention facilities shall be sized to contain the difference in runoff volume for the 25 -year storm, calculated using methodology acceptable to the City Engineer. This facility shall be sited in such a way as to collect storm runoff, to the extent practical, from the new hardscape and other features contributing the additional runoff, and the water collected shall be disposed of by irrigation or other reuse on site, to the greatest extent allowed by reviewing agencies having jurisdiction, or by later discharge to the existing drainage course. (The intent being that the facility be sized to ZC 869 -'rpM 72775 accommodate all new hardscape, though not necessarily requiring that 100% of new hardscape drain to it)". The applicants agreed to provide a retention system designed for a 100 -year storm. 21. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUBDIVIDED PROPERTIES IN THE RA -S-2 ZONE SINCE 1987 Address Year Recorded No. of parcels Lot Size - Gross Lot Size- Net per City requirements: (excludes roadway easement, 10 ft. parallel thereto and 10 ft. parallel to all other property lines) 12 Blackwater Canyon Rd. 1987 2 parcels P1 4.55 P2 2.51 P1 3.83 P2 2.11 17 Portuguese Bend Rd. 1996 2 parcels P1 2.75 P2 2.64 P1 2.09 P2 2.14 10 Pine Tree 1999 3 parcels P1 2.83 P2 2.54 P3 247 P1 2.09 P2 2.07 P3 2.03 16 Pine Tree 2002 2 parcels P1 2.73 P2 3.35 P1 2.30 P2 2.84 5 Pine Tree 2 parcels (Expired) PI 2.62 P2 253 P1 2.02 P2 2.01 20 Upper Blackwater Canyon Rd. 2005 2 parcels PI 433 P2 4.12 P1 3.18 P2 3.23 1 Poppy Trail 2012 2 parcels PI 4.09 P2 6.08 P1 2.68 P2 4.76 Pro • osed: 2 parcels P1 3.70 P2 3.34 P1 3.0 P2 2.67 23 Crest Rd. E EXISTING LOTS IN THE VICINITY: (Excluding roadway easement); 1 Crest Road East 2.61 acres 5 Crest Road East 2.89 acres 7 Crest Road East 3.67 acres 17 Crest Road East 9.64 acres 29 Crest Road East 6.57 acres 33 Crest Road East 1.8 acres 35 Crest Road East 2.24 acres 8 Crest Road East 5.70 acres 12 Crest Road East 3.89 acres 16 Crest Road East 1.51 acres 18 Crest Road East 3.5 acres 22 Crest Road East 5.00 acres 26 Crest Road East 4.74 acres ZC 869 - TPM 72775 54 Portuguese Bend Road 2.67 acres 56 Portuguese Bend Road 3.21 acres 58 Portuguese Bend Road 6.96 acres 30 Crest Road East 4.72 acres 34 Crest Road East 4.87 acres 22. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Willdan Engineering, acting as the City Engineer, completed preliminary engineering review of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72775 pursuant to all State and City of Rolling Hills subdivision regulations and has recommended to proceed with City reviews for subdivision. All construction of new homes on the proposed two lots that is shown on the tentative map is provided at this time only to demonstrate future development feasibility. Any future development will be subject to, minimally, Site Plan Review approval in a public hearing process to be conducted by the Planning Commission and reviewed by City Council. 23. It is therefore recommended that the City Council provide direction to staff. ZC 869 - TPM 72775 February 2, 2016 Members of the City Council City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: Zoning Case 869; Subdivision #94 and Parcel Map 72775 23 Crest Road East (the "Project") Ladies and Gentlemen: RECEIVED FEB 0 3 2016 City of Rolling Hills By The Project was last reviewed by the City Council at the hearing on November 9, 215. At that time, the Council directed staff to prepare an RFP for a consultant to prepare a hydrology report and a geology analysis to consider the effect that the proposed project for the Hynes lot Split might have on Klondike Canyon, adjacent properties and other properties down slope from the Hynes property. Staff prepared an RFP and received two proposals to do the requested studies. Unfortunately, the scope and detail of the studies requested in the RPP resulted in bids of approximately $32,000 to prepare the analysis. The proposals include three tasks: (1) Peer Review our two geotech reports and percolation test report; (2) Calculate how much extra water flows downhill after development, and (3) study the potential effects of the extra stormwater runoff that the Project might create. The new study is unnecessary and inappropriate for the following reasons. First, the City Council has already been provided evidence reviewed by the City's engineer, that peak runoff due to development is unchanged even without on -site retention. This data can be seen in the report entitled "23 Crest Road East Hydrology rev2, in the Hydrology and Hydraulics table in the "Increase in Flow Rate" cells. The on -site retention of stormwater has also been reviewed and the City's acting engineer has confirmed that there will be no increase in 24 hour volume after proposed development. Second, the trivial hydrological calculations of Task 2 have already been reviewed by the City's consultant and found to be accurate; namely that the Project will NOT create any more storm water runoff. Third, Task 3, which is to study the effect of excess runoff is moot because we already know that there will be NO excess water to study. Developing a property doesn't create storm water, it just reduces infiltration. When it rains, water either runs down the surface (in culverts and streams), or as subsurface flow after it infiltrates the soil. Although not intuitive, the following facts are the irrefutable: . 1. During high rain intensity, peak outflow is unchanged by development; as explained to the City Council by the City Engineer, during an intense storm the effective permeability of our 'Type 2' soil is the same as hardscape. Peak flow is the important metric as it is used to size local drainage courses. 2. Impermeable surfaces created by development means less soil infiltration during low rain intensity; When it drizzles on hardscape, the water trickles down the canyon instead of soaking into the mud. This may slightly help downhill soil stability, although the Project affects <2% of the watershed. .3. With on -site storage, less water flows downhill; large watersheds sometimes use the 24 hour volume metric to analyze propagation of stormwater through downstream storage reservoirs but it is of dubious value here. Nevertheless, our on -site storage plan captures the water to ensure that the 24 hour volume never exceeds the natural state. Hence, with storage, both surface and subsurface peak and average flow is decreased relative to the natural state of the land. There is NO Increase in Stormwater Runoff or Infiltration due to the Project. Therefore, we implore the City Council to retract its request for this additional third -party study, and instead consider the reviewed and confirmed evidence regarding hydrology that we have already provided. If the City thinks it necessary, we encourage the City to send all of the evidence to the Los Angeles County Engineer to confirm that the Project will not create any additional stormwater. In doing so, the engineer will also confirm our position that the Project should be approved, based on the extensive maps, studies, reports and other evidence already submitted to the City. Sincerely, Jim Hynes on behalf of the Hynes Family Trust C: City Council Yolanta Schwartz Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District P.O. Box 3675 Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 (310) 787-7111 x3 September 8, 2015 Rolling Hills City Council 2 Portuguese Bend Rd. Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Attn: Yolanta Schwartz Dear Rolling Hills City Council Members: RECEIVED SEP 0 9 2015 City of Rolling Hills By VI$I G -melt Following the proposed lot split, the developed land will likely increase movement of the Flying Triangle and Klondike landslides. Conditions to the lot split should require that NO additional runoff and NO additions to ground water are allowed. Additional runoff from development upstream to any landslide will exacerbate the movement of the Flying Triangle and Klondike landslides. Capturing additional runoff generated by impervious areas up toandincluding the100year storm is reasonable given the vulnerability -of - the land and likeliness of continued and accelerated movement with increased runoff. This increased runoff will be available to be absorbed into the subsoils and become part of the groundwater, lubricating the landslide(s), causing accelerated movement. Additional ground water through septic systems should not be allowed, as these systems directly inject water into the ground which becomes part of the groundwater system. Black and grey water holding tanks should be mandatory conditions for any development of the proposed lots. Cordially yours, 4.02.6 Gale Lovrich, Chairman Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District RESOLUTION NO. 2015-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72775, SUBDIVISION NO. 94, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 7.05 ACRE VACANT LOT ON CREST ROAD EAST INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 869, LOT 132 -A -MS ON CREST ROAD EAST, (HYNES). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. James Hynes, with respect to real property located at Crest Road East, APN 7567-011-020, known as 23 Crest Road East. The applicant requests to subdivide one existing vacant lot totaling 7.051 acres (gross) into 2 parcels. Parcel 1 is proposed to be 3.70 acres gross and 3.0 acres net and Parcel 2 is proposed to be 3.34 acres gross and 2.67 acres net. (Net lot, as mentioned here, is for the purposes of development pursuant to the definition of net lot area in the City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance). Section 2. Willdan Engineering consultants acted as the City Engineer for this project and reviewed the application and pertinent documents, studies and materials. Their recommendations are incorporated into the conditions of approval. Willdan Engineering found that the project is feasible for implementation by the developer and that it is in conformance with City's and state regulations pertaining to subdivisions. Section 3. The project site is bounded on all sides by properties in the City of Rolling Hills that are similarly zoned (RA -S-2) and developed with single family homes on minimum two -acre lots. Klondike Canyon is located south to southwest of the property. Section 4. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings in this case on December 16, 2014, January 20, 2015, April 21, 2015 and at a field trip visit on January 20, 2015. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission. Several letters of general concern with subdivisions and development in the City and the effect of this particular subdivision on the neighborhood were received from neighbors. The Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal and the neighbors' concerns found that the project meets all criteria for a subdivision. The applicants' representatives were in attendance at the hearings and addressed the Planning Commission. Section 5. Title 16 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code governs subdivisions. Pursuant to Section 16.12.110 of Title 16, Subdivisions, of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is the advisory agency for review of a Tentative TPM 72775 Peso. 2015-11 1 Tract/Parcel Map and the Commission is to make its recommendations to the City Council upon completing evaluation of all environmental proceedings pursuant to the local guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 6. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) staff prepared an Initial Study (IS) for the proposed subdivision. The Initial Study is a preliminary evaluation of potential impacts and also identifies mitigation measures to address impacts. Staff has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, subject to incorporation of mitigation measures, including those recommended in the Biological Resources Assessment report prepared by an environmental consultant. As required by CEQA, staff mailed the Initial Study to local cities, and state agencies for their comments. Notices of the public hearings, field trip and of the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was also mailed to residents within 1,000 -foot radius of the project. Comments were received from the Fire Department, neighbors of the project and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The comments and responses were incorporated into an amended Mitigated Negative Declaration. Section 7. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds that it represents the independent judgment of the City and that it was prepared in compliance with CEQA. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds there will not be a significant effect in this case on the environment because mitigation measures have been added to the project, and are incorporated herein by reference. Based upon these findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 8. Pursuant to Section 16.12.150 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed tentative parcel map and the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the applicable General Plan, including but not limited to, the following goals and policies of the General Plan: 1. Maintain Rolling Hills' distinctive rural residential character (Land Use Element, p. 15) by creating a subdivision meeting the minimum lot size standard that will allow significant portions of the parcels to remain undeveloped thereby maintaining open space and scenic vistas. 2. Accommodate development which is compatible with and complements existing land uses (Land Use Element, p. 15) by creating a subdivision with lots that are greater than the minimum lot size and allowing significant portions of the parcels to remain undeveloped, preserving the City's easements and open space system, and preserving significant areas and maintaining the rural character of the City. TPM 72775 Reso. 2015-11 2 3. Accommodate development that is sensitive to the natural environment. There are no environmental or geological hazards on the property. (Land Use Element, p. 16). 4. Conserve and enhance the City's natural resources, facilitating development in a manner which reflects the characteristics, sensitivities and constraints of these resources (Open Space and Conservation Element, p. 15) by creating a subdivision with lots that are greater than the minimum lot size required and meeting all design standards of the Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance, except for a minor modification to the width of the lots at the very end portion of the lots, which are too steep for development. B. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density and type of development. The proposed use, density, and proposed subdivision improvements are permitted in the RA -S-2 zone. The RA -S-2 Zone requires that the minimum lot size be 2 acres net. The project has 7.05 acres gross and creates lots with the following dimensions: Parcel 1 - 3.70 acres gross and 3.0 acres net and Parcel 2 is proposed to be 3.34 acres gross and 2.67 acres net. C. The design of the subdivision includes two new driveways along Crest Road East, plus access to the stables. The Traffic Commission reviewed and approved, in concept, the two driveways that would serve the new parcels. D. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage; or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, because the property is within an area of the City, designated for development and the City's development criteria will insure that any fish, wildlife, or sensitive habitats on the property are adequately protected. The Initial Study prepared for the project identified sensitive vegetation and potential presence of an endangered bird (gnatcatcher) and butterfly (Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly), which will be studied for their presence at the time the project is presented for development, and if present will be protected or relocated, per the conditions of approval specified in this Resolution. E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems because conditions of approval have been applied to the project to require compliance with applicable codes and ordinances designed to protect public health and safety. Concerns for drainage expressed by the residents will be addressed at the development stage of the lots and the applicant has agreed to a "Drainage Covenant" to be recorded prior to recordation of the Final Map. F. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. No new roadway easements will be required in favor of the Rolling Hills Community Association and adequate access will be provided to each parcel. In addition, each parcel created as part of this subdivision will contain perimeter easements providing access for roads, trails, and public utilities. As a TPM 72775 Reso. 2015-11 3 condition of approval, these easements will be recorded in deeds prior to approval of the final map. G. The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the housing needs of the region. H. The proposed use will be in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Residential Development Standards in the Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance. The proposed use will be compatible with other existing residential development in the immediate area. I. The tentative map design provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible because the project is designed with lots of adequate dimensions to maximize the opportunities for passive and natural heating and cooling. J. The tentative map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, because the property in question has not been included in any such contract. K. Pursuant to Section 66474.6 of the Government Code (Subdivision Map Act), the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into proposed septic systems will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, because the subdivider is required to comply with all Conditions of Approval regarding waste disposal as required by the Health Department. L. Pursuant to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 16.12.155, this Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with and does not impact the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The project will not generate any hazardous waste. • Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 72775, Subdivision No. 94 in Zoning Case No. 869, a request for a two (2) -lot subdivision of land subject to the following conditions: MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS: 1. This Tentative Map shall expire two (2) years from the date of City Council approval. The Tentative Map was approved on and shall expire on the following dates: APPROVAL DATE: EXPIRATION DATE: TPM 72775 Reso. 2015-11 4 0 This approval shall become null nrn.l void if n fiiinl map has not been timely filed prior to the expiration date or any extension granted in accordance with provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, anextension of time to the expiration date may be granted by the City Council upon submittal of a formal application, the required fee and exhibits at least forty (40) days prior to expiration of the map. The duty of inquiry as to such time expiration shall be upon the subdivider. 2. This Tentative Parcel Map is granted for all boundary lines, easements, rights -of -way, and construction of off -site improvements as shown on the map dated December 8, 2014, which is on file in the Planning Department as may be modified by the Conditions of Approval. 3. This Tentative Parcel Map approval is subject to all applicable requirements of the State of California, the County of Los Angeles, the City of Rolling Hills, any other affected governmental entities, and the requirements of the Rolling Hills Community Association. The duty of inquiry as to such requirements shall be upon the subdivider. 4. The subdivider shall comply with all the requirements of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, and all requirements of the City of Rolling Hills ordinances, resolutions, engineering standards and other applicable standards, that are in effect at the time that subdivision improvement permits are issued for development. 5. The applicant shall obtain approval of, and all required permits from, the Rolling Hills Community Association for all of the subdivision improvements affecting easements, roads, and trails. 6. At the time plans are submitted for construction purposes the property owner of each lot shall be required to pay all applicable fess, including but not be limited to City discretionary review permit fees, all of the applicable Building and Safety and Public Works Department fees, including City's Parks and Recreation Fees and Palos Verdes Unified School District fees for new homes. 7. Coordination with utility companies by the applicant's engineer during design and construction of the infrastructures shall be required in order to ensure that required public improvements are not in conflict with existing or proposed utilities. 8. When exhibits and written conditions of approval are in conflict, the written conditions shall prevail. 9. The Tentative Parcel Map shall show and contain all of the matters and details as required by the City of Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance Section 16.12.050. If it is impossible or impracticable to place upon the tentative map any matter required in this section, such matter or information shall be furnished in a written statement, which shall be appended to and submitted with such map. 10. There shall be filed with the tentative map a geological report prepared by a registered engineering geologist, as required by the Business and Professions Code of the State, showing the geological characteristics of the proposed lots in the proposed TPM 72775 Reso.2015-I1 5 subdivision, and confirming that a building site can be developed on the lot which is free of geological hazard. Said report and the condusions contained therein shall be approved by the City Engineer, and may be subject to the provisions of Chapter 16.36 Geological Investigation and Report Required, of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 11. The Tentative Parcel Map shall comply with all provisions of the City Subdivisions and Zoning Ordinance, including but not be limited to the area requirements and subdivision development standards of the RA -S-2 Zone requiring a minimum parcel standard of two net acres per lot. 12. The applicant shall pay all fees at the time fees are determined to be applicable and comply with all requirements of the applicable Federal, State and Local agencies, including, but not be limited to the following: Los Angeles County Sanitation District Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire District California Water Service Company Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Department of Health Services City of Rolling Hills, Quimby Act fees for new parcels In addition, in accordance with Chapter 1706 of the California State Statutes, the applicant shall pay any required fee, along with the required processing fee, to the City of Rolling Hills and County Clerk for remittance to the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. This approval shall not be valid and effective unless and until the fee(s) have been paid and the Notice of Determination filed. 13. The driveway approaches and access to the future stables shown on the tentative map were reviewed by the City's Traffic Commission and deemed feasible for future development. 14. In lieu of establishing the final specific locations of structures on each parcel at this time, the owner, at the time of issuance of a grading or building permit, agrees to develop the property in conformance with the City ordinances and other appropriate ordinances including but not be limited to the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading and Drainage Code, Green Building Code, Mechanical Code, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code. Improvements and other requirements may be imposed pursuant to such codes and ordinances. B. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO OR IN CONNECTION WITH RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: General Conditions 1. Details and notes shown on the tentative map are not necessarily approved. Any details or notes, which are inconsistent with requirements or ordinances, general TPM 72775 Reso. 2015-11 conditions of approval, or City policies, must be specifically approved in the final map or improvement plan approvals. 2. A final map prepared by, or under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying, or a licensed Land Surveyor, must be processed through the City Engineer's office prior to being filed with the County Recorder. 3. If applicable, delineate restricted use areas, approved by the consulting geologist and/or soils engineer, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and such area shall be recorded with the Final Parcel Map as a right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within the restricted areas. 4. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final map is released for filing with the County Recorder. 5. Monumentation of map boundaries, street centerline and lot boundaries arc required for a map based on a field survey. 6. If the relationship of existing buildings/sewage disposal component to the new lot/parcel lines creates conditions that do not comply with the Building Code/Plumbing Code/Zoning Ordinance, these non -complying conditions shall be corrected or the parcel lines relocated prior to the division of land. 7. Offer shall be made to grant ingress/egress and utility easements to the public over the private street(s). 8. All easements that will be in existence at the time of final map approval must be accounted for on the approved tentative map. This includes the location, owner, purpose, and recording reference for all existing easements. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate in nature, a statement to that effect must be shown on the tentative and final map in lieu of its location. 9. Prior to submitting the parcel map to the City Engineer for examination pursuant to Section 66450 of the Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act), obtain clearances from all affected Departments and Divisions, including the contract map checker, who will be responsible for checking the map for technical correctness. The County of Los Angeles Land Development Group will be responsible for tax clearances, checking the map against the Final Subdivision Guarantee, and assigning a Book and Page(s) for the approved map. 10. The subdivider shall prepare and submit with the Final Map a restrictive drainage covenant between the City and the owner of the two parcels created pursuant to this application agreeing that any development proposed for the lots created by this Parcel Map are required to provide on -site retention of any additional volume of stormwater that would be created by the site. Specifically, retention facilities shall be sized to contain the difference in runoff volume for the 25 -year storm, calculated using methodology acceptable to the City Engineer. The covenant shall comply with all TPM 72775 Reso. 2015-11 7 z3 requirements set forth in California Civil Code sections 1460 et seq., shall be recorded contemporaneously with the recording of Final Map No. 72775 creating the two parcels affected, and shall have language substantially similar to the following: "Any development proposed for the lots created by this Parcel Map are required to provide on -site retention of any additional volume of stormwater that would be created by the site. Specifically, retention facilities shall be sized to contain the difference in runoff volume for the 25 -year storm, calculated using methodology acceptable to the City Engineer. This facility shall be sited in such a way as to collect storm runoff, to the extent practical, from the new hardscape and other features contributing the additional runoff, and the water collected shall be disposed of by irrigation or other reuse on site, to the greatest extent allowed by reviewing agencies having jurisdiction, or by later discharge to the existing drainage course. (The intent being that the facility be sized to accommodate all new hardscape, though not necessarily requiring that 100% of new hardscape drain to it)". 11. The subdivider shall dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu thereof for purposes of park and recreational facilities (Quimby Act) in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. ROADS, DRIVEWAYS, UTILITIES, WATER QUALITY Roads 12. Show that a full 50- foot wide roadway easement exists along Crest Road East. Driveways and Trails 13. If trails are required by the RHCA they shall be dedicated to the RHCA and shown on the Final Map. 14. Driveways serving private property shall meet Fire Department standards for access. Utilities 15. Utility lines, including but not limited to electric, communications, and cable television, shall be placed underground prior to receiving final map approval from the City Council. The subdivider shall be responsible for complying with this requirement, and shall make the necessary arrangements with the utility companies for the installation of such facilities. All appurtenant and associated equipment such as, but not limited to transformers, meter cabinets and other facilities shall be placed underground, unless the affected utility company determines that placement of its facilities underground is not technically feasible. The subdivider may request a waiver from this requirement, by providing a letter to the City from the utility companies explaining the reason(s) why the undergrounding of the appurtenant facilities is not feasible. TPM 72775 Reso. 2015-11 8 16. All other required improvements shall be completed. If such improvements, other than undergrounding of utilities, are not completed before a final map is approved, the subdivider shall enter as contractor into an agreement with the City to complete the improvement no later than thirty-six months after recording the final map or such other time as determined by the City Council at the time the final map is approved. 17. Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. Water Services 18. The subdivision/project shall conform to the design standard and polices of the Fire Department and the California Water Co., in particular, but not limited to the following items: (a) Water services shall be provided by and a "water availability certificate" signed by California Water Service. All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities, which shall include fire hydrants of the size, type and location as determined by the Fire Chief. (b) Prior to the filing of the final map, there shall also be on file with the City Engineer, a statement from the water purveyor indicating subdivider compliance with the Fire Chief's fire flow requirements. (c) A water system maintained by the water purveyor, with appurtenant facilities to serve all lots in the project, must be provided. The system shall include fire hydrants of the type and locations (both on -site and off -site) as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The water mains shall be sized to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for the land division. Fire flows required are to be determined by the Fire Chief and may include the demand for fire sprinklers. (d) Fire hydrants shall be provided and located in accordance with Los Angeles County Fire Department requirements and standards. (e) Easements shall be granted to the appropriate agency or entity for the purpose of ingress, egress, construction and maintenance of all infrastructures constructed for this land division to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (f) Plans and specifications for the water system facilities shall be submitted for approval to the water company serving this land division. The subdivider shall submit an agreement and other evidence, satisfactory to the City Engineer, indicating that the subdivider has entered into a contract with the servicing water purveyor guaranteeing payment and installation of the water improvements. Geotechnical Engineering & Engineering Geology 19. A geological and geotechnical report shall be submitted to the City Engineer showing feasibility for development of a single family residence and a stable on each lot. Grading and Drainage 20. Grading and drainage will be addressed at the grading and construction TPM 72775 Reso.2015-11 plan check stage, according to the Covenant descried in Subparagraph 10 above. Los Angeles County Fire 21. The private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "Private Driveway and Fire lane" with the widths clearly depicted. Driveways shall be maintained in accordance with the Fire Code. 22. This property is located within the area described by the Fire Department as "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone". A "Fuel Modification Plan" shall be submitted to the Fire Department prior to final map clearance. 23. Locate all existing or proposed fire hydrants on the plans. Fire hydrants shall be placed as required by the Fire Department. Septic System: Los Angeles County Department of Public Health 24. Prior to recordation of the final map, the owner shall provide satisfactory evidence to the City Engineer of a percolation test indicating acceptable conditions for the future onsite wastewater treatment system on each lot in accordance with Los Angeles County Environmental Health Onsite Wastewater Treatment System requirements. Such approval shall • be obtained prior to the recordation of the subdivision. C. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO, WHERE APPLICABLE, AND DURING THE GRADING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FOR THIS SUBDIVISION: 1. At the time of submittal for discretionary permits for construction the developer shall comply with all of the requirements of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code. The City reserves the right to impose additional conditions. 2. Each of the two new primary driveways shall have a 26 -foot wide apron, which will taper to a 20 -foot wide driveway and have a slope of 7% for the first 20 -feet at the entry off Crest Road and 12% at the steepest point, or as required by the Fire Department. The first twenty feet of the apron / driveway shall be roughened. 3. The grade of access to the stable and corral areas shall not be greater than twenty-five (25) percent. 4. The turn around area on the top of each driveway shall be no less than 64 feet in diameter. The turn around shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure their integrity for Fire Department use. 5. The applicant shall obtain State Construction Activity Permit and meet all of the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit pertaining to construction activities prior to obtaining grading permit. The applicant shall meet the water quality requirements for the State Permit and the City's TPM 72775 Reso. 2015-] ] 10 Low Impact Development Ordinance and prepare the appropriate plans, which shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and planning staff. 6. Each parcel is dependent upon the use of individual private sewage disposal systems, which shall be constructed to the standards of the Los Angeles County Public Health Department. Results from percolation testing conducted for the tentative parcel map application may be used in the future study, if the proposed dispersal field or seepage pit will be in the same location where tests were conducted and referenced in updated geology report, except when significant changes in geology and/or changes in percolation testing procedures have occurred after the date of the testing required for this application. 7. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all required fire hydrants. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted by the Fire Department, prior to issuance of a final inspection for the grading of this project. 8. If required by the Fire Department, fire hydrants shall be protected by bollards. 9. The Water Company shall verify fire flow. 10. A grading and drainage plan must be provided for each lot having an independent drainage system to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Any proposed development shall be required to have a drainage system, which is designed pursuant to the recorded Drainage Covenant, described in Subsection B, paragraph 10 above. 11. In addition to the design of the drainage system specified in the Drainage Covenant, the design of discharge from the lots, to the maximum extent practicable, shall be subject to the City's Low Impact Development Ordinance and the retention requirement contained on the parcel map for a 25 year storm flow, pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 12. The property owner shall repair any broken or damaged pavement on streets abutting the subdivision, if determined that it resulted from the development on any of the proposed lots. 13. Prior to occupancy an approved building address shall be provided to the Fire Department and other appropriate agencies. 14. Dust and Exhaust Controls: During construction the project shall conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices by using dust control measures to stabilize soil from wind erosion and reduce construction -generated dust construction activities, including but not be limited to the following: a. Air Quality: • Water the site twice daily including any stockpiled dirt • Apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive graded areas TPM 72775 11 Reso. 2015-11 • Periodically clean roads at the end of day if visible soil is carried onto paved roads adjacent to the site. If a water sweeper is used, it shall used reclaimed water • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip • Appoint a construction relations officer to act as community liaison for on -site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM10 dust generation • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered • Traffic speed limits shall be observed at all times • The applicants shall explore the feasibility of using reclaimed water, if available, for all of their watering requirements during construction. b. A High Wind Response Plan shall be developed and implemented before commencement of grading activities, subject to City review and approval per SCAQMD Rule 403 for times when wind speeds exceed 25 mph. c. Heavy construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. Construction equipment shall be fitted with the most modern emission control devices. d. The project shall comply with Rule 461, which establishes requirements for vapor control from the transfer of fuel from the fuel truck to vehicles, if applicable, both during construction and subsequent operations. e. Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person during delivery of heavy equipment or building materials to maintain smooth traffic flow. f. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gas generators; g. Reroute haul trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas; h. No vehicles shall idle in excess of five minutes, both on -site and off -site. 15. Biological Resources A Biological Resources Assessment Study was prepared for the proposed project. The consultant found that the area that would be affected by grading and construction is mostly disturbed and supports few native plant species and therefore the potential for the project to have substantial adverse impact on biological resources is limited. However, they recommended that prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant conduct a survey for sensitive plans, as some are annuals and may be present only in certain seasons. They also found that based on the literature and the comments from the Department of Fish and Wildlife the project could have adverse impacts on jurisdictional waters and number of sensitive animal species. They found that the project may support protected nesting birds; therefore the consultants recommend that grading occur outside the peak bird nesting season (February -September) or precaution should be taken if the clearing of vegetation and grading activities are necessary during that period. TPM 72775 Reso. 2015-11 12 The consultant found that although there is very limited vegetation to support two federally endangered animals, the Palos Verdes butterfly and the coastal California gnatcatcher, a survey for the host plans should be undertaken to ensure that the species is not inadvertently impacted. Based on the above, prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the conditions enumerated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached herein as Exhibit A and made a part thereof. 16. Archeological Resources Resource Identification: Should significant unique archaeological resources be found during the grading or construction within the project, the construction shall cease and the applicant at his sole expense shall hire an archeologist to assess the resources. The City of Rolling Hills shall approve of the archeologist. The archeologist shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project proponent, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected unique archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the project proponent and to the City Manager. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate action, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and / or salvage. 17. Hazards Construction BMPs: Best Management Practices shall be maintained at all times during demolition, relocation, renovation and construction of project elements. At a minimum, the BMP program shall include protection of the canyon below the project site, and implement in the construction process sediment controls and sediment tracking controls (street sweeping or tire baths before exiting the site), designated storage of all construction materials outside the path of storm flows, disposal of construction wastes in appropriately -rated landfills, standby BMPs that can be implemented within 24 -hours of a predicted storm, minimizing the footprint of construction zones and prompt installation of erosion controls; stabilizing disturbed soils and slopes with landscaping, paving or reseeding to reduce or eliminate erosion; perimeter damage controls to direct runoff around construction areas; detention/infiltration ponds for direct percolation of sediment -laden waters on the site; and bid specifications that require regular inspection and maintenance of equipment during construction. 18. Demolition Debris: Pursuant to the City's Construction and Demolition Ordinance, minimum of 50% of construction and demolition debris generated from project construction shall be recycled or diverted from landfills and verification provided to the City. 19. Noise: A. Hours of Operation: Although approval of the project will result in intermittent loud noise levels during grading operation and construction the noise will be temporary. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule TPM 72775 13 Reso. 2015-] 1 and regulate construction activities including related traffic, and therefore limit noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment and normal flow. of traffic of the City of Rolling Hills. B. Mufflers: The contractor shall be required to install on all vehides and construction equipment properly maintained and operating mufflers and other state required noise attenuation devices. C. Equipment Operation: During grading and construction operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining right-of- way before or after the permitted hours of operations. 20. The above conditions number 1 through 19 shall be implemented prior to the issuance of a grading permit, where applicable and/or during construction. APPROVED AI pOPTED THIS 19`h DAY OF MAY 2015. ATTEST: cileide HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK TPM 72775 Reso. 2015-11 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 201541 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72775, SUBDIVISION NO. 94, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 7.05 ACRE VACANT LOT ON CREST ROAD EAST INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 869, LOT 132 -A -MS ON CREST ROAD EAST, (HYNES). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 19, 2015 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Gray, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Chairman Chelf. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.* ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices CITY CLERK *A vacancy exists on the Planning Commission. TPM 72775 Reso. 2015-11 15 EXHIBIT A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TPM 72775 16 Reso. 2015-11 �J Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure Mitigation Monitoring Timing Responsible Monitoring Entity Mitigation Measure Complete? Effectiveness Biological Resources Mitigation Measure (Bio) IV -1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant, or successor in interest shall conduct a field delineation for jurisdictional waters. If the project would affect any waters or riparian habitats under the jurisdiction of USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers), CDFW (California Fish and Wildlife) and/or RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board), then the appropriate permit and agreements must be obtained from the applicable agency or agencies prior to issuance of the permit. Prior to issuance of grading permit Department of Planning City of Rolling Hills and USACE, CDFW, RWQCB Mitigation Measure (Bio) IV -2: The Applicant, or successor in interest shall, prior to the start of construction (issuance of grading permit), conduct a survey for sensitive plants. The survey shall include one or more visits to areas of suitable habitat for the sensitive plants that may occur at the project site (Atrplex pacifica, A. serenana var. davidsonii, Crossosoma califronicum, Pentachaeta lyonii, Phacelia stellaris, and Symphyotrichum defoliatum) during time periods when each species is detectable. Sensitive plants should be avoided wherever possible, during construction. If Lyon's pentachaeta or any other threatened or endangered plant is detected, coordination with USFWS or CCDFW (as applicable) should be undertaken to identify measures to avoid impacts, or obtain an incidental take permit, if required. Prior to issuance of first construction (grading) permit Department of Planning City of Rolling Hills and USFWS/CCDFW 00 Mitigation Measure Mitigation Monitoring Timing Responsible Monitoring Entity Mitigation Measure Complete? Effectiveness Mitigation Measure (Bio) IV -3: The Applicant, or successor in interest shall perform clearirig of vegetation and construction outside the peak bird nesting season, which generally runs from February 1 to September 1. If project construction is necessary during the bird breeding season, the Applicant shall provide a qualified biologist with experience who shall conduct weeklysurveys for nesting birds starting three days prior to the start of construction, including vegetation clearing or trimming. (SWCA check). If an active nest of an MBTA (Migratory Bird Treaty Act) -protected bird is identified, a buffer shall be established between the construction activities and the nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. The buffer width shall generally be 300 feet (500 feet for raptors), be delineated by temporary fencing, and remain in effect as long as construction is occurring or until the nest is no longer active. No project construction shall occur within the fenced nest zone until the young have left and would no longer be impacted by the project. Reductions in the nest buffer distance may be appropriate depending on the avian species involved, ambient levels of human activity, screening vegetation, or possibly other factors. Prior to start of construction Department of Planning City of Rolling Hills Mitigation Measure (Bio) IV -4: The Applicant, or successor in interest should, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, commission a survey for host plants of the Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchos) and (Acmispon glaber) shall be conducted prior to construction. If either host plant is present, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for Palos Verdes blue butterfly according to the USFWS survey protocol. If the species is determined to be present, Prior to issuance of first construction (grading) permit Department of Planning City of Rolling Hills Mitigation Measure Mitigation Monitoring Timing Responsible Monitoring Entity Mitigation Measure Complete? Effectiveness coordination with USFWS must be undertaken to identify what, if any, avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures are necessary, and an incidental take permit shall be obtained if required. Mitigation Measure (Bio) IV -5: The Applicant, or successor in interest shall have performed a survey for coastal California gnatcatcher by a qualified biologist prior to the issuance of.a grading permit. As part of the survey, suitable habitat for the species shall be mapped with regard to the primary constituent elements required by the species. If the species is determined to be present, or it is determined that the project would adversely modify suitable habitat, USFWS shall be contacted to determine the appropriate actions, which may require an incidental take permit. Prior to issuance of first construction (grading) permit Department of Planning City of Rolling Hills and USFWS Mitigation Measure (Bio) IV -6: If construction activities including grading, transport of equipment and supplies, and vegetation trimming or removal occur between October 1 and February 28, then the Applicant, or successor in interest shall commission a qualified biologist who shall conduct a survey for wintering aggregations of monarch butterflies no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction. If a wintering aggregation of 100 or more monarch butterflies is observed, then activities within 100 feet of the roost shall be avoided until the wintering season is over or the roost disperses on its own to a different location. If the species becomes listed as threatened pursuant to the ESA (Endangered Species Act) prior to the completion of the project, then USFWS shall be contacted before conducting any activities that might impact monarch butterflies. Prior to start of construction (pre grading permit) Department of Planning City of Rolling Hills and USFWS THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROPOSED 2 -LOT SUBDIVISION AT 23 CREST ROAD E. ZONING CASE 869; SUBDIVISION CASE 94 (VTPM 72775) LEAD AGENCY / PREPARER OF MND: City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road • Rolling Hills, California 90274 Contact: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director (310) 377-1521 PROJECT APPLICANT: Jim Hynes, Property Owner 4147 Maritime Rd. • Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274 A. INTRODUCTION On February 26, 2014 property owner Jim Hynes filed an application to subdivide a single 7.055 -acre (gross) parcel known as 23 Crest Road East into 2 lots. The entire project area is located within the gated city of Rolling Hills. The City of Rolling Hills, as Lead Agency, has completed an Initial Study and Environmental Checklist to examine potential environmental effects of the project. Findings of the Initial Study indicate that no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would result, provided mitigation measures are implemented in the issue area of Biological Resources. B. COMMENT PROCEDURES As required by State Law, and per a Notice dated December 4, 2014, a period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of the Notice was provided to enable public review of the proposed subdivision and pertinent documents prior to the adoption of the Negative Declaration by the Lead Agency. The period for submitting written comments to the Lead Agency on the subject MND was between December 4, 2014 and January 5, 2015. Input was also considered if submitted and given as comments at the public hearings. C. PROJECT PURPOSE AND SCHEDULE 1. Project Purpose The project proponent requests subdivision (Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72775) approval to subdivide an existing vacant parcel into 2 separate parcels in compliance with all applicable Municipal Code standards and regulations. Future construction of two new single family homes, one per parcel is anticipated but actual construction will not result from this application, only the "paper" subdivision that would entitle the property owner to develop or sell for development, one or both parcels. 2. Project Schedule The Planning Commission considered the proposed subdivision at several public hearing on Tuesday November 18, 2014, December 16, 2014 and January 20, 2015 including a field trip. Additional public hearings will be held before the City Council and residents within 1,000 -foot radius of the property will be notified. The Planning Commission final action in the form of a recommendation will be forwarded to the Rolling Hills City Council for a final decision on the application. All interested parties are advised to contact the City for information including date and time and location, regarding both Planning Commission and City Council meetings at which the project will be considered. Below is a summary overview of the anticipated dates on which the Planning Commission and City Council are expected to consider the project and the MND approval. Mitigated Negative Declaration: 23 Crest Road East, Zorn- race 869, Subdivision Case 94 1 Planning Commission opens Public Hearing, schedules field trip Tuesday, December 18, 2014, 6:30 pm Planning Commission conducts continued Public Hearing, including a field trip Tuesday, January 20, 2015, Field Trip at 7:30 am, and hearing, 6:30 pm Planning Commission conducts continued Public Hearing and consideration of Proposed Final MND/Initial Study and Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and directs staff to prepare Resolution with recommendations Tuesday, April 21, 2015, 6:30 pm Planning Commission adopts Resolution Tuesday, May 21, 2015, 6:30 pm City Council opens Public Hearing on Commission recommendation in the field and continues the meeting to their evening meeting /Final MND and MMRP Monday, June 8, 7:00 am and 7:30 pm City Council conducts public hearing and directs Staff to prepare Resolution (final action on application) Monday, July 13, 7:30 pm City Council adopts Resolution Monday, July 27, 7:30 pm v. D. MND CONTENTS The proposed MND consists of the revised Draft Initial Study (IS), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The revised Draft 15 includes the original Draft 15, Notice 12/4/14, all comment letters received, responses to comments received on the Draft IS (Summary table), Corrections and Additions to the Draft IS (Summary table) and the Draft (February 2015) Biological Resources Assessment prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants. All of these documents area available at City Hall, Planning Department and may be viewed during regular working hours or copies may be requested. E. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located at 23 Crest Road East in the City of Rolling Hills. The Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) for the subject site is 7567-011-020. F. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT The subject application is a proposal to subdivide an existing lot totaling 7.055 acres gross into 2 parcels as follows: Parcel 1: 3.70 acres (gross), 3.0 acres (net); Parcel 2: 3.34 acres (gross), 2.67 acres (net). The property is vacant land, never developed. No physical changes to the site will result from the subdivision or zoning application. Physical changes in the future related to development of the resulting parcels, if approved, will be the subject of discretionary actions, minimally including a Site Plan Review. The City is proactively addressing environmental issues that potentially could result when future development is proposed. G. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES AND DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS 1. Lead Agency The City of Rolling Hills is the designated Lead Agency for the project. In order to implement the project, the City Council will be required to (1) approve the Final MND indicating that environmental documentation for this project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) approve the proposed subdivision discretionary application; 3) approve the MMRP, and (4) direct staff to file a Notice of Determination. 2. Responsible Agencies In addition to the Lead Agency project approvals described above, the project will require approval by the Rolling Hills Community Association Board of Directors and therefore the RHCA is also a Responsible Agency. Other public agencies such as California Fish and Wildlife and California Regional Water Quality Control Board that will consider separate permits and approvals when actual construction is proposed in the future and to implement the project, will be considered Responsible and/or Trustee Agencies at that time. This MND will serve as CEQA compliance for all responsible and trustee agencies. Mitigated Negative Declaration: 23 Crest Road East, Zoning Case 869, Subdivision Case 94 2 H. MND DISTRIBUTION LIST On December 4, 2014 the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was mailed to all parties on the following list: Gary Sugano, Planning Director City of Lomita 24300 Narbonne Avenue Lomita, CA 90717 Sheri Repp-Loadsman, Planning and Building Director City of Palos Verdes Estates 340 Palos Verdes Drive West Palos Verdes Est., CA 90274 Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Manager, South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region 320 W. 4ih Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90013 So. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Agency 21865 E. Copley Dr. Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 Attn: Environmental Review Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 761 Terminal St., Bldg. 1 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Environmental Reviews 900 South Fremont Avenue Alhambra, CA 91803-1331 Jeff Gibson, Planning Director City of Torrance 3031 Torrance Blvd. Torrance, CA 90503 Joel Rojas, Planning Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dr. Don Austin, Superintendent PVPUSD 375 Via Almar Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 L.A. County Fire Department Environmental Reviews 1320 N. Eastern Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90063 Amanda Jorgensen, Executive Director California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite #1 Sacramento, CA 95816-5113 Henry Wind, District Manager California Water Service Company 2632 W. 237th Street Torrance, CA 90505-5272 Los Angeles County Clerk Environmental Filing Dept. 12400 Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 Environmental Planning Los Angeles County Regional Planning 320 W. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 David Wahba, Planning Director City of Rolling Hills Estates I 4045 Palos Verdes Drive N. Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Reference Desk Peninsula Center Library 701 Silver Spur Road Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Mr. Marvin Jackmon, Region Mgr. Southern California Edison 505 Maple Street Torrance, CA 90503 Ms. Marcella Low Southern California Gas Company 2929 182nd Street Redondo Beach, CA 90278 SCAG Intergovernmental Review 818 W. Seventh Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Mitigated Negative Declaration: 23 Crest Road East, Zoning Case,6C2, Subdivision Case 94 3 (SEE NEXT PAGE FOR ATTACHMENTS) Mitigated Negative Declaration: 23 Crest Road East, Zoning Case 869. Subdivision Case 94 4 ATTACHMENTS Revised Draft Initial Study 11/25/15 composed of: • Draft Initial Study (IS) 11/25/14 • Responses to Comments on Draft I5 (Summary table) 4/8/15 • Additions to Draft IS (Summary table) 4/13/15 • Notice of MND / 15 12/4/14 • Letters received 12/4/14 — 1/5/15 on MND/Initial Study (LACOFD, Martin, Ekberg, Stevens) (For CAFW letter — see SWCA Biological Resources Assessment) • Public comments verbally received in public hearing (PC meeting minutes 1/20/15: Raine, Mackenbach) • Biological Resources Assessment (SWCA Environmental Consultants, Feb 2015) Mitigated Negative Declaration: 23 Crest Road East, Zoning Case §,A9, Subdivision Case 94 5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Revised Initial Study Content: • Draft Initial Study 11/25/14 • Responses to Comments on Draft Initial Study (4/8/15) • Additions to Draft Initial Study (4/13/15) • Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaration (12/4/14) • Comments from City contracted reviewing agencies • Letters received on MND (12/4/14 - 1/7/15) • Biological Resources Assessment (SWCA Environmental Consultants, February 2015) 8 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY APPLICATION NO: PROPOSED PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 869, SUBDIVISION NO. 94 : VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72775 Request to subdivide one existing 7.055 acres (gross) vacant lot into 2 parcels each with a minimum area of 2 (net) acres. While no new home construction is proposed at this time, the development anticipated will be for 2 new homes and related grading. NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANTS: Mr. Jim Hynes 4147 Maritime Road Huntington Beach, CA LOCATION OF PROJECT: Vacant lot South Side of Crest Road between Georgeff Road and Caballeros Road (Lot 132 -A -MS) ASSESSOR'S Book, Page & Parcel Nos.: 7567-011-020 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. EXISTING ZONING: RA -S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2 -Acre PROPOSED ZONING: No change. RA -S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2 -Acre PROPOSED LOT SIZES: Parcel 1: 3.70 gross acres, 3.0 net acres Parcel 2: 3.34 gross acres, 2.67net acres LOCATION MAP: Attached. I. APPLICABILITY OF THE INITIAL STUDY A. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section I. of the City's CEQA Guidelines. If more than one application is filed on the same site, consider them together as one project). x Yes No 1. If the project qualifies for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Appendix E of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes No X N/A II. INITIAL STUDY REVIEW A. Does the project require a 30 -day State Clearinghouse review for any of the following reasons? _ Yes X No 1. The lead agency is a state agency. ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. anLCaballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 1 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of California, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (13) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (4) A proposed hotel/motel development of more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons occupying more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (C) A project which would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including but not limited to riparian for rare and endangered species as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 903. (D) A project, which would interfere with attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in the approved areawide wastewater management plan. III. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: Request to subdivide one existing vacant lot 7.055 acres (gross) in area into 2 parcels that will each have a minimum land area of 2 acres (net). No new development is proposed at this time, however the submitted plans indicate potential conceptual future development of two new homes with related grading for a net gain of 2 homes. Any future development on the proposed 2 parcels will require conformance with the City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance and all other City, County and Rolling Hills Community Association's (RHCA) requirements. ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. and Caballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 2 f \ B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.) The project site in its existing condition consists of one historically vacant lot (Lot 132-A MS) with 7.055 acres of land area. The area where building pads are proposed is mostly a dirt area within the northerly half of the lot, with a down -slope of approximately 18%. The site has never been developed. There are groupings of trees in the south portion of the site, most of which will remain undisturbed. There is an existing drainage course along the west portion of the site that will be preserved. Animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers and an occasional fox. Historically, no endangered species of animals have been identified in this area of the City. The southerly tip of the project site is believed to be approximately 400 feet from a blue -line stream, as noted on the USGS "Torrance" quadrangle. C. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Single family dwelling Rolling Hills. East: Single family dwelling Rolling Hills. South: Single family dwelling Rolling Hills. West: Single family dwelling of Rolling Hills. units on lots of two acres or more within the City of units on lots of two acres or more within the City of units on lots of two acres or more within the City of units on lots of two acres or more within the City D. Is the proposed project consistent with: City of Rolling Hills General Plan Applicable Specific Plan City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance South Coast Air Quality Management Plan Congestion Management Plan Regional Comprehensive Plan E. Have any of the following studies been submitted? Yes No N/A X x x x It X Geology Report _ Historical Report x Hydrology Report _ Archaeological Report x Soils Report _ Paleontological Study _ Traffic Study _ Line of Sight Exhibits Noise Study _ Visual Analysis X Biological Study (forthcoming) x Slope Map Native Vegetation _ Fiscal Impact Analysis Preservation Plan Solid Waste Generation Report Public Service Infrastructure Report x Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/Waste Geology, hydrology and soils reports and a slope map have been submitted to the City Engineer for review as to feasibility for a subdivision. Additional review of soils, geology, hydrology and slope stability will be required prior to any development on either of the proposed lots. ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. and Caballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94- VTPM 72775 3 In addition, the applicant has been directed to submit to the City a written report prepared by a qualified biologic resource consultant assessing biological resources on the subject site. IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. _ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. This initial study was prepared by: Date: November 25, 2014 YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR VI. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact".answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. and -Caballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 4 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," above may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. and Caballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94- VTPM 72775 5 • Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation Issues: I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but 0 0 ❑ not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 0 0 ® 0 quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which 0 0 ® 0 would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 0 0 0 Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 0 0 0 Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment 0 0 0 which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 0 0 0 0 applicable air quality plan? ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. and Caballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 6 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant - Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 0 ® 0 substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ❑ 0 ® ❑ any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ 0 0 concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 0 0 0 number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or 0 ® 0 ❑ through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian 0 ® 0 0 habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the ❑ ® 0 0 Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any 0 ® 0 0 native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting 0 0 0 biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 0 0 0 Din Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd t tdCaballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 7 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 0 0 0 significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 0 ❑ 0 significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 0 0 0 resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred 0 0 0 outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated 0 0 0 on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including 0 0 0 liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 0 0 0 121 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 0 0 ® 0 topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, 0 0 ® ❑ or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 0 0 ® ❑ 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life and property? ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. and Caballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 8 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the 0 ❑ ® ❑ use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 0 0 environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 0 0 environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or 0 0 0 acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of 0 0 0 hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ ❑ 0 or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area/ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 0 0 0 would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with 0 ❑ 0 pia an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 0 ❑ ® 0 loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. and Caballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 9 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 0 ❑ ® 0 discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 0 0 ® 0 interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 0 ❑ ® ❑ site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on -or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 0 0 ® ❑ site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed 0 ❑ ® ❑ the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 ❑ ® 0 g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as 0 0 0 mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures 0 0 0 which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 0 0 0 loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 0 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. an Cgballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94- VTPM 72775 10 4 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or 0 0 ❑ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan 0 0 ❑ or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 0 0 0 resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important 0 0 ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels 0 0 ® 0 in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ 0 ® ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise 0 0 ® 0 levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ 0 ® 0 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 0 0 0 or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 0 0 0 would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. an�Caballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 11 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population in an area, either directly 0 0 ❑ DE (for example by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ 0 ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 0 0 ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? o o ® ❑ o ❑ ® ❑ o o ® o o o ® o o o ® o XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing 0 0 0 neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or 0 0 0 require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. and Caballeros Rd. 12 CJ Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in 0 0 ® 0 relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of 0 0 ❑ Dia service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including 0 0 0 either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ❑ 0 0 feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 0 0 0 supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 0 0 ❑ applicable Regional Water Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 0 0 0 wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new 0 0 ® 0 stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 0 0 0 ❑ project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. and_Caballeros Rd. 0 Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 13 5-4 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 0 0 0 treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted 0 0 ® 0 capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 0 0 0 regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 0 ® 0 0 quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually 0 0 ® 0 limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which 0 0 ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The following analysis is a description of the findings contained in the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Issues Checklist Form, which preceded this page. A detailed discussion of all potential environmental impacts checked "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" is provided, along with appropriate mitigation measures. EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST IMPACTS Item I. AESTHETICS. a,b NO IMPACT -the City does not have a scenic vista area designation in its General Plan and the site is not located on a designated state scenic highway. Ocean views are towards the south but, based on existing slope conditions, it is not expected that any nearby neighbor ocean view will be impacted. Future development is subject to Planning Commission review under a required Site Plan Review application and during that public ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. an alleros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 14 5s, review neighbors within a radius of 1,000 feet will have an opportunity to view a silhouette of future buildings when designed for the site. c.d. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT- There is no evidence that the subdivision of one lot into two minimum 2 -acre parcels and the potential future construction of two new single-family residences and their attendant accessory structures on the subdivided parcels will substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and/or surrounding properties. Enforcement of all applicable Municipal Code zoning and building standards and requirements, for all phases of the future development through construction will ensure that the existing visual character or quality of the site and surrounding properties is not substantially degraded. Enforcement includes field review by the Planning Commission during both the subdivision phase and subsequent discretionary Site Plan Review process for each of the two new homes, when proposed. During the subdivision approval process, the Planning Commission has the opportunity and authority to limit the finished floor height of a future residence, and the height of the required landscaping. The Planning Commission will have further opportunity to review and limit grading and preserve scenic resources more explicitly for each individual home site under the Site Plan Review process. Residential building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA). Buildings are limited to one story in height and the Zoning Ordinance strictly limits outdoor lighting on private properties. The future construction of two single story single family residences and accessory structures each on sites over two -acres in area will not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Light and glare impacts, therefore, are expected to be less than significant. Measures (to be incorporated into conditions of approval of discretionary permits) A. Grading and erosion control. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City preliminary grading plans showing proposed drainage and erosion control facilities, driveways for ingress or egress, proposed building pad(s), a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral area for each lot of the subdivision, areas of storm water overflow or geological hazard, along with up-to-date soils and geology reports and City Engineer approved feasibility report of the proposed subdivision. B. Site Plan Review and HOA design review. Future construction on each of the proposed new lots shall require Site Plan Review by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission for each new single-family dwelling unit an accessory structures. The Planning Commission may limit finished floor heights, building heights, landscaping heights, and grading to preserve scenic resources for each individual home site under the discretionary Site Plan Review process. The project will also be reviewed by the Architectural and Landscape Committees of the Rolling Hills Community Association, and will be subject to all of the requirements of City and Building Codes including, but not be limited to the Lighting Ordinance and Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills. Item II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES a -c NO IMPACT The proposed subdivision is located on property that is zoned single-family residential on two or more acres net. Single-family residences and agricultural uses are permitted uses. ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. and_Caballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94- VTPM 72775 15 The subject subdivision of one lot into two parcels, facilitating two new conforming residences will have no impact on agricultural resources. Item III. AIR QUALITY a -c. d. e. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The potential future construction of two new residences, will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, will not contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and will have a less than significant impact on the existing environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. During construction, dust and objectionable odors may be created. Where substantial excavation and grading will occur, on a temporary basis there may be an increase in heavy construction vehicle traffic. After construction, it is estimated that increased development of two new single-family residential structures will generate insignificant increase in gasoline emissions because it is estimated that each of the two single-family residential structure generates 10 average daily trips (ADT) totaling 10 ADT for this project and will have a less than significant impact on the environment according to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's "Air Quality Handbook," revised April, 1987. NO IMPACT This project is a subdivision into two lots with potential for development of two homes and it is not expected that this would create any significant objectionable odors. Additionally no significant objectionable odors are anticipated to occur during construction. Measures (to be incorporated into conditions of approval of discretionary permits) C. During construction the property owners shall be required to conform to South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust generated by construction activities. Fugitive Dust 1. A Comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Program will be developed and implemented before commencement of grading activities, subject to review and approval of the Building and Safety Department and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). This Plan, at minimum, shall address compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, including: - Regular site watering - Application of soil stabilizers to inactive graded areas - Covering and/or washing of transport trucks leaving the site - Periodic street cleaning of roads adjacent to the site 2. A High Wind Response Plan in accordance with Rule 403 of the SCAQMD shall be developed and implemented at times when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to reduce PM. emissions. The High Wind Response Plan shall be developed and implemented before commencement of grading activities, subject to review and approval by the Building and Safety Department and the SCAQMD. ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. and Caballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 16 3. Stockpiles of soil, sand and similar materials shall be stabilized by being enclosed, covered, watered twice daily, or with application of non-toxic soil binders. Construction Equipment Exhaust 1. Heavy construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. Construction equipment shall be fitted with the most modern emission control devices. The construction manager shall monitor compliance with this measure and is subject to periodic inspections by City Building Inspectors. 2. The project shall comply with Rule 461, which establishes requirements for vapor control from the transfer of fuel from the fuel truck to vehicles both during construction and subsequent operations. Item IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a. -d LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATION The site has historically never been developed. There are groupings of trees in the south portion of the site, most of which will remain undisturbed. Several species of native vegetation may exist on the property, such as Toyon and California sage bush scrub. Animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers and an occasional fox. No endangered or sensitive species of animals have been identified on the project site. No flood hazard areas exist on the subject site. There is an existing drainage course in the west portion of the site that will be preserved. Below (downhill from) approximately 400 feet from the site there is a "blueline stream" that is part of the "Klondike Canyon system". A Biological and Natural Resources Assessment Study is being conducted for the site that will determine presence of natural resources and should they be found, the recommendations of the study for mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission, during review of future development, could restrict removal of native vegetation and/or create area for substitution of removed native vegetation on the lot. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will have the opportunity to review this project Those agencies may require that vegetation studies be performed and mitigation measures implemented prior to the final approval of this project by the Lead Agency. Large lot, estate density single-family development potentially could be proposed for this project, however the large lot configuration provides the opportunity to retain substantial amounts of existing habitat. The General Plan and Zoning Code of the City of Rolling Hills set forth requirements that single-family structural development on a lot be limited to a maximum of 20% of the net lot area, that total development of structural and flatwork development on a lot be limited to a maximum of 35% of the net lot area, and that the maximum disturbed area including graded areas be limited to a maximum of 40% of the net lot area. City policies also encourage the retention, use, and maintenance of native drought -tolerant vegetation in landscaping. Measure to be incorporated as mitigation for biological resources into the review process of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 72775: D. The applicant shall prepare and submit a confirming study for Planning Commission review as some species of animals in the categories of sensitive or endangered species have been known to exist in the larger Rolling Hills and Palos Verdes area. The study ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. and Caballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 17 shall be in the form of a "Biological Resources Assessment Study" which minimally shall involve; 1) a search of database and literature, including the review of sensitive biological resource occurrence records within the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Community Society (CNPS) rare plant inventory; 2) Field Study of project area to perform vegetation mapping and assess wildlife habitats; 3) a Biological Resources Assessment Technical Report to include: Introduction with environmental setting and description of project location; Methods describing literature review, database search, field surveys and assessments for special -status species occurrence, Descriptions of the results of databases and mapping; Discussion of distribution of biological features within the project area; Assessments of potential project impacts to biological resources and Recommendations for mitigations. The Study shall be reviewed, evaluated and acted upon by the Planning Commission as part of the environmental assessment and prior to a final decision on Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 72775. The applicant shall incur the cost for preparation of the Study and shall be required to comply and implement all measures recommended as approved by the City in accordance with a schedule incorporated into the conditions of approval a full subject site has not been identified as containing any established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. The Planning Commission could restrict removal of native vegetation and/or created area for substitution of removed native vegetation on the lot. Other mitigation measures to be incorporated into conditions of approval of Site Plan Review for future home construction: E. Upon review and assessment of this project by the appropriate County, State and Federal Resource agencies, the applicant will be required to meet the requirements of these agencies. F. Future individual Site Plan Review approvals by the Planning Commission shall include the following conditions with respect to mitigation for loss of native vegetation, unless the City determines at the time of approval of a Site Plan, such measures are not necessary or a reasonable alternative method of preserving and mitigating the impacts to mature native vegetation protected areas is feasible: 1. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. In order to minimize impacts to the hillsides and canyon areas on this property, the building pad and graded slopes shall be designed and developed in a manner that retains and restores native drought - tolerant plant life outside the building pad caused by pad grading and preserves the existing contiguous topography, flora, and natural features of that area to the greatest extent possible. 2. To prevent construction equipment from going beyond the limits of any building pad, contractors shall use fencing or other barriers to the greatest extent possible. 3. No contractor, operator of a bulldozer or other equipment or other construction worker on the site shall allow equipment, supplies or soil to encroach into a protected area, if any, except as specified on an approved Site Plan. 4. No chemicals, including but not limited to fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, detergents, chlorine or pool chemicals, shall be used, disposed of, or allowed to drain onto the slopes. 5. All graded areas shall be planted with native plants subject to Fire Department criteria and requirements. ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. and Caballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 18 6. A landscaping bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15%, shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released two years after the initial plantings by the City Manager if he determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscape plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. e, f. NO IMPACT The proposed subdivision including future development of two single family homes will not conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation ordinance. Further, the proposed subdivision property is not identified on any adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans, or any other similar approved habitat conservation plans. G. Upon review and assessment of this project by the appropriate County, State and Federal Resource agencies, the applicant will be required to meet the requirements of these agencies. H. Future individual Site Plan Review approvals by the Planning Commission shall include the following conditions with respect to mitigation for loss of native vegetation, unless the City determines at the time of approval of a Site Plan, such measures are not necessary or a reasonable alternative method of preserving and mitigating the impacts to mature native vegetation protected areas is feasible: 1. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. In order to minimize impacts to the hillsides and canyon areas on this property, the building pad and graded slopes shall be designed and developed in a manner that retains and restores native drought - tolerant plant life outside the building pad caused by pad grading and preserves the existing contiguous topography, flora, and natural features of that area to the greatest extent possible. 2. To prevent construction equipment from going beyond the limits of any building pad, contractors shall use fencing or other barriers to the greatest extent possible. 3. No contractor, operator of a bulldozer or other equipment or other construction worker on the site shall allow equipment, supplies or soil to encroach into a protected area, if any, except as specified on an approved Site Plan. 4. No chemicals, including but not limited to fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, detergents, chlorine or pool chemicals, shall be used, disposed of, or allowed to drain onto the slopes. 5. All graded areas shall be planted with native plants. 6. A landscaping bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15%, shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released two years after the initial plantings by the City Manager if he determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscape plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. and Caballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 19 Item V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a, - d NO IMPACT No unique historical, archaeological or paleontological resources have been identified in the project area therefore it is expected that the development facilitated by the proposed subdivision will result in an environmental impact to cultural resources that is less than significant. Measures (to be incorporated into conditions of approval of discretionary permits) Should significant unique archaeological resources be found during the grading or construction within the project, the construction shall cease and the applicant at his sole expense shall hire an archeologist to assess the resources. The City of Rolling Hills shall approve of the archeologist. The archeologist shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project proponent, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected unique archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the project proponent and to the City Manager. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate action, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and/or salvage. Item VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a. NO IMPACT Because the City is located in seismically active southern California, future development of this subdivision would be exposed to potential ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The subject site is not located on a known active or potentially active fault. The Palos Verdes fault, although considered potentially active, is located approximately 3 to 4 miles southwest of the City. Further, the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Zone. The potential for ground rupture on the site is considered to be very low. b -e. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The approval of the subdivision project is not expected to directly have the potential to result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures. While there are specific areas in the City that are know to have unstable earth conditions, including active landslides and soil creep, the project site is not in such an area (reference: General Plan Safety Element, Landslide and Fault Rupture Hazards Map). The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes a Landslide Hazard Overlay to carefully regulate development in unstable areas. Grading, excessive irrigation, and/or increased septic tank discharge in unstable areas may trigger additional slope failure. The entire City of Rolling Hills, including this subdivision project, is underlain by expansive soil, which is subject to slippage. Geological and geotechnical explorations were conducted on site to evaluate the general soil, bedrock and geological condition of the site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for the design of the project. The study found that the soils and geology of the site are stable to support two new single family residences. Prior to construction, additional soils and geology studies will be required and reviewed by the City Engineer. The City Engineer reviewed the Geological Report, dated July 2013 and has authorized the tentative map to proceed to the local planning approval process. ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. and flh.Ileros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94- VTPM 72775 20 Approval of the subdivision will result in disruptions, displacements and compaction of the soil during the probable future construction of two homes when the new building pads for the two new lots are built. It is likely that the proposed new building pads will exceed an area of 2,000 square feet, and if so, the development will be subject to discretionary approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Regulatory compliance in that the project must obtain Site Plan Review approval for development, including grading of both of the subject parcels ensures that future construction will result in a less than significant impact. Also, during future construction, it is expected that removal of natural vegetative cover, may potentially cause an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm runoff. The reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with development may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. However, this is very unlikely, as the City is not coastal. The development is limited to the addition of a maximum of two single-family dwelling units; therefore the project will not result directly or indirectly in significant impact on the environment from a geological or soil stability perspective. Mitigations (to be incorporated into conditions of approval for discretionary permits) J. The applicants shall provide sufficient evidence to show that the sustained use of proposed private disposal systems are possible without inducing a geologic hazard. K. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the future residence, an Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth is Section 7010 of the 2013 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution as required by the City Engineer. L. A detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports, for the future construction of a single-family residence for each lot, shall be submitted and reviewed by the City Engineer. Cut and fill slopes will not exceed a slope gradient of a 2 to 1 (H:V) and all cut and fill must be balanced on the project site. Item VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a -g. NO IMPACT The proposed project involves the request for a subdivision of a single lot into 2 parcels for potential development of two new single-family residences. It does not involve the storage and distribution of materials that may be considered hazardous. Future development contemplated will not be involved in any activities that would emit and/or handle hazardous materials. The proposed project will not generate harmful emission that may affect schools. The City is located approximately 1.5 miles south of Torrance Municipal airport. The project is not located within a designated aircraft crash zone, nor will it involve any improvements that would otherwise affect airport operations. As a result, the proposed project will not present a safety hazard related to aircraft or airport operations. The project provides adequate street access, and project operations would not interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The City's Building & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) closely and carefully regulate development including construction activities and building materials. The future development will comply with all pertinent fire code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. and Caballeros Rd. 21 Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 �i• hydrants and fire flows. Specific fire and life safety requirements will be addressed at the building fire plan check, including annual brush clearing and fuel modification plans. The City and the RHCA require that all roof materials be fireproofed. The effect of the construction of two new single-family residences, therefore, is expected to be less than significant. Item VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a - f LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act requires National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits (NPDES) for storm water discharges from storm drain systems to waters of the United States. Applicants for development projects, including in Rolling Hills, have two major responsibilities under NPDES permit. The first is to submit and implement a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) containing design features and Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate and applicable to the project. The SUSMP describes how post construction pollutants in storm water discharges will be controlled and reduced. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the County of Los Angeles Building and Safety Department must approve the SUSMP. The second responsibility is to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for all construction projects with disturbed area of 1 to 5 acres. Should the final proposal for two future single-family residences include disturbed area of one acre or more this requirement will be implemented. Specific mitigation measures will be incorporated into the SUSMPs for development projects under the NPDES Permit. Implementation of these measures will ensure that the quality of storm water runoff leaving the project site will meet all regulatory standards and will maintain the beneficial uses of the surface water for public and commerce. The City of Rolling Hills, as part of a normal project approval and construction practice through the contract with Los Angeles County monitors compliance with these requirements. Due to the small scale of potential development anticipated to occur on the site and the large percentage of each resulting lot that would remain uncovered by hardscape, the proposed project is not expected to interfere with groundwater recharge A natural drainage course on the west side of the project site will be preserved. The southerly property line of the proposed project is located approximately 400 feet north of a "blueline stream" that is part of the Klondike Canyon system (USGS Torrance quadrangle). Rolling Hills is regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, by Order R-4-2012-0175. As required by this Order, the City has adopted Chapter 8.32 to its Municipal Code to establish development standards for maintaining the water quality of storm water and non -storm water discharges from the City. The subject project will be subject to compliance of RHMC 8.32 LID (Low Impact Development) provisions in that it will be a new "single family hillside development" and is adjacent to or discharges directly to an ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Area) and creates 2,000 square feet minimally of impervious coverage. Although the amount of impervious surfaces is expected to be substantially increased, impacts to the Klondike Canyon blueline stream and nearby area are not expected to occur because, first, the distance of the stream from areas on the project site which will be graded or disturbed is significant (approximately 800 feet) and, second, the project will incorporate specific LID design features in compliance with RHMC 8.32 thereby resulting in avoidance of water quality and hydrologic/soil stability impacts. ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. a 4.Caballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 22 A septic tank system will be required when in the future the vacant parcels that are being created are developed. As septic tank leach field effluent percolates into the watershed, some discharge into surface waters downstream. However, the impact generated from the addition of up to two dwelling units is not expected to be significant. The disposal system will be subject to review of the Los Angeles County Health Department prior to recordation of the subject map. g. —j. NO IMPACT The subject project site is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map, and therefore it is not expected that the placement of new structures on the site will impede or redirect flood flow, or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, or inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Measures (to be incorporated into the conditions of approval of discretionary permits) M. The property owners shall be required to conform to County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. N. The property owner shall prepare and implement an Erosion Control Plan, SUSMP and SWPPP, if applicable, in conformance with the County of Los Angeles Building Code requirements. Item IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a -c. NO IMPACT The project, including a potential development of 2 new single-family residences, is consistent with the surrounding residential uses. The project, including a potential development of up to two new single family residences, is consistent with Zoning Ordinance and the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which establish the maintenance of strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain, require a balanced cut and fill ratio and regulates the size and coverage of developments. The proposed project is not located in an area subject to a habitat conservation plan. Item X. MINERAL RESOURCES a -b NO IMPACT There are no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or land use plan for the project site. Item XI. NOISE a -d. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The goal of the City of Rolling Hills' Noise Element is to preserve and enhance Rolling Hills' quiet rural atmosphere and promotes the use of landscaping to obscure noise production from roadways and adjacent properties. Although approval of the project will result indirectly, in the potential development that may cause intermittent loud noise during construction, the noise is a necessary by- product of the construction of two new building pads and two total residences that will be ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. and Caballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 23 limited in covering no more than 30% of the building pad. The building pad design is subject to individual review and approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Any construction or traffic noise will be required to conform to all City and County ordinances and engineering practices. The City requires that all construction work take place only between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday. As stated previously, there will be intermittent but loud noise levels during construction, if and when and to the degree that it occurs (if all two parcels are developed each with a single home). In such a scenario, the noise will be temporary or periodic in nature and s necessary byproduct in order to construct new homes on the parcels created by the subdivision. The level of nuisance associated with the construction noise will be minimized due to the measures that are required to be taken as conditions of approval as noted below e,f NO IMPACT The City is located approximately 1.5 miles south of Torrance Municipal airport and is not located within an airport land use plan nor is it near any private airstrip. The project is not expected to involve any improvements that would affect airport operations or present a safety hazard related to aircraft or airport noise. Measures (to be incorporated into conditions of approval O. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. Item XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING a -c NO IMPACT The impact on population and housing of the proposed future development of two homes where each home will house approximately 3-4 additional people, is expected to be less than significant. Item XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a. The City of Rolling Hills contracts with the Los Angeles County Consolidated Protection district, which provides fire protection services to the City Fire station No. 106, is located within the City, on Crest Road. Other County Fire Stations are relocated in the vicinity and are available to provide additional protection resources, if needed. The City of Rolling Hills contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for police protection and law enforcement services. The main sheriffs station serving the City is located at 26123 Narbonne Avenue, Lomita, California. The station is located approximately 2.0 miles to the north of the site. Historically the emergency response time in the City of Rolling Hills averages five minutes or less. The impact on public services of the future development of 2 new single-family residences, each housing approximately 3-4 additional people, will be less than significant in terms of fire and police protection. ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. and Caballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94- VTPM 72775 24 The small scale of the project is not expected to have any impact on schools, parks or other public facilities. Item XIV. RECREATION a -b. NO IMPACT No impact is anticipated on neighborhood and regional parks and recreational facilities of the future development of 2 total new additional single-family residences, which would add approximately 3-4 people per home (8 net new people) The goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan that include continuing the City's program of acquisition and development of strategically located recreation centers, encouraging the maintenance and improvement of the system of hiking and equestrian trails in Rolling Hills through the Community Association, encouraging the continued upkeep of all City - owned recreation facilities within Rolling Hills, and providing expanded recreational opportunities for children do not conflict with the future development of up to two new homes. The subdivider will be required to dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu thereof far purposes of park and recreational facilities (Quimby Act) in accordance with the proportional standards set forth in Section 16.28.150 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. These funds are used by the City continually maintain and upgrade the existing recreational facilities in the City. Item XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Approval of the subject 2 -lot subdivision project could potentially result in increased traffic that will occur during the construction of two new building pads and two new single-family dwellings. The circulation within the City during construction of the project will likely be impacted but not to a significant degree as the work will be occurring in a limited area and to specific lots. The incremental increase of two new single-family dwelling units will not generate more than an estimated 20 daily vehicle trips in the entire city. Future development of two new single-family dwelling units will slightly affect the balance of transportation improvement "credits" over new development "debits" required to preserve compliance with the Congestion Management Program of Los Angeles County (CMP) that is intended to address the impact of local growth on the regional transportation system and air quality. At 6.8 debits for every newly developed single-family dwelling unit, development of two units will use up 13.6 credits. The City has 68 credits at this time, enough to accommodate the construction of at least 10 additional residences in the City of Rolling Hills. If and when the net build -out is completed for the subject project, the City will have 40.8 credits, enough for 6 additional residences in the City of Rolling Hills In addition, future development of two net additional single-family residential units will not exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency as there are no heavy congestion designated roads or highways within the City of Rolling Hills. b -g. NO IMPACT The project is situated along a private, Rolling Hills Community Association's maintained street. The lots will have vehicular access directly onto the street and will not cause change in air traffic pattern or traffic levels. The lot lines are proposed to be 90 degrees to the existing street and there are no sharp curves or ""blind" spots when exiting the lots. ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. apd.Caballeros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 25 Measures (to be incorporated into the conditions of approval of discretionary permits) P. The property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate truck traffic throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM Monday through Saturday only so as not to interfere with the normal flow of traffic within the City of Rolling Hills. Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. a,b,e,g NO IMPACT Subdivision of the subject property will not generate any wastewater contributory to a sanitary sewer system because the City of Rolling Hills is not connected to the County Sanitation District sewage facility, as there are no sewers in the City (except in a small area at the western end of the City). The project would not result in a need for new or substantial alteration to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities, due to the limited amount of additional water required to serve the project. The developer will be required to comply with all local, state, and federal requirements for integrated waste management (e.g., recycling, green waste) and solid waste disposal. c, d, f. Wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board will not be exceeded by the future development of two net additional single-family residential units. The impact on water supplies available for the future development of two additional single-family residence, housing approximately 3-4 additional people each is expected to be less than significant. Prior to finaling the Parcel Map the applicant shall be required to obtain a letter from the Water Company certifying that adequate water supply is available to serve the proposed parcels. Measures 80 be incorporated into the conditions of approval Q. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. R. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. S. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. T. Prior to finaling the Parcel Map the applicant shall be required to obtain a letter from the Water Company certifying that adequate water supply is available to serve the proposed parcel, should a single family development be proposed in the future. U. Prior to finaling the Parcel Map the applicant shall be required to place all utilities underground or file an improvement security, to the satisfaction of the City. ZC 869 - South side of Crest Road between Georgeff Rd. andrabaneros Rd. Subdiv. No. 94 - VTPM 72775 26 Responses to Comments: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration: 23 Crest Road East Zoning Case 869 / Subdivision Case 94 (VTPM 72775) April 8, 2015 Commenter Date Recvd Environmental Questionnaire Checklist Section Comments Response Calif. Dept. of Fish 1/17/15 IV. Biological Resources (Pg. 16-18) Comments and Recommendations (Brief CA Fish and Wildlife comments are and Wildlife (email) summary): incorporated into and addressed in the Author: Betty J 1) Project landscaping (recommends SWCA Consultants Biological Resource Courtney, Environmental Program Mgr. 1 prohibition of invasive/exotic plants); 2) Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements (recommends a jurisdictional Assessment report dated February 2015.The report recommends that six (6) measures, mitigation falling into three g g S. Coast Region delineation of streams and habitats be conducted; that effective setbacks be imposed, creating buffer areas to protect ephemeral drainages and habitats; and that changes in drainage patterns and runoff related to the project be included/ evaluated in the environmental categories: Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitats; Sensitive Plants, and Sensitive Wildlife be imposed on the project as conditions. (See MMRP - Mitigation Measure Reporting Program - for detailed descriptions.) Briefly summarized, they are: document); 1.Jurisdictional Waters/Riparian Habitats - 3) Wetland resources (recommends avoidance of conversion of wetlands to "uplands" and encouragement of "no net loss" of wetland acreage or habitat values, but if an unavoidable net loss would occur, that mitigation include compensation for acreage loss and habitat value); 4) Biological Baseline Assessment MM BIO-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, field delineation for jurisdictional waters shall be conducted and, based on findings, permits and agreements shall be obtained as appropriate, from USACE, COFWand/or RWQCB. Note: in addition to the above measure, the conditions of approval will include two additional conditions: (recommends that MND include per CF&W protocols: an assessment of special status plants and communities; mapping and vegetation impact a) Drainage: the storm water runoff for the site shall be controlled and managed by implementing a drainage plan that utilizes energy dissipater and storage Commenter Date Recvd Environmental Questionnaire Checklist Section Comments Response assessment at project site and structure(s) appropriate for the scope of neighboring vicinity; assessment of bio development anticipated in the resources for each habitat type at project subdivision proposal, subject to review site and adjacent areas; assessment of and approval of the City Engineer. A rare, threatened and endangered and preliminary drainage design has been other sensitive species at project site and submitted to and approved in concept within an area of potential effect; and a by the City Engineer. The project shall wildlife and rare plant survey, recently also be in compliance with the City's done or with updates if needed.) Low Impact Development Ordinance. 5) Compensatory Mitigation: (recommends b) Landscaping: invasive and/or exotic that MND address for unavoidable plants shall be prohibited from being impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and planted per the landscaping plan habitats, including off -site mitigation if necessary) approved for the project development. 6) Nesting birds (recommends that certain 2,Sensitive Plants: construction activities be limited to MM 810-2: Prior to issuance of grading outside peak avian breeding season, or permit, a survey for sensitive plants shall /// ��� / �' between Feb 1 and Sept 1, and include measures for creating buffers if nests be conducted; sensitive plants shall be discovered. avoided during construction and as 7) Translocations/Salvage of Plants and g appropriate coordination shall be undertaken with USFW or CDFWS to Animals: (recommends avoiding this as a identify further measures.. primary mitigation strategy) .r 3.Sensitive Wildlife: 8) Moving out of Harm's Way: MM B10-3: Clearing of vegetation and (recommends for all special status construction shall occur outside of peak species or wildlife of low mobility that a bird nesting season (Feb 1 — Sept1) with qualified biologist be commissioned to monitor construction during ground and habitat disturbing activities to ensure regular surveys conducted and as needed, buffer areas shall be established. movement out of harm.) 4.Sensitive Wildlife: MM B10-4: Prior to grading permit, a survey for PV Blue Butterfly habitat shall be conducted and if present, additional measures shall be required. Commenter Date Recvd Environmental Questionnaire Checklist Section Comments Response 4-3 5. Sensitive Wildlife: MM B/0-5: A complete protocol -level field survey for coastal Califomia gnatcatcher shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and suitable habitat area required by the species shall be mapped and if species determined present, USFWS shall be contacted to determine appropriate actions. 6. Sensitive Wildlife: MM 810-6: If construction including grading, equipment and material transport and vegetation trimming or removal occurs Between Oct 1— Feb 28, a survey shall be conducted for wintering aggregations of monarch butterflies by a qualified biologist at least 14 days before construction, and if found, further mitigation measures are required including establishment of 100 foot buffer area, and if species listed as threatened pursuant to ESA (Endangered Species Act) prior to project completion, the USFWS shall be contacted prior to conducting activities that may impact monarch butterflies. Los Angeles County Fire Department Author: Kevin T. Johnson, Acting Chief, Forestry Div. Prevention Services Bureau 1/07/15 VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (h) XIII. Public Services (a) (Pg. 22) Comments and suggestions for COAs received from Land Development Unit and Forestry Div; All comments standard with respect to residential development, and requirements applicable by fire codes. City to include all suggested requirements into the conditions of approval for the project tentative subdivision map. See Initial Study explanation, pages 21-22. Commenter Date Recvd Environmental Questionnaire Checklist Section Comments Response Craig & Hanne Ekberg 35 Crest Rd. E. 12/18/14 (email) IX. Land Use Registered objection that subdividing the property not in best interest of surrounding property owners and will devalue existing homes. See Initial Study explanation pages 21, 22, 23. Proposed density is compliant with City Zoning Ordinance/General Plan. Renee Martin 22 Crest Road 12/23/14 letter & email IX. Land Use Registered objection that subdividing the property not in best interest of community in that will devalue existing homes in the immediate area. See above response. Brent & Marie Stevens 29 Crest Rd. E. 12/16/14 (email) IX. Land Use Registered objection that subdividing the property will adversely affect property values in neighborhood and along Crest Road. See above response. Charles Raine 4 Pinto Rd. C 1/20/15 PC Field Trip & Public Hearing. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality c, d, e Concern regarding drainage into "Little Klondike Canyon" into which the project site drains and possibility of mudflows created as a result of the project to other properties. The conditions of approval will include a requirement that the drainage plan for the project development shall be designed to include energy dissipater and storage structure(s) such that, based on the scope of development anticipated in the subdivision proposal, the runoff flow rate on the site shall be restricted to pre - development conditions and shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and in compliance with the City's Low Impact Development Ordinance. John Mackenbach 56 Portuguese Bend Rd. 1/20/15 PC Field Trip & Public Hearing. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality c,d,e Concern regarding drainage into "Little Klondike Canyon" into which the project site drains and possibility of mudflows created as a result of the project to other properties. See above response. Additions to Draft Initial Study: 23 Crest Road E. Zoning Case 869/ Subdivision Case 94 (VTPM 72775) April 13, 2015 Initial Study Section Information Source/Issue Change Made to Initial Study IV. Biological SWCA Biological Resources Pgs.17 — 18. Item IV. Biological Resources, explanations of "LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Resources (a) Assessment Report, February 2015 WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATION" Section D. is revised to include the following: (b) (d) (Pgs. 17- Issues: Jurisdictional Waters and "Pursuant to a Biological Resources Assessment Report dated February, 2015 by SWCA 19) Riparian Habitats; Protection of Environmental Consultants, six Mitigation Measures are recommended to be incorporated into the sensitive plants and wildlife subject project, as summarized below (See MMRP - Mitigation Measure Reporting Program - for detailed descriptions) 1.Jurisdictional Waters/Riparian Habitats - MM BIO-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant or successor in interest shall conduct a field delineation for jurisdictional waters and, based on findings, permits and agreements shall be obtained as appropriate, from USACE, CDFW and/or RWQCB. 2.Sensitive Plants: MM B10-2: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant or successor in interest shall conduct a survey for sensitive plants and sensitive plants. if any, shall be avoided during construction and as appropriate, coordination shall be undertaken with USFW or CDFWS to identify further measures. 3.Sensitive Wildlife: MM B10-3: Clearing of vegetation and construction shall occur outside of peak bird nesting season (Feb 1 — Sept 1) with regular surveys conducted and as needed, buffer areas shall be established. 4.Sensitive Wildlife: MM BIO-4: Prior to grading permit, the applicant or successor in interest shall conduct a survey for PV Blue Butterfly habitat and if found present, additional measures shall be required. 5. Sensitive Wildlife: MM B10-5: Prior to grading permit, the applicant or successor in interest shall conduct a complete protocol -level field survey for coastal California gnatcatcher by a qualified biologist and suitable habitat area required by the species shall be mapped and if species determined present, USFWS shall be contacted to determine appropriate actions. 6. Sensitive Wildlife: MM B10-6: If construction including grading, equipment and material transport and vegetation trimming or removal occurs Between Oct 1 — Feb 28, a survey shall be conducted for wintering aggregations of monarch butterflies by a qualified biologist at least 14 days before construction, and if found, further mitigation measures are required including establishment of 100 ZC 852 / Subdiv. 93 Draft Initial Study Corrections and Additions 1/12/15 Initial Study Section Information Source/Issue Change Made to Initial Study foot buffer area, and if species listed as threatened pursuant to ESA (Endangered Species Act) prior to project completion, the USFWS shall be contacted prior to conducting activities that may impact monarch butterflies. Letter from CA Dept. Fish and In addition to the above mitigation measures, the following condition is recommended by California Wildlife 1/15/15 Issue: protection Dept of Fish and Wildlife: of biological habitats "Landscaping: invasive and/or exotic plants shall be prohibited from being planted per the landscaping plan approved for the project development. " VIII. Hydrology Preliminary Design of project Pg. 22 add the following to the explanation of "LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT": and Water drainage system and facilities and "A preliminary design of a drainage plan has been submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the Quality (Pg. 22) City Engineer Review thereof. City Engineer. The following condition is recommended to be imposed on the project pursuant to Issue: potential erosion in Klondike preliminary approval of the submitted plan: Canyon and nearby area, post The storm water runoff for the site shall be controlled and managed by implementing a drainage plan —1 development due to storm water that utilizes energy dissipater and storage structure(s) appropriate for the scope of development runoff anticipated in the subdivision proposal, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. A preliminary drainage design has been submitted to and approved in concept by the City Engineer. The project shall also be in compliance with the City's Low Impact Development Ordinance." ZC 852 / Subdiv. 93 Draft Initial Study Corrections and Additions 1/12/15 2 city ogee/in, ii/II INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 SENT TO THE ATTACHED LIST: December 4, 2014 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 3771521 FM: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING A REQUEST FOR A TWO - LOT SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS. Dear Interested Party/Agency: Enclosed please find a Notice of Public Hearing and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding the following project: ZONING CASE NO. 869, SUBDIVISION NO. 94, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72775, a request to subdivide an existing lot totaling 7.05 acres gross into 2 parcels as follows: Parcel 1: 3.70 gross acres, 3.0 net acres Parcel 2: 3.34 gross acres, 2.67 net acres. The property is currently vacant and is located on the south side of Crest Road East, between 17 Crest Road E. and 29 Crest Road E. (Lot 32 -A -MS), Parcel No.: 7567-011-020 in the RA -S-2 Zone, Residential Agricultural - Suburban 2 -Acre minimum net lot area, to be implemented by Mr. Jim Hynes. Staff has prepared an Initial Study evaluating potential environmental impacts, concluding that the proposed amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment with mitigation measures. Accordingly, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Please review and direct all written comments to the City of Rolling Hills by January 5, 2015. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (310) 377-1521 or by email at ys@cityofrh.net. Si rely, oX to Schwartz Pl ing Director ® Printed on Recycled Poper Gary Sugano, Planning Director City of Lomita 24300 Narbonne Avenue Lomita, CA 90717 Sheri Repp-Loadsman, Planning and Building Director City of Palos Verdes Estates 340 Palos Verdes Drive West Palos Verdes Est., CA 90274 Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Manager, South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region 320 W. 4d' Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90013 So. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Agency 21865 E. Copley Dr. Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 Attn: Environmental Review Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 761 Terminal St., Bldg 1 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Environmental Reviews 900 South Fremont Avenue Alhambra, CA 91803-1331 Los Angeles County Clerk Environmental Filing Dept. 12400 Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 Jeff Gibson, Planning Director City of Torrance 3031 Torrance Blvd. Torrance, CA 90503 Joel Rojas, Planning Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dr. Don Austin, Superintendent PVPUSD 375 Via Almar Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 L.A. County Fire Department Environmental Reviews 1320 N. Eastern Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90063 Amanda Jorgensen, Executive Director California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite #1 Sacramento, CA 95816-5113 Henry Wind, District Manager California Water Service Company 2632 W. 237th Street Torrance, CA 90505-5272 4 -NOD only + $75 check for posting public: EWA:LABELS:23 Crest Road East Subdivision 5160.do Environmental Planning Los Angeles County Regional Planning 320 W. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 David Wahba, Planning Director City of Rolling Hills Estates 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Reference Desk Peninsula Center Library 701 Silver Spur Road Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Mr. Marvin Jackmon, Region Manager Southern California Edison 505 Maple Street Torrance, CA 90503 Ms. Marcella Low Southern California Gas Company 2929 182nd Street Redondo Beach, CA 90278 SCAG Intergovernmental Review 818 W. Seventh Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 SENT TO THE ATTACHED LIST: City 0/R20dtiny filth INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 NOTICE OF A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills will hold a Public Hearing at 6:30 PM on Tuesday, December 16, 2014 in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA to consider and receive public input regarding the following: ZONING CASE NO. 869, SUBDIVISION NO. 94, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72775, a request to subdivide an existing lot totaling 7.05 acres gross into 2 parcels as follows: Parcel 1: 3.70 gross acres, 3.0 net acres Parcel 2: 3.34 gross acres, 2.67 net acres. The property is currently vacant and is located on the south side of Crest Road East, between 17 Crest Road E. and 29 Crest Road E. (Lot 32 -A -MS), Parcel No.: 7567-011-020 in the RA -S-2 Zone, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2 -Acre minimum net lot area, to be implemented by Mr. Jim Hynes. Additional public hearing including a field visit before the Planning Commission is expected to occur on January 20, 2015, for the subject project at which time the Planning Commission MAY take action on this project. Any interested person is advised to contact the City at (310) 377-1521 after December 16 to confirm the January 20th date for the second public hearing and a field visit. Following the Planning Commission recommendation, members of the Rolling Hills City Council will reivew the project and render a final decision in this case. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, the Planning Department staff has reviewed and analyzed the project. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND CONDITIONS, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WITH APPLICABLE MITIGATED MEASURES AND THE CITY PREPARED A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. A period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of this notice will be provided to enable public review of the proposed subdivision and pertinent documents prior to the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration by the Lead Agency. PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS BY JANUARY 5, 2015 or you may attend the public hearings and provide input. A copy of the proposed subdivision project, Initial Study, and :5 Printed on Recycled Paper the Determination are on file in the office of The City of Rolling Hills Planning Department, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 and any person is welcome to review the proposed subdivision prior to the public hearing during regular working hours, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. If you challenge the approval or denial of the proposed subdivision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Rolling Hills at, or prior to, the public hearing. To receive a copy of the Initial Study, to learn about subsequent meetings in this case including a field visit to the site or for additional information, please contact the City of Rolli g Hills Planning Department at (310) 377-1521 or by e-mail at ys@cityofrh.net. nta Schwartz, Pla g Director ublished in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on December 4, 2014. 1 N Duty e/ Sane., gilla .7.4 is rev ac A 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 TITLE VICINITY MAP APPLICANT Jim Hynes CASE NO. ZONING CASE NO. 869, Subdivision No. 94 TPM No. 72775 ADDRESS Vacant lot on Crest Road East (between 17 and 29 Crest Road East) SITE THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK �: ' `.: �� WI youeMendring j ^,r Engineering mach November 15, 2014 City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 �� . p Uzi 7� .#s DEC 01 2014 City of Rolling Hills Ms. Yolanta Schwartz By Subject: Parcel Map 72775, 23 Crest Road East Dear Ms. Schwartz: Willdan has completed its review of Parcel Map No. 72775, a proposed two lot division located at 23 crest Road East. I have distributed the soils reports to Willdan Geotechnical and they have reviewed the reports for the Subdivision of the land and deep disposal of the sewerage. I have not been in contact with the HealthOfficerbut the disposal report has been reviewed. Attached with this letter please find my proposed conditions, Fire Department recommended conditions of approval with the authorization to proceed to the Planning Commission. The proposed two lot subdivision appears to meet all Fire Department requirements. Willdan Engineering Elroy L Kiepke Consultant Engineering and Planning 1 Energy Efficiency and Sustainability 1 Financial and Economic Consulting 1 National Preparedness and Interoperability 562.908.6200 1 800.499.4484 1 fax: 562.695.2120 1 13191 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 405. Industry, California 91746-3443 1 www.willdan.com Page 1 MEMORANDUM To: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director From: Elroy Kiepke, Consultant Date: October 6, 2014 Re: TENTATIVE MAP NO. 72775 As requested I have reviewed the above referenced map and have no objections to its submittal to the Planning Commission. The following conditions of approval shall be included in any conditional approval resolution adopted by the Commission. GENERA 1. Details shown on the tentative map are not necessarily approved. Any details, which are inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City policies, must be specifically approved in the final map or improvement plan approvals. FINAL MAP 2. A final map prepared by, or under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying, or a Licensed Land Surveyor, must be processed through the City Engineer's office prior to being filed with the County Recorder. 3. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final tract/parcel map is released for filing with the County Recorder. 4. Monumentation of map boundaries, street centerline and lot boundaries is required for a map based on a field survey. 13iLt Page 2 5. Comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 6. Approval for filing of this land division is contingent upon approval of plans and specifications mentioned below. If the improvements are not installed prior to the filing of this division, the developer must submit an Undertaking Agreement and a Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bond in the amount estimated by the City Engineer guaranteeing the installation of the improvements. 7. The City reserves the right to impose any new plan check and/or permit fees approved by City Council subsequent to tentative approval of this map. DRAINAGE AND GRADING 8. A grading and drainage plan must provide for each lot having an independent drainage system to the public street, to a public drainage facility, or by means of an approved drainage easement. This property as currently laid out drains to a private driveway serving homes below. It is unlikely that an easement exists for an increase in drainage, so under California drainage Law approval from the downhill neighbors should be obtained. ROAD 9. Developer shall obtain approval from the Home Owners Association for the proposed Access driveways constructed within the HOA road easement. The driveways, as proposed, limit the ability of the HOA to fully use its roadway easement. 10. Developer shall obtain approval from the HOA for damage cause to Crest Road as a result of this subdivision. HOA approval shall be obtained prior to the start of and grading or construction on this property. SEWER 11. Approval of this subdivision is contingent on the Health Officer approving the use of a private sewerage disposal system for each lot of the subdivision. Approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation of the subdivision. UTILITIES 12. Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. tJ Page 3 WATER 13. All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities, which shall include fire hydrants of the size, type and location as determined by the Fire Chief. 14. The water mains shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flow required for the land division. The Fire Chief has established that the subdivision shall have a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of 2 hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. Califomia Water Company has submitted a certificate stating that the Fire Flow is available. 15. Prior to the filing of the final map, there shall also be filed with the City Engineer, a statement from the water purveyor indicating subdivider compliance with the Fire Chief's fire flow requirements. LID REQUIREMENTS The City of Rolling Hills is regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region by Order R4-2012-0175. As required by this Order, the City has adopted Chapter 8.32 to establish development standards for maintaining the Water Quality of storm water and non -storm water discharges from the City. This project is subject to the LID provisions because: 1. It is a "single family hillside residential development" 2. It is a "new Development that is adjacent to or discharges directly to an ESA and creates 2,500 sq. ft. of impervious coverage. 16. Based on this determination development of these two lots shall comply with section 8.32 of the Rolling Hills Municipal code. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT 5823 Rickenbacker Road Commerce, Califomia 90040 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISIONS - INCORPORATED Subdivision No: PM 72775 23 Crest Road East C.U.P. 0 0 0 0 Map Date September 22, 2014 City Rolling Hills FIRE DEPARTMENT HOLD on the tentative map shall remain until verification from the Los Angeles County Fire Dept. Planning Section is received, stating adequacy of service. Contact (323) 881-2404. Access shall comply with Section 503 of the Fire Code, which requires all weather access. All weather access may require paving. Fire Department Access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior portion of all structures. Where driveways extend further than 150 feet and are of single access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure their integrity for Fire Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways that extend over 150 feet in length. Private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "Private Driveway and Firelane" with the widths clearly depicted and shall be maintained in accordance with the Fire Code. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all required fire hydrants. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. This property is located within the area described by the Fire Department as "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" (formerly Fire Zone 4). A "Fuel Modification Plan" shall be submitted and approved prior to final map clearance. (Contact the Fuel Modification Unit, Fire Station #32, 605 North Angeleno Avenue, Azusa, CA 91702-2904, Phone (626) 969-5205, for details). Provide Fire Department or City approved street signs and building access numbers prior to occupancy. Additional fire protection systems shall be installed in lieu of suitable access and/or fire protection water. The final concept map, which has been submitted to this department for review, has fulfilled the conditions of approval recommended by this department for access only. These conditions shall be secured by a C.U.P. and/or Covenant and Agreement approved by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department prior to final map clearance. The Fire Department, Land Development Unit has no additional requirements for this division of land at this time. Additional Fire Department requirements will be required when this land is further subdivided and/or during the building permit process. Comments: This project as submitted is cleared for public hearine. Submit three copies of the final map to LACoFD, Land Development for review and approval prior to recordation. INSPECTOR .NancyRvdi/y jfr DATE September 26, 2014 Land Development Unit —Fire Prevention Division — (323) 890.4243, Fax (323) 890-9783 Form 266 9/01 cs2) Subdivision No: PM 72775 23 Crest Road East Revised COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT 5823 Rickenbacker Road Commerce, Califomia 90040 WATER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS — INCORPORATED Map Date September 22, 2014 City Rolling Hills • Provide water mains, fire hydrants and fire flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, for all land shown on map which shall be recorded. • The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 1500 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of 2 hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. 2 Hydrant(s) flowing simnitanemisly may he used to achieve the required fire flow. O The required fire flow for on -site fire hydrants at this location is _ gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. _ I Iydrant(s) flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow O Fire hydrant requirements are as follows: Install _ public fire hydrant(s). Upgrade _ Verify (flow test) _ existing Public fire hydrant(s). Install _ private on -site fire hydrant(s). Upgrade _ Verify (flow test) _ existing On -Site fire hydrant(s). O All hydrants shall measure 6"x 4"x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal. All on -site hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25' feet from a structure or protected by a two (2) hour rated firewall. ❑ Location: As per map on file with the office. ❑ Other location: ® All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted or bonded for prior to Final Map approval. Vehicular access shall be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. ❑ The County of Los Angeles Fire Department is not setting requirements for water mains, fire hydrants and fire flows as a condition of approval for this division of land as presently zoned and/or submitted. ® Additional water system requirements may be required when this land is further subdivided and/or during the building permit process. O Hydrants and fire flows are adequate to meet current Fire Department requirements. ❑ Fire hydrant upgrade is not necessary if existing hydrant(s) meet(s) fire flow requirements. Submit original water availability form to this office. ❑ SUBMIT COMPLETED (ORIGINAL ONLY) FIRE FLOW AVAILABILITY FORM TO THIS OFFICE FOR REVIEW. COMMENTS: Per the completed Fire Flow Form #196 dated 08/22/2014, California Water Company, adequate fire flow is indicated. All hydrants shall be installed in conformance with Title 20, County of Los Angeles Government Code and County of Los Angeles Fire Code, or appropriate City regulations. This shall include minimum six-inch diameter mains. Arrangements to meet these requirements must be made with the water purveyor serving the area. By Inspector .Nancy Rode heifer Date September 26, 2014 Land Development Unit — Fire Prevention Division — (323) 890-4243, Fax (323) 890-9783 WILLDAN (Wending Geotechnical mach October 23, 2013 Project No: 101749-2010 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REVIEW Submitted to: Elroy Kiepke, Willdan Engineering 13191 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 405 Industry, California 91746 Project Location: Report Reviewed: Review Level: Review Status: Review Comments #23 Crest Road East, City of Rolling Hills, California "Report of Deep Seepage Pit Percolation Testing, Tentative Parcel Map 72775 Lots 1 & 2, APN 7567-001-020, Tentatively 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California" Dated May 29, 2014, prepared by Hamilton and Associates. Project No. 13-1672 "Geotechnical Engineering Geology Investigation Report, Proposed Residential Development, APN 7567-011-020, Tentatively 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California" Dated July 19, 2013, prepared by Hamilton and Associates. Project No. 13-1672 Feasibility for Subdivision and On -Site Sewage Disposal The proposed Subdivision and On -site Seepage Pit is APPROVED from Geotechnical View point subject to following conditions: 1. The final review of the report addressing findings, conclusions, and recommendations will be performed once a grading plan and an updated report is submitted. This review was performed in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering principles and practice in Southern California at this time. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. Conclusions presented herein are based on review of work by others. No field exploration or laboratory testing was performed. Please contact us if you have questions or need additional services. Respectfully Submitted Respectfully submitted, WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL Ross Khiabani, PE, GE Director of Geotechnical Engineering Services C 37156, GE 2202 R ffBJ:fi i titea 16,, NOV 2 6 2014 City of Rolling Hills Engineering 1 Geotechnical 1 Environmental 1 Sustainability 1 Financial 1 Homeland Security Phone 714.634.3318 1 fax: 714.634.3372 1 1515 South Sunkist Street, Suite E, Anaheim, CA 92806 1 www.wiIIdan.com Distribution: Addressee (via e-mail) Renee Martin 22 Grest Road East Rolling Hips, California 90274 'da December 23, 2014 Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director City of Rolling Hills • No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 DEC 2 1., 4%2, City et rsoii ng RE: ZONING CASE NO. 869, SUBDIVISION NO. 94 Dear Yolanta and members of the Planning Commission, This letter is in response to the invitation to submit my written comments regarding the requested subdivision of Lot 32 -A -MS into two parcels. As a Rolling Hills homeowner, I agree that property owners on Crest Road have the right to improve their properties and create the most value possible for themselves. However, I am very concerned about the proposal to permit, the subdivision of this parcel for the following reasons. Crest Road is a very prominent, highly visible, and well -travelled street in the city, especially for people seeing the city for the first time. The original parcels on Crest Road, as on Portuguese Bend Road, have been larger and more visible and they set a tone for the rest of the city that this is a prestigious community. The homeowners on Crest Road gladly paid a premium for their parcels, • which were larger and higher priced than some of the other homes in the city. They did so with the belief that their homes would maintain their value because of their desirability and status. In my opinion, this has helped all of the residents in Rolling Hills because it maintains the image of a distinguished community. 073 I think that the question that needs to be raised by the Planning Commission is, 'Do we want to turn Crest Road into something that more resembles a tract development?" I think my immediate neighbors especially need to prepare for the real possibility that if the subdivision succeeds, their own homes will suffer in value because of what would be a significant change in appearance of this beautiful street. I am of course especially worried because the property is right across from my home and it is visible from the street. Granting the ability to subdivide this parcel will be setting a precedent which will be dangerous at worst and regretful at the least. This could open a Pandora's Box because it will be very difficult to disallow other people who want to follow suit and divide up their properties as well. Down the line, this could de -value not only the homes on Crest Road but all homeowners' property values. I hope this letter will give you pause for reflection and will open up a discussion about the long-term effects of your decision. Renee Martin 310-544-8161 renee@martinliterary.com Thursday, December 18, 2014 9:35:08 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Subdivision Date: Thursday, December 18, 2014 8:41:13 AM Pacific Standard Time From: Hanne Ekberg <hannege@msn.com> To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> CC: Craig Ekberg <craigte@msn.com> Dear Yolanta, DEC 1 8 2014 City of Rolling Hills (i y. We would like to voice our opinion to the proposed subdivision between 17 Crest Rd. E. and 29 Crest Rd. E. We are highly against splitting the lot, it would not be in the best interest of the other homeowners surrounding this lot and would further devalue the existing homes. We disapprove of the proposed subdivision. Sincerely, Craig and Hanne Ekberg Page 1 of 1 Tuesday, December 16, 2014._.,2:50 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: The Vacant Lot Known as 23 Crest Road East Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 3:48:31 PM Pacific Standard Time From: John Schoenfeld <jalexanderco@earthlink.net> To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> Dear Yolanta, The Stevens (29 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills) have asked me to communicate their opposition to the proposed subdivision of subject property as they believe subdividing the property will adversely effect property values in the neighborhood in general and specifically along Crest Road. Yours truly, John A. Schoenfeld Owners Representative RECEIVED DEC 16 2014 City of Rolling Hills By Page 1 of 1 Hi Yolanta, Please provide the following to the city Council in regards to consideration of the Hynes subdivision. I'm in Texas right now and will not be able to attend the meeting. Thank you. I am writing this in regard to concerns that have been expressed by residents of the Flying Triangle and areas above that are affected by any runoff down Little Klondike Canyon. There are a number of issues for downhill residents that are a cause for concern. We have reached the point on past occasions where heavy rains have maxed out the capacity of the pipe under the Mackenbach/Agid/ Schaye shared driveway and also the pipe on RHCA deeded property that runs under the Pinto Road cul de sac. Should either of these back up or overflow there could be significant consequences for those properties affected. Between the shared driveway culvert and The Pinto Road culvert is a portion of Little Klondike Canyon that functions as a lateral "toe" of the landslide. The canyon bottom is full of dirt pushed into it by the landslide and this precludes water from running down the canyon most years. Normally, water from crest Road and adjacent properties runs down the canyon and saturates the area of the canyon that is full of slide debris -but does not evidence itself below. It has been over seven years since the canyon last ran through to the Pinto Road drain. When this does happen, it is not "clear" water that comes down, but instead heavy mudflow that includes all the saturated debris that in previous years has been filling the canyon. For those of us below, this is a ticking time bomb. Jim Hynes had Dan Bolton come up with a hydrology plan to try to solve this. The design he came up with would capture then slowly let out the water that is collected on the hard scape from the future homes of the proposed subdivision. Those of us below appreciate the effort. What I am asking the council to require is that as a condition of the subdivision approval, any subsequent improvements on the land will contribute zero added surface flow down Little Klondike Canyon, based at the very minimum on a 50 year storm. We simply cannot handle any added run off. Regards, Charlie Raine RECEIVbi JUN 082U5 City -1- Rolling Hills . THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK JACO THE-J:ALEXANDERCOMPANY, INC BUILDERS DEVELOPE:R9 carvvrnucznoN MANACSi£1 August 20, 2015 Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: 23 Crest Road East Dear Ms. Schwartz: 24255 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 102 Torrance, CA 90505 (310) 375-9731, Fax (310) 791-8270 www.jalexanderco.com license number 596199 RECEIVED AUG 2 0 2015 City of Rolling Hills By Brent and Annette Stevens are the owners of 29 Crest Road East which is the property next to and immediately east of subject property. I am writing on behalf of the Stevens who vigorously oppose the Hynes' proposed subdivision of 23 Crest Road East as subdividing the property would create lots that are wholly inconsistent with neighboring properties. More essential, such a subdivision along Crest Road is disruptive to the concept and heart of the Rolling Hills community as a whole. The Stevens hope the Council will agree with them and deny the subdivision of this property. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. Yours truly, 4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT 1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063-3294 DARYL L. OSBY FIRE CHIEF FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN January 5, 2015 Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director City of Rolling Hills Planning Department 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Ms. Schwartz: RECE V JAN 0 7 2015 City of Rolling Hills By NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, "TWO -LOT SUBDIVISION," ZONING CASE NO. 869, SUBDIVISION NO. 94 VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72775, TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING LOT TOTALING 7.05 ACRES GROSS INTO 2 PARCELS, THE LOT IS VACANT AND IS LOCATED SOUTH SIDE OF CREST ROAD EAST, ROLLING HILLS (FFER 201400238) The Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaration has been reviewed by the Planning Division, Land Development Unit, Forestry Division, and Health Hazardous Materials Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. The following are their comments: PLANNING DIVISION 1. We have no comments at this time. LAND DEVELOPMENT UNIT 1. The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit are to review and comment on all projects within the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles. Our emphasis is on the availability of sufficient water supplies for firefighting operations and SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: AGOURA HILLS CALABASAS ARTESIA CARSON AZUSA CERRITOS BALOVAN PARK CLAREMONT BELL COMMERCE BELL GARDENS COVINA BELLFLOWER CUDAHY BRADBURY DIAMOND BAR DUARTE EL MONTE GARDENA GLENDORA HAWAIIAN GARDENS HAWTHORNE HIDDEN HILLS HUNTINGTON PARK INDUSTRY INGLEWOOD IRWINDALE LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE LA HABRA LA MIRADA LA PUENTE LAKEWOOD LANCASTER LAWNDALE• LOMITA LYNWOOD MALIBU MAYWOOD NORWALK PALMDALE PALOS VERDES ESTATES PARAMOUNT PICO RIVERA POMONA RANCHO PALOS VERDES ROLLING HILLS ROLLING HILLS ESTATES ROSEMEAD SAN DIMAS SANTA CLARITA SIGNAL HILL SOUTH EL MONTE SOUTH GATE TEMPLE CITY WALNUT WEST HOLLYWOO WESTLAKE VILLAC WHITTIER Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director January 2, 2015 Page 2 local/regional access issues. However, we review all projects for issues that may have a significant impact on the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. We are responsible for the review of all projects within contract cities (cities that contract with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department for fire protection services). We are responsible for all County facilities located within non -contract cities. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit may also comment on conditions that may be imposed on a project by the Fire Prevention Division which may create a potentially significant impact to the environment. 2. The development of this project must complyy with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. 3. This property is located within the area described by the Forester and Fire Warden as a Fire Zone 4, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). All applicable fire code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire hydrants, fire flows, brush clearance, and fuel modification plans must be met. 4. Every building constructed shall be accessible to the Fire Department's apparatus by way of access roadways with an all-weather surface of not less than the prescribed width. The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. 5. The maximum allowable grade shall not exceed 15% except where topography makes it impractical to keep within such grade. In such cases, an absolute maximum of 20% will be allowed for up to 150 feet in distance. The average maximum allowed grade including topographical difficulties, shall be no more than 17%. Grade breaks shall not exceed 10% in ten feet. 6. When involved with subdivision in a city contracting fire protection with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, the Fire Department's requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the subdivision tentative map stage. 7. Fire sprinkler systems are required in some residential and most commercial occupancies. For those occupancies not requiring fire sprinkler systems, it is strongly suggested that fire sprinkler systems be installed. This will reduce potential fire and life losses. Systems are now technically and economically feasible for residential use. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director January 2, 2015 Page 3 .8. Disruptions to water service shall be coordinated with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department and alternate water sources shall be provided for fire protection during such disruptions. 9. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit's comments are general requirements. Specific fire and life safety requirements and conditions set during the environmental review process will be addressed and conditions set at the building and fire plan check phase. Once the official plans are submitted for review there may be additional requirements. 10. Submit three sets of water plans to the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit. The plans must show all proposed changes to the fire protection water system such as fire hydrant locations and main sizes. The plans shall be submitted through the local water company. 11. The Fire Prevention Division's, Land Development Unit has no additional comments regarding this project. The conditions that were addressed in the Tentative Tract Map 72775 submittal for review, dated September 26, 2014, have not been changed at this time. 12. Should any questions arise regarding subdivision, water systems, or access, please contact the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Units Inspector Nancy Rodeheffer at (323) 890-4243. 13. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. FORESTRY DIVISION — OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 1. The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry Division include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones or Fire Zone 4, archeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. 2. This property is located in an area described by the Forester and Fire Warden as being in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The development of this project must comply with all Fire Hazard severity Zone code and ordinance requirements for fuel modification. Specific questions regarding fuel modification requirements should be directed to the Fuel Modification Office at (626) 969-5205. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director January 2, 2015 Page 4 HEALTH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION 1. The Health Hazardous Materials Division has no objection to the proposed project. If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (323) 890-4330. Very truly yours, KEVIN T. JOHNSON, ACTING CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION SERVICES BUREAU KJ:ad Enclosure NIA. WILDLIFE. State of California - Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov January 15, 2015 EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director /L, ao,< via .e Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 YS@cityofrh.net Subject: Comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Zoning Case No. 869, Subdivision No. 94, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72775 Project, City of Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County Dear Ms. Schwartz: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has reviewed the above - referenced Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The project area is a vacant lot on the south side of Crest Road between Georgeff Road and Caballeros Road, in the City of Rolling Hills. The Project involves the subdivision of an existing 7.055 -acre lot into two parcels, parcel 1 (3.70 -acres), and parcel 2 (3.34 -acres), as well as the future development of two new homes and related grading. The following comments and recommendations have been prepared pursuant to the Department's authority as a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines section 15381 over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of the California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code § 2050 et seq.) and Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq., and pursuant to our authority as Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project (California Environmental Quality Act, [CEQA] Guidelines § 15386) to assist the Lead Agency in avoiding or minimizing potential project impacts on biological resources. Biological Resource Comments 1) Proiect Landscaping. The site currently contains both native and invasive/exotic vegetation, including the highly invasive Peruvian and/or Brazilian pepper trees (Schinus terebinthifolius or Schinus molle). The Department recommends invasive/exotic plants be restricted from . use in landscape plans for this Project. A list of invasive/exotic plants that should be avoided as well as suggestions for better landscape plants can be found at http://www.cal- ipc.org/landscaping/dpp/planttypes. php?region=socal. 2) Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements (LSA). As a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines section 15381, the Department has authority over activities in streams and/or lakes that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (including vegetation associated with the stream or lake) of a river or stream, or use material from a streambed. For any such activities, the project applicant (or "entity") must provide written notification to the Department pursuant to section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification and other information, the Department determines whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSA) with the applicant is required prior to Conserving California's Wildlife Since 1870 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills January 15, 2015 Page 2 of 5 conducting the proposed activities. The Department's issuance of a LSA for a project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by the Department as a Responsible Agency. As a Responsible Agency, the Department may consider the Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report of the local jurisdiction (Lead Agency) for the project. To minimize additional requirements by the Department pursuant to section 1600 et seq. and/or under CEQA, the document should fully identify the potential impacts to the stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the LSA.1 a) The project area supports aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitats; therefore, a preliminary jurisdictional delineation of the streams and their associated riparian habitats should be included in the MND. The delineation should be conducted pursuant to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetland definition adopted by the Department.2 Some wetland and riparian habitats subject to the Department's authority may extend beyond the jurisdictional limits of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Section 404 permit and Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 Certification. b) In project areas which may support ephemeral streams, herbaceous vegetation, woody vegetation, and woodlands also serve to protect the integrity of ephemeral channels and help maintain natural sedimentation processes; therefore, the Department recommends effective setbacks be established to maintain appropriately -sized vegetated buffer areas adjoining ephemeral drainages. c) Project -related changes in drainage patterns, runoff, and sedimentation should be included and evaluated in the environmental document. 3) Wetlands Resources. The Department, as described in Fish & Game Code § 703(a) is guided by the Fish and Game Commission's policies. The Wetlands Resources policy (http://www.fgc.ca.gov/policy/) of the Fish and Game Commission "...seek(s] to provide for the protection, preservation, restoration, enhancement and expansion of wetland habitat in California. Further, it is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission to strongly discourage development in or conversion of wetlands. It opposes, consistent with its legal authority, any development or conversion which would result in a reduction of wetland acreage or wetland habitat values. To that end, the Commission opposes wetland development proposals unless, at a minimum, project mitigation assures there will be "no net loss" of either wetland habitat values or acreage. The Commission strongly prefers mitigation which would achieve expansion of wetland acreage and enhancement of wetland habitat values". a) The Wetlands Resources policy provides a framework for maintaining wetland resources and establishes mitigation guidance. The Department encourages avoidance of wetland resources as a primary mitigation measure and discourages the development or type conversion of wetlands to uplands. The Department encourages activities that would avoid the reduction of wetland acreage, function, or habitat values. Once avoidance and minimization measures have been exhausted, the project must include mitigation 'A notification package for a LSA may be obtained by accessing the Department's web site at www.wildlife.ca.gov/habcon/1600. 2 Cowardin, Lewis M., et al. 1970. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills January 15, 2015 Page 3 of 5 measures to assure a "no net loss" of either wetland habitat values, or acreage, for unavoidable impacts to wetland resources. Conversions include, but are not limited to, conversion to subsurface drains, placement of fill or building of structures within the wetland, and channelization or removal of materials from the streambed. All wetlands and watercourses, whether ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial, should be retained and provided with substantial setbacks, which preserve the riparian and aquatic values and functions for the benefit to on -site and off -site wildlife populations. The Department recommends mitigation measures to compensate for unavoidable impacts be included in the MND and these measures should compensate for the loss of function and value. 4) Biological Baseline Assessment. To provide a complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, sensitive, regionally and locally unique species, and sensitive habitats, the MND should include the following information: a) a thorough, recent, floristic -based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, following the Department's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (see http://www. dfg.ca.gov/habcon/plant/); b) floristic, alliance- and/or association -based mapping and vegetation impact assessments conducted at the project site and within the neighboring vicinity. The Manual of Califomia Vegetation, second edition, should also be used to inform this mapping and assessment (Sawyer et al. 20083). Adjoining habitat areas should be included in this assessment where site activities could lead to direct or indirect impacts offsite. Habitat mapping at the alliance level will help establish baseline vegetation conditions; c) a complete, recent, assessment of the biological resources associated with each habitat type on site and within adjacent areas that could also be affected by the project. The Department's California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) in Sacramento should be contacted to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitat. The Department recommends that CNDDB Field Survey Forms be completed and submitted to CNDDB to document survey results. Online forms can be obtained and submitted at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/submitting_data_to_cnddb.asp d) a complete, recent assessment of rare, threatened, and endangered, and other sensitive species on site and within the area of potential effect, including California Species of Special Concern (CSSC) and California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code § 3511). Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition (see CEQA Guidelines § 15380). Seasonal variations in use of the project area should also be addressed. Focused species -specific surveys, conducted at the Sawyer, J. O., Keeler -Wolf, T., and Evens J.M. 2008. A manual of California Vegetation, 2n° ed. ISBN 978-0-943460-49-9. Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills January 15, 2015 Page 4 of 5 appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are required. Acceptable species -specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and, e) a recent, wildlife and rare plant survey. The Department generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one-year period, and assessments for rare plants may be considered valid for a period of up to three years. Some aspects of the proposed project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if build out could occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases. 5. Compensatory Mitigation. The MND should include mitigation measures for adverse project -related impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and habitats. Mitigation measures should emphasize avoidance and reduction of project impacts. For unavoidable impacts, on -site habitat restoration or enhancement should be discussed in detail. If on -site mitigation is not feasible or would not be biologically viable and therefore not adequately mitigate the loss of biological functions and values, off -site mitigation through habitat creation and/or acquisition and preservation in perpetuity should be addressed. 6. Nesting Birds. In order to avoid impacts to nesting birds, the MND should require that clearing of vegetation and construction occur outside of the peak avian breeding season, which generally runs from February 1st through September 1s' (as early as January 1 for some raptors). If project construction is necessary during the bird breeding season, a qualified biologist with experience in conducting bird breeding surveys should conduct weekly bird surveys for nesting birds within three days prior to the work in the area, and ensure that no nesting birds in the project area would be impacted by the project. If an active nest is identified, a buffer shall be established between the construction activities and the nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. The buffer should be a minimum width of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors), be delineated by temporary fencing, and remain in effect as long as construction is occurring or until the nest is no longer active. No project construction shall occur within the fenced nest zone until the young have fledged, are no longer being fed by the parents, have left the nest, and will no longer be impacted by the project. Reductions in the nest buffer distance may be appropriate depending on the avian species involved, ambient levels of human activity, screening vegetation, or possibly other factors. 7. Translocation/Salvaqe of Plants and Animal Species. Translocation and transplantation is the process of moving an individual from the project site and permanently moving it to a new location. The Department generally does not support the use of, translocation or transplantation as the primary mitigation strategy for unavoidable impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species. Studies have shown that these efforts are experimental and the outcome unreliable. The Department has found that permanent preservation and management of habitat capable of supporting these species is often a more effective long-term strategy for conserving sensitive plants and animals, and their habitats. 8. Moving out of Harm's Way. The proposed project is anticipated to result in clearing of natural habitats that support many species of indigenous wildlife. To avoid direct mortality, the Department recommends a qualified biological monitor approved by the Department be Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills January 15, 2015 Page 5 of 5 on site prior to and during ground and habitat disturbing activities to move out of harm's way special status species or other wildlife of low mobility that would be injured or killed by grubbing or project -related construction activities. It should be noted that the temporary relocation of on -site wildlife does not constitute effective mitigation for the purposes of offsetting project impacts associated with habitat loss. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments. Please contact Ms. Kelly Schmoker, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) at Kelly.Schmoker@wildlife.ca.gov or (949) 581-1015 if you should have any questions and for further coordination on the proposed project. Sincerely, . 9 Cat-ai ed Betty J. Courtney Environmental Program Manager I South Coast Region ec: Ms. Erinn Wilson, CDFW, Los Alamitos Ms. Victoria Chau, CDFW, Los Alamitos Ms. Sarah Rains, CDFW, Ventura Mr. Scott Harris, CDFW, Pasadena Mr. Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Sound Science. Creative Solutions' Biological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Subdivision of 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Prepared for City of Rolling Hills Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants February 2015 • 44111 ifen; -e Biological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Subdivision of 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Prepared for: City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Prepared by: SWCA Environmental Consultants 150 South Arroyo Parkway, Second Floor Pasadena, California 91105 626.240.0587 February 2015 Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1 2 Regulatory Background 2 2.1 Federal Regulations 2 2.2 State Regulations 4 3 Methods 7 3.1 Literature and Database Search 7 3.2 Field Survey 7 3.3 Definition of Sensitive Species 8 4 Results 8 4.1 Literature and Database Search 8 4.2 Field Survey 12 5 Discussion and Recommendations 15 6 Literature Cited 20 FIGURES Figure 1 Streams near the proposed project property mapped by the US Geological Survey 10 Figure 2 Critical habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher near the proposed project property 11 Figure 3 Plant communities and cover types at the proposed project property 13 APPENDICES Appendix A Letter from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to the City of Rolling Hills Appendix B Sensitive species with potential to occur in the vicinity of the proposed project Appendix C Selected Photographs Appendix D Plant and Wildlife Compendia Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA 1 INTRODUCTION SWCA Environmental Consulting, Inc. was retained by the Hynes Family Trust to conduct a biological resources assessment in support of an initial study for the proposed subdivision of 23 Crest Road East (proposed project) in the City of Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California (the City). The proposed project would subdivide the property into two parcels, to allow for the eventual construction of two residences, one per parcel. The area around the proposed project property is heavily developed, as is the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula. The four peninsula cities of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Palos Verde Estates are home to approximately 65,000 residents as of the 2010 census, which equates to a population density of 2,617 residents per square mile. The proposed project property, which is approximately seven acres in area, is located in the west -central portion of the peninsula, with elevations at the property ranging from approximately 1,125 feet to 1,340 feet (340 to 410 meters) above mean sea level. SWCA conducted a literature review and field survey to evaluate the biological resources present, and potentially present, at the proposed project property. This report describes the methods and results of the biological resources assessment conducted for the proposed project property. The information in this report may be used to support the preparation of environmental documentation for the proposed project, to inform'siting and -design of the residences that may=be-builtmay=be-built as a result of the=proposed project implementation, and to inform avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for the proposed project. Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA 2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND The implementation of the proposed project may require actions to mitigate for impacts that would, or could result from development under the Plan. The following discussion reviews federal, state and local laws, regulations and policies relating to listed and endangered plants and wildlife, migratory and nesting birds, environmental quality, and lake and/or stream bed alteration that may be applicable to the proposed project. 2.1 Federal Regulations 2.1.1 Clean Water Act Section 404 (33 USC 1344 et seq.) Under provisions of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) administers the day-to-day activities required by Section 404. These include the individual permit decisions, jurisdictional determinations, developing policy and guidance, and enforcing provisions of Section 404. The USACE asserts jurisdiction over the following categories of water bodies, or "waters of the United States:" traditional navigable waters (TNW); all wetlands adjacent to TNW; non -navigable tributaries of TNW that are relatively permanent (i.e., tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally); and wetlands that directly abut such tributaries. In addition, the USACE may assert jurisdiction over every water body that is not a Relatively Permanent Water Body (RPW) if that water body is determined (on the basis of a fact -specific analysis) to have a significant nexus with a TNW. Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the CWA, the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with EPA (328.3 (a)(8) added 58 FR 45035, August 25, 1993). Section 404 of the Clean Water Act prohibits discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States" without a permit. Small-scale projects with minimal impacts may be authorized by nationwide permits, which have an expedited process compared with the individual permit process. Mitigation of wetland impacts is required as a condition of the Section 404 permit and may include preservation, restoration, or enhancement within the study area and/or off -site restoration or enhancement. The characteristics of restored or enhanced wetlands must be equal to or better than those of affected wetlands to achieve no net loss of wetlands values. Section 401 (33 U.S.C. 1341) Any applicant for a Federal license or permit (including a 404 permit) to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge originates or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates or will originate, that any 2 FI 01 3� Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of this title. Thus, Section 401 of the Clean Water Act is administered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under the Porter -Cologne Water Act 2.1.2 Federal Endangered Species Act Applicants for projects that could result in adverse impacts to any federally listed species are required to mitigate potential impacts in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 USC 153 et seq.). Adverse impacts, defined as "take," are prohibited except under authorization through Section 7 or Section 10 consultation, and Incidental Take Authorization. ESA authorizes the USFWS to issue permits under Sections 7 and 10 of the ESA. Section 7 mandates that all federal agencies consult with the USFWS for terrestrial species (and/or National Marine Fisheries Service for marine species) to ensure that federal agency actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify critical habitat for listed species. Any anticipated adverse effects require preparation of a biological assessment to determine potential effects of the project on listed species and critical habitat. If the project adversely affects a listed species or its habitat, the USFWS or NMFS prepares a Biological Opinion (BO). The BO may recommend "reasonable and prudent alternatives" to the project to avoid jeopardizing or adversely modifying habitat including "take" limits. Mitigation is required for adverse impacts to any listed species or candidate species proposed for listing. Take, under federal definition, currently includes actions that could result in "significant habitat modification or degradation" (50 CFR Section 17.3). Section 10(a)(1)(B) authorizes issuance of permits to allow "incidental take" of listed species. "Incidental take" is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not for the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. To obtain an incidental take permit, an applicant must submit a Habitat Conservation Plan outlining steps to minimize and mitigate permitted take impacts to listed species. In addition to species listed as threatened or endangered, the USFWS categories species that are not listed, but which may become listed, into two classes: candidate species, and proposed species. Candidate species are those that are undergoing a status review as announced in a Federal Register notice, whether or not the species is the subject of a petition. Proposed species are candidate species that warrant listing as either threatened or endangered and that are officially proposed as such in a Federal Register notice after the completion of a status review and consideration of other protective conservation measures. Proposed and candidate species are not protected under ESA. However, the USFWS advises project applicants that candidate species could be elevated to listed status at any time, and should be regarded as species with special consideration. 2.1.3 USFWS-designated Critical Habitat Section 4 of the ESA establishes critical habitat, which is a regulatory link between habitat protection and recovery goals, requiring the identification and protection of all lands, water and air necessary to recover endangered species. To determine what exactly is critical 3 ef Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA habitat, the needs of open space for individual and population growth, food, water, light or other nutritional requirements, breeding sites, seed germination and dispersal needs, and lack of disturbances are considered. Within areas of mapped critical habitat, areas that do not support the primary constituent elements necessary to support the species are normally excluded, as they do not meet the definition of critical habitat. As habitat loss is the primary threat to most imperiled species, the ESA allowed the USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to designate specific areas as protected "critical habitat" zones. In 1978, Congress amended the law to make critical habitat designation mandatory for all threatened and endangered species. Activities that involve a federal action, which may include a federal permit, license, or funding, are required to consider critical habitat that may be affected. For such projects efforts must be made to avoid and minimize adverse modification of critical habitat. For projects that do not involve a federal action, such as those occurring on private lands that do not obtain permits or funding from a federal agency, critical habitat can be modified without violating the ESA. 2.1.4 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Raptors (birds of prey), migratory birds, and other avian species are protected by a number of state and federal laws. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC 703-711) makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship, import, or export any migratory bird, including feathers, parts, nests, or eggs, except in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Interior. The Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 further defined species protected under the act and excluded all nonnative species. The statute was extended in 1974 to include parts of birds, as well as eggs and nests. The MBTA protects most native wild birds found in the United States. These species are managed separately by each state. Activities that result in removal or destruction of an active nest (a nest with eggs or young being attended by one or more adults) would violate the MBTA. Removal of unoccupied nests, or bird mortality resulting indirectly from disturbance activities, is not considered a violation of the MBTA. 2.1.5 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668-668c), enacted in 1940, and amended several times since then, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), including their parts, nests, or eggs. In 1962, Congress amended the act to cover golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos). 2.2 State Regulations 2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 et seq.). CESA prohibits the "taking" of listed species except as otherwise provided in State law. Section 86 of California Fish and Game Code defines "take" as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." Under certain Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA circumstances, CESA applies these take prohibitions to species petitioned for listing (state candidates). Pursuant to the requirements of CESA, State lead agencies (as defined under CEQA Public Resources Code Section 21067) are required to consult with CDFW to ensure that any action or project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in destruction or adverse modification of essential habitat. Additionally, the CDFW encourages informal consultation on any proposed project that may impact a candidate species. CESA requires the CDFW to maintain a list of threatened and endangered species. The CDFW also maintains a list of candidates for listing under CESA and of species of special concern (or watch list species). 2.2.2 Fully Protected Species Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the Fish and Game Code provide a provision for the protection of bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian, and fish species that are "fully protected." Fully protected animals may not be harmed, taken, or possessed. 2.2.3 Nesting Birds Section 3513 of the Fish and Game Code states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. 2.2.4 Raptor Protection Section 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code provides protection for all birds of prey, including their eggs and nests. 2.2.5 Migratory Bird Protection — Fish and Game Code Section 3513 Section 3513 of the Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory non -game bird as designated in the MBTA. 2.2.6 Native Plant Protection Act Fish and Game Code sections 1900 et. seq. list threatened, endangered, and rare plants so designated by the California Fish and Game Commission. 2.2.7 Lake or Streambed Alteration Sections 1601-1607 of the Fish and Game Code prohibit alteration of any lake or streambed, including intermittent and seasonal channels and many artificial channels, without notification of CDFW. If CDFW determines the action may have a substantial adverse effect on existing fish and wildlife resources, then the execution of a Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required. This applies to any channel modifications that would be required to meet drainage, transportation or flood control objectives of the project. 2.2.8 Porter -Cologne Water Quality Act The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates discharge of waste in any region that could affect the Waters of the State under the California Porter - Cologne Water Quality Act (California Water Code §13000 et seq.) or waters of the U.S. under Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Under the Porter -Cologne Act, a Report 5 Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA of Waste Discharge must be submitted prior to discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the State (California Water Code Section 13260). Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) or a waiver of WDRs will then be issued by the RWQCB. Waters of the State are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, which are within the boundaries of the state (California Codes: Public Resource Code Section 71200). 2.2.9 California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a project's effects on environmental resources must be analyzed and assessed using criteria determined by the lead agency. CEQA defines a rare species in a broader sense than the definitions of threatened, endangered, or California species of concern. Under this definition, CDFW can request additional consideration of species not otherwise protected. Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines encourages local agencies to develop and publish the thresholds that the agency will use in determining the significance of environmental effects caused by projects or actions under its review. Appendix G provides examples of impacts that would normally be considered significant. Based upon these guidelines, impacts to biological resources would normally be considered significant if the project: • Has a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS; • Has a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by CDFW or USFWS; • Has a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; • Interferes substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; or • Conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or, conflicts with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. An evaluation of whether an impact to biological resources would be significant must consider both the resource itself and how that resource fits into a regional or local context. Significant impacts would be those that would diminish, or result in the loss of, an important 6 Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA biological resource, or those that would obviously conflict with local, state, or federal resource conservation plans, goals, or regulations. The evaluation of impacts considers direct impacts, indirect impacts, cumulative impacts, as well as temporary and permanent impacts. 3 METHODS 3.1 Literature and Database Search SWCA conducted a review of literature and databases to identify sensitive biological resources that may be present at the proposed project property. For the purposes of this. study, sensitive biological resources were defined to include 1) species, subspecies, or populations listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and candidates for such listing; 2) species, subspecies, populations and varieties listed on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW's) Special Animals List and Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List; 3) plants or animals that are locally important and/or specifically protected by other state or federal regulations; 4) riparian habitats, and other habitats and vegetation types listed as sensitive by CDFW; and 5) water bodies potentially under the jurisdiction of the CDFW, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Species occurrences from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), along with consideration of the local landscape and habitats, were used to generate a list of sensitive biological resources with the potential to occur at the proposed project property. Plants, wildlife, and natural communities with CNDDB records inside the four U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 -minute quadrangles that cover the Palos Verdes Peninsula, were evaluated for their potential to occur. The four quadrangles were 1) Torrance, 2) San Pedro, 3) Redondo Beach, and 4) Redondo Beach OE S. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) critical habitat mapper was used to identify whether any designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered species occurred at the project. The National Wetlands Inventory and the USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangle map were reviewed to identify whether jurisdictional wetlands, waters, or habitats could potentially occur there. Project -specific information reviewed by SWCA included a letter from the CDFW to the City of Rolling Hills (Appendix A). The letter expressed concerns regarding 1) the project's eventual landscaping and potential invasive species introductions, 2) potential impacts to CDFW jurisdictional waters, wetlands, or riparian habitats, 3) documentation and impact assessment 3.2 Field Survey Following the database searches and field surveys, SWCA assessed the potential for occurrence of special -status species at the proposed project property and the immediate vicinity. This consisted of assessing the biological conditions within the project area and its immediate vicinity and the known occurrences of special -status species within the general project vicinity (four -quadrangle area). Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA A general field survey of the proposed project property was conducted on December 19, 2014 by SWCA biologist Francesca Massarotto. Ms. Massarotto walked all accessible areas of the property, including along animal trails located within the natural areas outside the graded areas, and used a Trimble GPS unit to assist in mapping vegetation communities on the parcel. Vegetation community mapping was based on A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009) as extended locally by Vegetation Mapping of the Ranch Palos Verdes NCCP Preserve: Vegetation Mop and Classification Report (Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy and CNPS, 2010). She also searched for natural communities and plant species that could support the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), the coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis) and the host plants of larval Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis). In addition to searching for sensitive biological resources, Ms. Massarotto conducted a general biological inventory, recording the dominant plants and wildlife observed on the property. 3.3 Definition of Sensitive Species For the purposes of this report, sensitive plants and animals were defined to include species, subspecies, and populations (broadly referred to in this report as species) that have been classified into one or more of the following categories: • Species, subspecies, and populations listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), and species that are candidates for such listing. • Species and subspecies listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). • Plants included in the California Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. • Animals included on she California Special Animals List. • Plants assigned California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) of 1 or 2 by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 4 RESULTS 4.1 Literature and Database Search A query of CNDDB returned 37 special status species, subspecies, and populations, including 18 plants and 19 animals (Appendix B). One additional bird, the coastal cactus wren, was considered potentially present despite the lack of local records in CNDDB, bringing the total number of animal species considered to 20. Two sensitive natural communities have been recorded in the vicinity of the proposed project: Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub and Southern Coastal Salt Marsh. 8 Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA Some of these species with CNDDB records were determined to be absent due to a lack of suitable habitat present at the proposed project property. After considering the site -specific conditions and the ecological requirements of each species, six sensitive plants were considered potentially present due to the possible occurrence of suitable habitat on or near the property. These included: • South coast saltscale (Atriplex pacifica), a CRPR 1 B.2 species; • Davidson's saltscale (Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii), a CRPR 1 B.2 species; • Catalina crossosoma (Crossosoma californicum), a CRPR 1 B.2 species; • Lyon's pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyonii), state and federally, and CRPR 1 B.1; • Brand's star phacelia (Phacelia stelloris), a CRPR 1 B.1 species; and • San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum), a CRPR 1 B.2 species. Six sensitive animals were considered potentially present at the proposed project property: • Monarch butterfly (Donaus plexippus), under status review for possible federal ESA listing; • Palos Verdes blue butterfly, federally endangered; • Silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra), a CDFW species of special concern; • Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), a CDFW species of special concern; • Coastal cactus wren, a locally important species identified by CDFW; and • Coastal California gnatcatcher, a species listed as federally threatened and as a CDFW species of special concern. The USGS 7.5 -minute Torrance quadrangle map did not depict any potential water bodies at the property, although two streams that eventually flow together are mapped downhill from the property, to the southwest (Figure 1). The National Wetlands Inventory Mapper depicts only the more easterly of these stream reaches, and also does not show any water bodies at the property. The National Wetlands Inventory Mapper is based on aerial imagery that in most instances has not been ground-truthed, and therefore field verification is needed to determine the current conditions and presence of water features. The entirety of the project area is located within critical habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher as designated by USFWS (Figure 2). 9 Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA Figure 1. Streams near the proposed project property mapped by the US Geological Survey. Ent:Volsci Area USGS BNe➢nrStreem I0 SWCA 0 $ 1.11S,Airin•erkmkt 2nd Fie Car mn 1111126.2$4117 0 m.20 .m >.nbu `mv nq,:e....,.,cen.n. mm8rtean.nkn meters 250 feet 1,000 as Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA Figure 2. Critical habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher near the proposed project property. Coastal California Gnatcatcher Gllioal Habitat 0 Project Area �1, x,7 A l� 1, .'��w� c %s. f `, es M r--t:;`,is, Mates' J _.'•i, t li;igl iiiis" Os/ e; SWCA tW ppaaa,aa>M Mart m nob.Mp,a fee aroma, GA 01101 Will rn..e i�ocen 0 feet 250 bwmb tat bppaven ercersodaccosatp7sMNkm 0 meters 100 O San Pe i Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA 4.2 Field Survey SWCA biologist Francesca Massarotto conducted a field survey of the proposed project property on December 19, 2014. Weather conditions during the survey were cloudy with temperatures ranging from 50 to 64 degrees Fahrenheit and winds from 3 to 10 miles per hour. Selected photos are presented in Appendix B. The project area is oriented along a northeast -southwest axis, with the uppermost elevations in the northeast abutting Crest Road, and the lower elevations in the southwest. Two gullies were observed oriented along the same axis, on either side of the project. Both had areas, of eroded soil indicating that water drains through these features at times, although no water was evident during the survey. Determining whether these contain features such as an ordinary high water mark, defined bed and bank, or riparian habitat as defined by the water resources agencies would require a formal jurisdictional delineation, which was not conducted at this time. As a result, a preliminary determination of their jurisdiction status would require a formal delineation by an appropriately qualified biologist. The vegetation within the proposed project property included both natural and human - modified areas. The upper elevation areas near Crest Road included non-native grassland that had been mowed or otherwise maintained, bare ground/disturbed areas along Crest Road, and non-native trees, including stands of lemon -scented eucalyptus (Eucalyptus citriodora) and blue gum (E. globosus). Figure 2 shows vegetation types that are mapped and numbered in accordance with the Vegetation Mapping of the Ranch Palos Verdes NCCP Preserve: Vegetation Map and Classification Report (Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy and CNPS, 2010). The lower elevation, southern and western portions of the project area were comprised of two plant communities dominated by native plants. These included coastal scrub (Heteromeles arbutifolia [toyon]-Mixed Coastal Scrub Association) and a chaparral (Rhus integrifolia- Artemisia california-Eriogonum cinereum Association [lemonadeberry-California sage- ashyleaf buckwheat) (Figure 3). Chaparrals differ from scrub alliances in that chaparrals are dominated by plants with leathery evergreen leaves. The lemonadeberry alliance is ranked as sensitive by CDFW. A small stand of coastal prickly pear occurred near the southeastern edge of the property. 12 13 Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA Figure 3. Plant communities and cover types at the proposed project property. • Non-nattNe Tree Vegetation (9500) Heteromelas arbudfolla.Mlxed Coastal Scrub Association (2131) 4 _ r Rhus lntegrdofie-Artemisia catifomlca Eriogonum c tereumAssocbtbn (7157) Bare Groundfoisturbed Non-native Grassland (4200) Eucalyptus Stands (9510) Q Proiecl Area Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA Plant communities outside the parcel were not formally mapped, but were generally similar to the plant communities inside the project area (Figure 3). The northern section of the project area was surrounded by landscaped residential properties, and the southern, steeper portion was surrounded by communities dominated by native plants. Some of the non-native plants observed in the project area are listed in the California Invasive Plants Council's (Cal-IPC's) invasive plan inventory because they have potential or demonstrated ability to propagate without care, invading and replacing native plant communities. Of the 15 non-native plants recorded, four hove Cal-IPC rankings of limited, moderate, or high (Appendix D). Plants ranked "high" are those invasive plants that have severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, or vegetation structure; and have reproductive biology and other attributes conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal and establishment (Cal-IPC 2014). Spanish broom (Spartium junceum), which was observed in the project area, is ranked as high. Peruvian peppertree (Schinus molle) and olive (Oleo europea) are ranked as limited, and blue gum is ranked moderate. Most of the sensitive plants and animals that may occur at the project area would most • likely be found in the natural plant communities. Monarch butterfly is an exception, as wintering roosts often occur in eucalyptus trees. Details of the habitats suitable for each species are given in Appendix B. A total of 31 species of plants and 20 species of birds were observed during the survey (Appendix D). No wildlife shelters, nests, or dens were found at the proposed project property. No sensitive plant or animal species were observed. 14 Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Due to proposed project property's small size and the fact that under the current grading plan the areas that would be directly affected by construction are mostly disturbed and support few native species, the potential for the project to have substantial adverse impacts on biological resources is limited. Based on the results of the literature search and field survey, SWCA has determined that the project could have substantial adverse impacts on jurisdictional waters and a number of sensitive species. Each of these resources is discussed below, and measures are recommended to ensure that impacts to these resources are avoided and minimized wherever possible. With the implementation of these measures, including additional agency coordination as described, it is anticipated that the project's residual impacts would not be significant. Plant Communities The lemonadeberry alliance plant community is listed as a sensitive natural community by CDFW, with a ranking of 3 on a scale from 1 (most sensitive) to 3 (least sensitive). The project's current grading plans would not impact this alliance. No mitigation or avoidance measures are therefore required. Wildlife Corridors and Nursery Sites No features indicative of wildlife movement corridors or nursery sites were identified at the property, and no mitigation or avoidance measures are therefore required. Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Habitats Two gullies running along the edges of the project area may be water drainage features subject to state and/or or federal jurisdiction. The CDFW's letter (Appendix X) asserts that aquatic, riparian habitats, however documentation of these was not provided by CDFW, and SWCA was unable to find such information in the USGS and USFWS databases that are the standard references. To determine whether either gullies would be considered a jurisdictional stream, wetland, or riparian, habitat, a field delineation of the features would be required, followed by presentation of the result to the relevant agency or agencies (i.e. USACE, CDFW, RWQCB) and their concurrence (MM BIO-1). The preliminary grading plans for both Lot 1 and Lot 2 dated September, 2014 (not illustrated here) approach to within 35 feet of the centerline of the gully. If either feature is considered jurisdictional, and depending on its width plus the width of associated riparian habitat (if any), then permits may be required from the USACE, CDFW, and/or RWQCB may be required prior to implementation of the project (see regulatory information in Section 2). Careful refinement of the project design to ensure that grading and construction avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters may allow for implementation of the project without the need for such permits. If either feature is a jurisdictional drainage and the project is designed to avoid direct impacts to the jurisdictional area, then indirect impacts should also be avoided by implementing standard best management practices (BMPs) to avoid 15 Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA discharge of fill and erosion into the waterway. These may include installation of silt fencing, straw wattles, and other measures identified by the City. MM BIO-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, conduct a field delineation for jurisdictional waters. If the project would affect any waters or riparian habitats under the jurisdiction of USACE, CDFW and/or RWQCB, then the appropriate permits and agreements must be obtained from the applicable agency or agencies. Sensitive Plants No plants listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the federal ESA or CESA were observed in the project area, nor were any plants considered sensitive or protected by any other state, local, or federal regulations observed. Of the six (6) sensitive plants determined to have the potential to occur at the project, one species, Lyon's pentachaeta, is listed as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA and CESA. In order to avoid and minimize impacts to this and other rare plants, a survey for sensitive plants should be conducted. Because some of the sensitive plants that may occur, including Lyon's pentachaeta, are annuals that are present and identifiable only in certain season, a complete survey must include one or more visits to each species' potential habitat in the appropriate time period. If any threatened or endangered plants are found, the project proponent should coordinate with the listing agency (CDFW or USFWS) to identify measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to the plants. Non -listed sensitive plants should be avoided where possible. In general, listed and non -listed sensitive plants are most likely to occur in the native -dominated lower elevations of the project area. The current grading plans are restricted to the upper elevations where the habitats are mostly disturbed. Therefore, the project as currently designed would mostly avoid impacts to natural plant communities and the areas where sensitive species are most likely to occur. Impacts to non -endangered species are therefore considered less than significant. If the project were to impact Lyon's pentachaeta, this would be a significant impact. This species has a low potential to occur at the property. Conducting a rare plant survey (MM BIO-2) is therefore required to ensure that impacts to Lyon's pentachaeta can be avoided. MM BIO-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, conduct a survey for sensitive plants. The survey should include one or more visits to areas of suitable habitat for the sensitive plants that may occur at the project (Atriplex pacific°, A. serenana var. davidsonii, Crossosoma californicum, Pentachaeta lyonii, Phacelia stellaris, and Symphyotrichum defoliatum) during time periods when each species is detectable. Sensitive plants should be avoided wherever possible, during construction. If Lyon's pentachaeta or any other threatened or endangered plant is detected, coordination with USFWS or CDFW (as applicable) should be undertaken to identify measures to avoid impacts, or obtain an incidental take permit, if required. Sensitive Wildlife 16 Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA No animals listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the federal ESA or CESA were observed in the project area. One red-tailed hawk and one American kestrel were observed during the field survey; these species are protected under the birds of prey provisions of the California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5). No other plants or wildlife considered sensitive or protected by any state, local, or federal regulations were observed, although the project may support nesting birds protected pursuant to the MBTA. The mitigation measure MM BIO-3 is recommended to avoid impacts to nesting birds so protected: MM BIO-3: Clearing of vegetation and construction should occur outside the peak bird nesting season, which generally runs from February 1 through September 1. If project construction is necessary during the bird breeding season, a qualified biologist with experience conducting nesting bird surveys should conduct a weekly surveys for nesting birds within three days prior to the start of construction, including vegetation clearing and trimming. If an active nest of an MBTA-protected bird is identified, a buffer should be established between the construction activities and the nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. The buffer width should generally be 300 feet (500 feet for raptors), be delineated by temporary fencing, and remain in effect as long as construction is occurring or until the nest is no longer active. No project construction should occur within the fenced nest zone until the young have left and would no longer be impacted by the project. Reductions in the nest buffer distance may be appropriate depending on the avian species involved, ambient levels of human activity, screening vegetation, or possibly other factors. Of the six (6) sensitive animals determined to have the potential to occur at the project, two are listed as threatened or endangered by CESA or ESA (Palos Verdes blue butterfly, and coastal California gnatcatcher), and the monarch butterfly is undergoing a status review by USFWS to determine whether it should be listed as federally threatened. The Palos Verdes blue butterfly, which is listed as federally endangered, has a low potential to occur in the project area. The project is located above and inland of areas where fog is most frequent, which is the main predictor of this species' occurrence, therefore it is not likely that this species would occur at the property. However, a survey for the host plants of the immature life stages should be undertaken to ensure that the species is not inadvertently impacted (MM 610-4). Only two plants, both perennial herbs in the pea family (Fabaceae), are known to be used by immature Palos Verdes blue butterflies: locoweed (Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus) and deerweed (Acmispon glaber). If either host plant species is present, then a survey for Palos Verdes blue butterfly should be conducted according to current USFWS recommendations. If the survey is positive for Palos Verdes blue butterfly, coordination with USFWS must be undertaken to identify the appropriate actions. In addition to the potential presence of immature Palos Verdes blue butterflies, adults may forage at the property for nectar and pollen at flowering plants; these individuals would be not impacted by the project because they can disperse away on their own. 17 Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA MM BIO-4: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a survey for host plants of the Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus) and (Acmispon glaber) should be conducted prior to construction. If either host plant is present, a biologist should conduct surveys for Palos Verdes blue butterfly according to the USFWS survey protocol. If the species is determined to be present, coordination with USFWS must be undertaken to identify what, if any, avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures are necessary, and an incidental take permit obtained if required. The coastal California gnatcatcher is listed as threatened pursuant to the federal ESA. This small songbird is strongly associated with coastal scrub plant communities, especially sage scrub, in southern California. It also occurs in chaparral, riparian, and grassland communities when they are adjacent to scrub habitats. The coastal scrub vegetation community in the lower elevations of the project area, as well as the adjacent chaparral, provide potential habitat suitable for coastal California gnatcatcher. The entirety of the project area has been designated as critical habitat for this species by USFWS. For projects that involve a federal action, critical habitat that supports the primary constituent elements required by the species is protected from adverse modification or destruction without formal consultation with USFWS. A federal action can include federal funding for a project, or the issuance of a permit by a federal agency (e.g., a permit from the USACE for impacts to jurisdictional streams, or a permit for take of ESA -listed species). Areas within critical habitat that do not contain the primary constituent elements are generally not protected, and modifications can be made without formal consultation with USFWS by any kind of project. To ensure that coastal California gnatcatcher is not adversely impacted by the project, SWCA recommends conducting a complete protocol -level survey for coastal California gnatcatcher at the project property (MM BIO-5). The survey should be conducted according to the USFWS 1997 survey protocol, which will result in a determination of the species' presence or absence. Based on the current grading plans, the project would not directly impact any scrub or chaparral habitats; only non-native grassland, stands of non-native trees, and other disturbed areas would be affected. These cover types do not provide the primary constituent elements (dense cover of primarily native shrub species and adjacent native communities) required by the species. Implementation of the grading plan as currently designed, therefore, may not cause any adverse modifications to critical habitat. However, this preliminary assessment must be evaluated in the field by a qualified biologist, who should have experience observing coastal California gnatcatcher and be familiar with its habitat requirements. MM BIO-5: A survey for coastal California gnatcatcher should be conducted by a qualified biologist. As part of the survey, suitable habitat for the species should be mapped with regard to the primary constituent elements required by the species. If the species is determined to be present, or it is determined that the project would 18 Q2:3 Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA adversely modify suitable habitat, USFWS should be contacted to determine the appropriate actions, which may require an incidental take permit. The monarch butterfly has the potential to occur in winter roosting aggregations in the stands of eucalyptus trees in the upper elevations of the project. This species is declining throughout its range, but it does not have any formal state or federal protections. As of December 29, 2014, USFWS is considering whether to list monarch butterfly as threatened pursuant to the ESA, and must determine within 12 months whether listing the species is warranted. Regardless of its formal status, winter roosts are a locally significant biological resource. In Southern California, monarch butterflies are not highly site faithful to winter roosts among years. While most eucalyptus are not used as winter roosts, the disturbance of roosts or removal of roost trees has the potential to affect thousands of individual monarch butterflies. If the trees are not being used as a roost, their trimming and removal would not require any mitigation measures to be implemented. To avoid and minimize impacts to wintering monarch butterflies, a pre -construction survey (MM BIO-6) is recommended as follows: MM B10-6: If construction activities including grading, transport of equipment and supplies, and vegetation trimming or removal, will occur between October 1 and February 28, a qualified biologist should conduct a survey for wintering -aggregations of monarch butterflies no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction. If a wintering aggregation of 100 or more monarch butterflies is observed, then activities within 100 feet of the roost should be avoided until the wintering season is over or the roost disperses on its own to a different location. Should the species be listed as threatened pursuant to the ESA prior to the completion of the project, then USFWS should be contacted before conducting any activities that might impact monarch butterflies. 19 Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA 6 LITERATURE CITED Beyers, JL and WO Wirtz II. 1997. Vegetative characteristics of coastal sage scrub sites used by California gnatcatchers: implications for management in a fire -prone ecosystems. Proceedings — Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered Species and Habitats Conference, November 13-16, 1995. Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. California Invasive Plant Council. Claifornia Invasive Plant Inventory Database. Accessed January 2015. Available from: http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf Campbell, KF, RA Erickson, WE Haas, and MA Patten. 1998. California gnatcatcher use of habitats other than coastal sage scrub: conservation and management implications. Western Birds. 29:421-433. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database. September 2014. Special Animals. Periodic publication. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database. October 2014. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Quarterly publication. California Native Plant Society. 2013. Inventory of rare, threatened, and endangered species. Available from: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2014. RareFind 5 [Internet). California Department of Fish and Wildlife [Version 5; accessed November, 2014). Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy and CNPS. 2010. Vegetation Mapping of the Ranch Palos Verdes NCCP Preserve: Vegetation Map and Classification Report. Sawyer, J. 0., T. Keeler -Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Shuford WD, Gardali T. 2008. California bird species of special concern. Studies of Western Birds No. 1. Sacramento, CA: Western Field Ornithologists and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014a. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at: http://crithab.fws.gov/. Accessed November 2014. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. National Wetlands Inventory mapper. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014. Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly 5 -Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California. 20 Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA Appendix A Al CALIFORNIA FISH 6 WILDLIFE State of California — Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov January 15, 2015 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 YS@cityofrh.net EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Subject: Comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Zoning Case No. 869, Subdivision No. 94, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72775 Project, City of Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County Dear Ms. Schwartz: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has reviewed the above - referenced Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The project area is a vacant lot on the south side of Crest Road between Georgeff Road and Caballeros Road, in the City of Rolling Hills. The Project involves the subdivision of an existing 7.055 -acre lot into two parcels, parcel 1 (3.70 -acres), and parcel 2 (3.34 -acres), as well as the future development of two new homes and related grading. The following comments and recommendations have been prepared pursuant to the Department's authority as a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines section 15381 over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of the California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code § 2050 et seq.) and Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq., and pursuant to our authority as Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project (California Environmental Quality Act, )CEQA) Guidelines § 15386) to assist the Lead Agency in avoiding or minimizing potential project impacts on biological resources. Biological Resource Comments 1) Proiect Landscaping. The site currently contains both native and invasive/exotic vegetation, including the highly invasive Peruvian and/or Brazilian pepper trees (Schinus terebinthifolius or Schinus molle). The Department recommends invasive/exotic plants be restricted from use in landscape plans for this Project. A list of invasive/exotic plants that should be avoided as well as suggestions for better landscape plants can be found at http://www.cal- ipc.org/landscaping/dpp/planttypes. ph p?region=socal. 2) Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements (LSA). As a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines section 15381, the Department has authority over activities in streams and/or lakes that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (including vegetation associated with the stream or lake) of a river or stream, or use material from a streambed. For any such activities, the project applicant (or "entity") must provide written notification to the Department pursuant to section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification and other information, the Department determines whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSA) with the applicant is required prior to Conserving Calfornia's Wi&iT fe Since 1870 • Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills January 15, 2015 Page 2 of 5 conducting the proposed activities. The Department's issuance of a LSA for a project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by the Department as a Responsible Agency. As a Responsible Agency, the Department may consider the Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report of the local jurisdiction (Lead Agency) for the project. To minimize additional requirements by the Department pursuant to section 1600 et seq. and/or under CEQA, the document should fully identify the potential impacts to the stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the LSA.' a) The project area supports aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitats; therefore, a preliminary jurisdictional delineation of the streams and their associated riparian habitats should be included in the MND. The delineation should be conducted pursuant to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetland definition adopted by the Department.2 Some wetland and riparian habitats subject to the Department's authority may extend beyond the jurisdictional limits of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Section 404 permit and Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 Certification. b) In project areas which may support ephemeral streams, herbaceous vegetation, woody vegetation, and woodlands also serve to protect the integrity of ephemeral channels and help maintain natural sedimentation processes; therefore, the Department recommends effective setbacks be established to maintain appropriately -sized vegetated buffer areas adjoining ephemeral drainages. c) Project -related changes in drainage patterns, runoff, and sedimentation should be included and evaluated in the environmental document. 3) Wetlands Resources. The Department, as described in Fish & Game Code § 703(a) is guided by the Fish and Game Commission's policies. The Wetlands Resources policy (http://www.fgc.ca.gov/policy/) of the Fish and Game Commission "...seek[s] to provide for the protection, preservation, restoration, enhancement and expansion of wetland habitat in California. Further, it is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission to strongly discourage development in or conversion of wetlands. It opposes, consistent with its legal authority, any development or conversion which would result in a reduction of wetland acreage or wetland habitat values. To that end, the Commission opposes wetland development proposals unless, at a minimum, project mitigation assures there will be "no net loss" of either wetland habitat values or acreage. The Commission strongly prefers mitigation which would achieve expansion of wetland acreage and enhancement of wetland habitat values". a) The Wetlands Resources policy provides a framework for maintaining wetland resources and establishes mitigation guidance. The Department encourages avoidance of wetland resources as a primary mitigation measure and discourages the development or type conversion of wetlands to uplands. The Department encourages activities that would avoid the reduction of wetland acreage, function, or habitat values. Once avoidance and minimization measures have been exhausted, the project must include mitigation 'A notification package for a LSA may be obtained by accessing the Department's web site at www.wildlife.ca.govihabcon/1600. 2 Cowardin, Lewis M., et al. 1970. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills January 15, 2015 Page 3 of 5 measures to assure a "no net loss" of either wetland habitat values, or acreage, for • unavoidable impacts to wetland resources. Conversions include, but are not limited to, conversion to subsurface drains, placement of fill or building of structures within the wetland, and channelization or removal of materials from the streambed. All wetlands and watercourses, whether ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial, should be retained and provided with substantial setbacks, which preserve the riparian and aquatic values and functions for the benefit to on -site and off -site wildlife populations. The Department recommends mitigation measures to compensate for unavoidable impacts be included in the MND and these measures should compensate for the loss of function and value. 4) Biological Baseline Assessment. To provide a complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, sensitive, regionally and locally unique species, and sensitive habitats, the MND should include the following information: a) a thorough, recent, floristic -based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, following the Department's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (see http://www. dfq. ca.gov/h a bcon/plant/) b) floristic, alliance- and/or association -based mapping and vegetation impact assessments conducted at the project site and within the neighboring vicinity. The Manual of California Vegetation, second edition, should also be used to inform this mapping and assessment (Sawyer et al. 20083). Adjoining habitat areas should be included in this assessment where site activities could lead to direct or indirect impacts offsite. Habitat mapping at the alliance level will help establish baseline vegetation conditions; c) a complete, recent, assessment of the biological resources associated with each habitat type on site and within adjacent areas that could also be affected by the project. The Department's California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) in Sacramento should be contacted to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitat. The Department recommends that CNDDB Field Survey Forms be completed and submitted to CNDDB to document survey results. Online forms can be obtained and submitted at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/submitting_data_to_cnddb.asp d) a complete, recent assessment of rare, threatened, and endangered, and other sensitive species on site and within the area of potential effect, including California Species of Special Concern (CSSC) and California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code § 3511). Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition (see CEQA Guidelines § 15380). Seasonal variations in use of the project area should also be addressed. Focused species -specific surveys, conducted at the Sawyer, J. 0., Keeler -Wolf, T., and Evens J.M. 2008. A manual of Califomia Vegetation, 2n° ed. ISBN 978-0-943460-49-9 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills January 15, 2015 Page 4 of 5 appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are required. Acceptable species -specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and, e) a recent, wildlife and rare plant survey. The Department generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one-year period, and assessments for rare plants may be considered valid for a period of up to three years. Some aspects of the proposed project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if build out could occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases. 5. Compensatory Mitigation. The MND should include mitigation measures for adverse project -related impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and habitats. Mitigation measures should emphasize avoidance and reduction of project impacts. For unavoidable impacts, on -site habitat restoration or enhancement should be discussed in detail. If on -site mitigation is not feasible or would not be biologically viable and therefore not adequately mitigate the loss of biological functions and values, off -site mitigation through habitat creation and/or acquisition and preservation in perpetuity should be addressed. 6. Nesting Birds. In order to avoid impacts to nesting birds, the MND should require that clearing of vegetation and construction occur outside of the peak avian breeding season, which generally runs from February 1st through September 1st (as early as January 1 for some raptors). If project construction is necessary during the bird breeding season, a qualified biologist with experience in conducting bird breeding surveys should conduct weekly bird surveys for nesting birds within three days prior to the work in the area, and ensure that no nesting birds in the project area would be impacted by the project. If an active nest is identified, a buffer shall be established between the construction activities and the nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. The buffer should be a minimum width of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors), be delineated by temporary fencing, and remain in effect as long as construction is occurring or until the nest is no longer active. No project construction shall occur within the fenced nest zone until the young have fledged, are no longer being fed by the parents, have left the nest, and will no longer be impacted by the project. Reductions in the nest buffer distance may be appropriate depending on the avian species involved, ambient levels of human activity, screening vegetation, or possibly other factors. 7. Translocation/Salvage of Plants and Animal Species. Translocation and transplantation is the process of moving an individual from the project site and permanently moving it to a new location. The Department generally does not support the use of, translocation or transplantation as the primary mitigation strategy for unavoidable impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species. Studies have shown that these efforts are experimental and the outcome unreliable. The Department has found that permanent preservation and management of habitat capable of supporting these species is often a more effective long-term strategy for conserving sensitive plants and animals, and their habitats. 8. Moving out of Harm's Way. The proposed project is anticipated to result in clearing of natural habitats that support many species of indigenous wildlife. To avoid direct mortality, the Department recommends a qualified biological monitor approved by the Department be Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills January 15, 2015 Page 5 of 5 on site prior to and during ground and habitat disturbing activities to move out of harm's way special status species or other wildlife of low mobility that would be injured or killed by grubbing or project -related construction activities. It should be noted that the temporary relocation of on -site wildlife does not constitute effective mitigation for the purposes of offsetting project impacts associated with habitat loss. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments. Please contact Ms. Kelly Schmoker, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) at Kelly.Schmoker@wildlife.ca.gov or (949) 581-1015 if you should have any questions and for further coordination on the proposed project. Sincerely, 0) Co... t/CLJ Betty J. Courtney Environmental Program Manager I South Coast Region ec: Ms. Erinn Wilson, CDFW, Los Alamitos Ms. Victoria Chau, CDFW, Los Alamitos Ms. Sarah Rains, CDFW, Ventura Mr. Scott Harris, CDFW, Pasadena Mr. Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento C-3 J Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA Appendix B Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA Table B-1 Sensitive species with the potential to occur in the vicinity of the proposed project Species Plants Status Habitat and Relevant Information Present/ Absent Rationale Aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides) CRPR-1 B.2 Annual herb that blooms between March and June. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub. On bluffs and slopes near the ocean in sandy or clay soils. In steep decline on the islands and the mainland. 1-305 m. Project area does not hove sufficient Absent coastal exposure to support this species. South coast saltscale (Atripfex pacifica) Parish's brittlescale (Atnplex parishii) CRPR-18.2 Annual herb. Coastal scrub, coastal bluff scrub, playas, chenopod scrub. Alkali soils. 1-500 m. CRPR-1B.1 Alkali meadows, vernal pools, chenopod scrub, playas. Usually on drying alkali flats with fine soils. 25-1900 m. No records from the Palos Verdes Low potential Peninsula for more than 80 years. to occur However, suitable habitat is present in the project area. Absent No suitable habitat types are present in the project area. Davidson's saltscale (Atriplex serenana var. CRPR-1 B.2 davidsonii) Southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. austrofis) CRPR-1B.1 Annual herb that blooms between April and October. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub. Alkaline soil. 10-200 m. Marshes and swamps (margins), valley and foothill grassland. Often in disturbed sites near the coast at marsh edges; also in alkaline soils sometimes with saltgrass. Sometimes on vernal pool margins. 0-425 m. Salt marsh bird's -beak (Chloropyron FE, SE, Coastal salt marsh, coastal dunes. Limited to the higher zones of maritimum ssp. CRPR-18.2 the salt marsh habitat. 0-30 m. maritimum) Catalina crossosoma (Coossosoma cahfornicum) Perennial deciduous shrub. Chaparral, coastal scrub. On rocky CRPR-18.2 sea bluffs, wooded canyons, and dry, open sunny spots on rocky clay. 0-500 m. Low potent to occur Absent Absent Some coastal scrub is present in the al project area, but project area has less coastal exposure than this species typically requires. No suitable habitat types ore present in the project area. No suitable habitat types are present in the project area. The chaparral and coastal scrub in the project area is potentially Low potential suitable, but is less rocky than sites to occur where this species is typically found. Not observed during the field survey. Beach spectaclepod ST, Coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Sea shores, on sand dunes, and (Dithyrea maritimo) CRPR-1 B.1 sandy places near the shore. 3-50 m. Project area is too far from shore and Absent at higher elevation than is required by this species. 13 1 Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA Species Island green dudleya (Dudleya virens ssp. insularis) Status Habitat and Relevant Information CRPR-16.2 Perennial herb. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub. Rocky soils. 5- 300 m. Present/ Absent Rationale Absent Project area lacks coostally exposed sites suitable for this species. Recorded mainland occurrences are less than 500 feet from the ocean, project area is more than one mile from ocean. Coulter's goldfields Coastal salt marshes, playas, vernal pools. Usually found on (Lasthenia globrata ssp.CRPR-18.1 alkaline soils in playas, sinks, and grasslands. 1-1200 m. coulter° Absent No suitable habitat types are present in the project area. Santa Catalina Island desert -thorn (Lycium brevipes var. • hossei) CRPR-1B.1 Perenniol deciduous shrub. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub. Coastal bluffs and slopes. 10-300 m. On mainland, only known to occur Absent within 500 feet of the ocean. Not observed during the field survey. Mud name (Noma stenocarpum) Prostrate vernal pool navarrefia (Navarretia prostrate) Coast woolly -heads (Nemacaulis denudate CRPR-1 B.2 Coastal dunes. 0-100 m. var. denudato) CRPR-26.2 Marshes and swamps. Lake shores, river banks, intermittently wet areas. 5-500 m. Absent No wet habitats are present in the project area. CRPR-1 B.1 Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Alkaline soils in grassland, or in vernal pools. Mesic, alkaline sites. 15-700m. No mesic (moderately moist) habitats Absent required by this species are present in the project area. Absent No coastal dunes are present in the project area. Lyon's pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyonii) Brand's star phacelia (Phocelia stellaris) FE, SE, CRPR-1 B.1 CRPR-1 B.1 Annual herb that blooms between March and August. Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, coastal scrub. Edges of clearings in chaparral, usually at the ecotone between grassland and chaparral or edges of firebreaks. 30-630 m. Annual herb that blooms between March and June. Coastal scrub, coastal dunes. Open areas. 1-400 m. May occur at edges of chaparral in Low potential the project area. Populations on to occur Palos Verdes Peninsula believed to be extirpated. Moderate potential to occur Could occur in coastal scrub portions of the project area. Estuary seablite (Suaeda esteroa) CRPR-16.2 Marshes and swamps. Coastal salt marshes in clay, silt, and sand substrates. 0-5m. Absent No marshes or swamps are present in the project area. B 2 Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA Species Status Habitat and Relevant Information San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum CRPR-1 B.2 defoliatum) Perennial rhizomatous herb. Meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps, coastal scrub, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, grassland. Vernally mesic grassland or near ditches, streams and springs; disturbed areas. 2-2040m. Present/ Absent Rationale May occur near drainages in the Low potential project area, but suitably mesic sites to occur were not observed during the field survey. Invertebrates Sandy beach tiger beetle (Cicindelo hirticollis gravida) Western beach tiger beetle (Cicindela CDFW-SA Mudflats and beaches in coastal Southern California. latesignata latesignata) CDFW-SA Inhabits areas adjacent to non -brackish water along the coast of California from San Francisco Bay to northern Mexico. Clean, dry, light-colored sand in the upper zone. Subterranean larvae prefer moist sand not affected by wave action. Absent Absent There is no permanent water in or adjacent to the project area. There are no mudflats or beaches in or near the project area. Monarch butterfly FSR (Danaus plexippus) El Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes FE baltoides allyni) Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis) El Segundo flower - loving fly (Rhophiomidas terminatus terminatus) Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus CDFW-SA woottoni) Mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) (Tryonia imitator) FE CDFW-SA Winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico. Roosts are located in wind -protected tree groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine, cypress), that have relatively constant cool temperatures, and nectar and water sources nearby. Restricted to remnant coastal dune habitat in Southern California. Hostplant is Eriogonum parvifolium; larvae feed only on the flowers and seeds; used by adults as major nectar source. Restricted to the cool, fog -shrouded, seaward side of Palos Verdes Hills, Los Angeles County. Host plants are locoweed (Astragalus trichopodus var. tonchus) and deerweed (Acmispon glaber). Presumed extinct but recently discovered on Malaga Dunes, Los Angeles County. Perched dunes. Inhabit seasonally astatic pools filled by winter/spring rains. Hatch in warm water later in the season. Inhabits coastal lagoons, estuaries and salt marshes. Found only CDFW-SA in permanently submerged areas in a variety of sediment types; able to withstand a wide range of salinities. Eucalyptus trees at the project area Low potential are marginally suitable for winter to occur. roosting. Absent There are no coastal dunes in the project area. The project area is located above Low potential and inland of areas of frequent fog, to occur. but adults may occasionally forage outside such areas. Absent There are no dunes in or adjacent to the project area. No locations where water may pool Absent for extended periods are present in the project area. Absent There are no permanently wet sites within the project area. B'3 Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA Species Fish Status Habitat and Relevant Information Present/ Absent Rationale Mohave tui chub (Siphateles bicolor mohavensis) FE, SE, Mohave tui chub (Siphateles bicolor mohavensis) CDFW-FP Absent There are no permanent waters within the project area. Reptiles Silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchro) Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most common in lowlands Coast horned lizard CDFW-SSC along sandy washes with scattered low bushes. Open areas for (Phrynosoma blainvillii) sunning, bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for burial, & abundant supply of ants & other insects. CDFW-SSC Sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation. Soil moisture is essential. Prefers soils with a high moisture content. Moderate potential to occur May occur at project if patches of moist loose -textured soil are present. Small patches of suitable habitat Low potential may be present at the project area, to occur but this species is generally absent from developed areas. Birds Tricolored blackbird (Age/alas tricolor) Requires open water, protected nesting substrate (grasslands and CDFW-SSC rarely riparian treetops), & foraging area with insect prey within a few km of the colony. Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts & scrublands CDFW-SSC characterized by low -growing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most notably, the California ground squirrel. Nesting habitats of grassland, Absent agricultural, or riparian habitats do not occur in the project area. Burrowing owl (Athene cuniculario) Coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis) Coastal California Obligate, permanent resident of coastal sage scrub below 2500 ft in Southern California. Low, coastal sage scrub in arid washes, gnatcatcher (Polioptilo FT, californica californica) CDFW-SSC on mesas & slopes. Not all areas classified as coastal sage scrub are occupied. CDFW-SSC Coastal sage scrub, nests almost exclusively in patches of Opuntio cactus at least one meter tall. Bank swallow (Riparia ripario) ST Colonial nester; nests primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats west of the desert. Requires vertical banks/cliffs with fine- textured/sandy soils near streams, rivers, lakes, ocean to dig nesting hole. Project area does not support Absent burrowing small mammals that this species depends on. Too few individuals of Opuntia Absent Iittoralis are present to sustain this species in the project area. Potentially Coastal scrub and chaparral habitats present could support this species. Absent Suitable nesting habitat does not occur in the project area. B 4 Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA Present/ Species Status Habitat and Relevant Information Absent Rationale California least tern (Sternula ontillorum browni) FE, SE CDFW-FP Nests colonially along the coast on bare or sparsely vegetated, flat substrates: sand beaches, alkali flats, landfills, or paved areas. Absent No oceanside open habitats are present in the project area. Mammals San Diego desert woodrat (Neotomo lepida intermedia) Coastal scrub of Southern California from San Diego County to CDFW-SSC San Luis Obispo County. Moderate to dense canopies preferred They are particularly abundant in rock outcrops & rocky cliffs & slopes. Low potential This species rarely occurs in suburban to occur areas, but could potentially occur in wooded parts of the project area. Variety of arid areas in Southern California; pine -juniper Pocketed free -tailed bat Potentially No roosting habitat in the project woodlands, desert scrub, palm oasis, desert wash, desert riparian, (Nyctinomops P CDFW-$$C etc. Rocky areas with high cliffs. Roosts primarily in crevices in present, but may overfly the project femorosaccus) foraging only while foraging. cliffs, high rocky outcrops, and slopes. Pacific pocket mouse Inhabits the narrow coastal plains from the Mexican border north (Perognothus FE, to El Segundo, Los Angeles Co. Seems to prefer soils of fine longimembris pacificus) CDFW-SSC alluvial sands near the ocean, but the species is poorly understood. Absent The project area does not include coastal plains. Key: FE = Federally listed as Endangered FT = Federally listed as Threatened FSR = Under status review by USFWS to determine whether ESA listing is warranted SE = State listed as Endangered ST = State listed as Threatened CDFW-FP = California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife - Fully Protected CDFW-SA = California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife - Special Animal CDFW-SSC = California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife - Species of Special Concern CDFW-WL = California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife - Watch List CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank CRPR Rankings: 1A: Presumed extinct in California 1B.1: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. Seriously threatened in California. 1 B.2: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. Fairly threatened in California. 1 B.3: Rare, threatened, or endongered in California and elsewhere. Not very threatened in California. B 5 Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA Appendix C Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA Figure C-1: View southwest toward Lot 2, from the northeast corner of Lot 1. Figure C-2: View south-southwest toward Lot 2 C-2 1� Figure C-3: View north-northeast of sage scrub habitat, from the southwestern corner of the project area. Figure C-4: View of the gully that runs along the edge of the property from the southwestern corner of the project area. Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA Figure C-5: Small patch of prickly pear on the lower eastern slope of the. property. Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA Appendix D D - I 642. Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA Plant Compendium Common Name Bailey's acacia American century plant Chamise California sagebrush Coyote brush Mustard Ceanothus St. John's bread, carob Blue dicks Wild rye Loquat Ashyleaf buckwheat California buckwheat Lemon -scented gum Blue gum Toyon Giant coreopsis Lupine Wild cucumber Purple needlegrass Oleander Olive Coastal prickly pear Canary Island pine Aleppo pine Australian cheesewood Coast live oak lemonade sumac/berry black sage Peruvian peppertree Spanish broom Yucca Scientific Name Acacia baileyano Agave americana Adenostoma fosciculatum Artemisia californica Baccharis piluloris Brassica sp. Ceanothus sp. Ceratonia siliquo Dichelostemma copitatum Elymus sp. Eriobotrya japonica Eriogonium cinereum Eriogonum fasciculatum Eucalyptus citriodora Eucalyptus globulus Heteromeles orbutifolia Leptosyne gigontea Lupinus sp. Morah macrocarpus Nosella pulchra. Nerium oleander Olea europaeo Opuntia littoralis Pinus canariensis Pinus halepensis Pittosporum undulatum Quercus agrifolia Rhus integrifolia Salvia mellifera Schinus molle Sportium junceum Yucca sp. D-2 Native/Non-native Non-native Non-native Native Native Native Non-native Native Non-native Native Native Non-native Native Native Non-native Non-native (Cal-IPC ranking: Moderate) Native Native Native Native Native Non-native Non-native (Cal-IPC ranking: Limited) Native Non-native Non-native Non-native Native Native Native Non-native (Cal-IPC ranking: Limited) Non-native (Cal-IPC ranking: High) Non-native Biological Resources Assessment for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills CA Wildlife Compendium Common Name Scientific Name Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Anna's hummingbird Calypte Anna Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus Rock pigeon Columba Iivio* Common raven Corvus corax American kestrel Falco sparverius House finch Haemorhous mexicanus Oregon junco Junco hyemalis thurberi California towhee Melozone crissalis Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Fox sparrow Passerello ilioco Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Rufous hummingbird or Allen's hummingbird Selasphorus sp. Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronoto Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltrio American robin Turdus migratorius White -crowned sparrow Zonotrichia Ieucophrys D-3 December 7, 2015 SUBJECT: REVISED - HYDROLOGY AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS FOR A PROPOSED 2 -LOT SUBDIVISION PROJECT FOR A POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. CURRENTLY THE PARCEL IS UNDEVELOPED, HAVING APN: 7567-011-020, ROLLING HILLS, CA. Dear interested consultant: On October 21, 2015, the City of Rolling Hills issued a RFP for soils, geology, geotechnical, hydrology and related studies for a proposed two -lot subdivision. The City received two responses. We are now reaching out with a revised RFP to those consultants who responded to our original RFP. After further reviewing the proposed project and the consultants' responses, the City Council directed staff to revise the proposal for a third party independent review to concentrate on the effect the proposed project would have on the hydrology of the area, both on the subject lots as well as on the lots adjacent thereto and below in the Flying Triangle Area of the City of Rolling Hills and Rancho Palos Verdes, including the natural drainage course. The specific requirements are described below. Currently the applicants are proposing to subdivide one, 7.05 acres lot into two lots, 3.70 acres gross and 3.34 acres gross. The property is located along the south side of Crest Road East in the City of Rolling Hills and is adjacent to the Flying Triangle, which is designated as "Geotechnical Hazards Area" and is straddled in the vicinity by two natural canyons, Little Klondike and Big Klondike Canyons. The tentatively proposed development includes the following: LOT1 LOT 2 Grading quantities 11,000 cy 8,500 cy House 5,340 sq.ft. 6,100 sq.ft. Garage 800 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. Stable 450 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. Pool 400 sq.ft. 400 sq.ft. Driveways and walkways See the plan from prior RFP See plan from prior RFP SCOPE OF WORK The study should include the following: 1. Hydrology Review and Additional Studies - Perform hydrology studies, including evaluation of current site conditions, post -development site conditions, impacts on adjacent properties (2-, 10-, and 100 -year flow) and preparation of general feasibility -level recommendation for handling of storm water. Specific hydrology tasks should include: • Analysis and calculation of flow rates and volumes for existing site conditions, including Little and Big Klondike Canyon, extending through Klondike Canyon in the Flying Triangle to the Portuguese Bend area Geotechnical Hazard Assessment District; and including Paintbrush Canyon area, if deemed necessary. Conditions for 2 -year, 10 -year and 100 -year storms should be considered. • Analysis and calculation of flow rates and volumes of storm water runoff for the design site conditions, as shown on the proposed plans (provided with the previous RFP), including the proposed storm water capture system, without mitigation, for the same areas with the same storm flows (2-, 10- and 100 -year storms). Prepare and include the results on a condition hydrology map. • Analysis and calculation of flow rates and volumes of below grade water and effluent percolation and dissemination for the design site conditions, as shown on the proposed plans (provided with the previous RFP), including the proposed septic system, for the same areas with the same storm flows (2-, 10- and 100 -year storms). Prepare and include the results on a condition hydrology map. • Determine whether the proposed subdivision and proposed construction of two homes as designed would result in any of the following hydrology effects: ➢ Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? ➢ Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off site? ➢ Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 2. Review and Stability Analyses - utilize results of hydrology study and existing geotechnical investigation report to perform review -level stability analyses of the site and adjacent properties in light of hydrology impacts. 3. Peer Review Report - Geotechnical peer review of geotechnical and percolation reports prepared to date for the proposed development. If necessary, research and review geotechnical, geological, soils and related records at the County of Los Angeles and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 4. Letter Report - Prepare a letter report summarizing the results of the peer review, hydrology review and review of any supplemental studies/analyses. Recommend if additional studies or information is necessary for more accurate analysis. Report should include all calculations and appropriate hydrology maps. 5 Meeting - Attendance at one meeting of the City Council, at City Hall or in the field. Please find enclosed the geotechnical and percolation reports prepared by the applicants' consultant and a sample professional services agreement. PROTECT REQUIREMENTS Please submit one electronic and one hard copy of your proposal by 11:00 AM on Thursday, December 17, 2015. The electronic copy should be emailed to ys@cityofrh.net. Any plans submitted electronically may not be larger than 14"x 17". If plans need to be larger, please submit 15 hard copies of each plan. We will review the responses for responsiveness and completeness and advise the applicant. With City's concurrence, the applicant will have the right to select any consultant, not necessarily the lowest bidder. Although the City is soliciting this work, the applicants would assume the cost of the study. You will be required to enter into an agreement with the City, and work with City staff, including City's engineers at the Los Angeles County Public Works Department who on behalf of the City will review the reports. The City of Rolling Hills reserves the right to not award the contract to the lowest monetary submission. The award of a contract will be based on a variety of factors including references, experience, familiarity with the Palos Verdes Peninsula geology and issues, quality of work and cost. In addition, City of Rolling Hills reserves the right to reject any and all proposals submitted for this service. The City shall not be responsible for cost of preparation of the proposal. Your fee should be a NOT TO EXCEED COST and should include all expenses, consisting of all incidental blueprinting, photography, travel, attendance at one meeting at the City Hall and/or at the project site and miscellaneous costs. Please provide an hourly rate should attendance be required at more than one meeting or other services are requested. Any contract entered into pursuant to this notice will incorporate the provisions of the State Labor Code. Compliance with the prevailing rate of wages and apprenticeship employment standards established by the State Director of Industrial Relations will be required. Once entered into the agreement, the study should be completed and report submitted to the City within 6-8 weeks. Please note that the City of Rolling Hills is an entirely private community, behind gates, and access/visit to any property within the City must be authorized by the property owner and conveyed to the gate guard. In order to enter the City you may be required to purchase a pass from the Rolling Hills Community Association, 310 544-6777. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (310) 377-1521. Di Very truly yours, Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director Enclosures: Geotechnical Report Percolation Testing Report cc: Mr. James Hynes, property owner SAMPLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 2015, at City of Rolling Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California, by and between the CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, hereinafter called the CITY, and hereinafter called the CONSULTANT. 1. RECITALS: A. CITY desires to retain CONSULTANT to prepare a third party independent report on the effect the proposed project would have on the hydrology of the area, both on subject lots as well as on the lots adjacent thereto and below in the Flying Triangle Area of the City of Rolling Hills and Rancho Palos Verdes, including the natural drainage course. The current project entails a subdivision of one 7.05 acres lot, having an APN: 7567-011-020, into two single family lots with the potential for development of one home and accessory structures on each lot. B. CONSULTANT is well qualified by reason of education and experience to perform such services; and C. CONSULTANT is willing to render such professional services as hereinafter defined. Now, therefore, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, CITY hereby engages CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT agree to perform the services set forth in this Agreement. 2. SCOPE OF WORK CONSULTANT shall perform all work necessary to complete in a manner satisfactory to CITY the services set forth in the specifications or the scope of work attached as Exhibit A. 3. COST The CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT for all the work performed under this Agreement at the rates and in the manner established in the attached Fee Schedule, Exhibit B. This fee includes a NOT TO EXCEED cost for all expenses, consisting of all incidental blueprinting, photography, travel, attendance at one meeting and miscellaneous costs. An hourly rate for attendance at additional meetings, if necessary, and for additional professional services is also included. Any increase in contract amount or scope shall be by express written amendment approved by the CITY and CONSULTANT. 4. METHOD OF PAYMENT THE CITY shall pay Consultant a lump sum total of $ to prepare the final report and present it to the City Council at a public meeting. Any services not provided for in this agreement including additional attendance at meetings may be authorized by City at a rate of $ per hour and compensation thereof shall be agreed upon in advance by the parties. Consultant shall submit an invoice at the conclusion of the first meeting and the City will make payment for all work performed to City's satisfaction within 30 days of receipt of an invoice. 5. SUBCONTRACTING CONSULTANT shall not be permitted to subcontract any portion of this contract without the express written consent of the CITY. 6. COMMENCEMENT OF WORK AND TERM OF CONTRACT CONSULTANT shall commence work under this agreement upon execution of this agreement. The provisions of this agreement shall remain in effect until March 31, 2016, unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties. 7. ACCOUNTING RECORDS CONSULTANT must maintain accounting records and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred which records and documents shall be kept available at the CONSULTANT's California office during the contract period and thereafter for five years from the date of final payment. 8. OWNERSHIP OF DATA All data, maps, photographs, and other material collected or prepared under the contract shall become the property of the CITY. 9. TERMINATION This contract may be terminated at any time for breach and the CITY may terminate unilaterally and without cause upon seven (7) days written notice to the CONSULTANT. All work satisfactorily performed pursuant to the contract and prior to the date of termination may be claimed for reimbursement. 10. ASSIGNABILITY CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer interest in this contract without the prior written consent of the CITY. 11. AMENDMENT CD- It is mutually understood and agreed that no alteration or variation of the terms of this contract, or any subcontract requiring the approval of the CITY, shall be valid unless made in writing, signed by the parties hereto, and approved by all necessary parties. 12. NON -SOLICITATION CLAUSE The CONSULTANT warrants that he or she has not employed or retained any ,company or persons, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the CITY shall have the right to annul this contract without liability, or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 13. INDEMNITY CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify the CITY, its officers, employees and agents against, and will hold and save each of them harmless from, any and all actions, claims, damages to persons or property, penalties, obligations or liabilities that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm, entity, corporation, political subdivision or other organization arising out of the negligent acts or intentional tortious acts, errors or omissions of CONSULTANT, its agents, employees, subcontractors, or invitees, provided for herein. CONSULTANT will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees incurred in connection herewith. CONSULTANT will promptly pay any judgment rendered against CITY, its officers, agents or employees for any such claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities. In the event CITY, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against CONSULTANT for such damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the sole negligence of CONSULTANT hereunder, CONSULTANT agrees to pay CITY, its officers, agents, or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by CITY, its officers, agents or employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees. 14. INSURANCE A. Without limiting CONSULTANT'S obligations arising under paragraph 13 - Indemnity, CONSULTANT shall not begin work under this Agreement until it obtains policies of insurance required under this section. The insurance shall cover CONSULTANT, its agents, representatives and employees in connection with the performance of work under this Agreement, and shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Insurance coverage shall be as follows: Automobile Liability Insurance with minimum coverage of $300,000 for property damage, $300,000 for injury to one person/single occurrence, and $300,000 for injury to more than one person/single occurrence. ii. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance, insuring CITY its elected and appointed officers, agents, and employees from claims for damages for personal injury, including death, as well as from claims for property damage which may arise from CONSULTANT'S actions under this Agreement, whether or not done by CONSULTANT or anyone directly or indirectly employed by CONSULTANT. Such insurance shall have a combined single limit of not less than $500,000. iii. Worker's Compensation Insurance for all CONSULTANT'S employees to the extent required by the State of California. B. Deductibility Limits for policies referred to in subparagraphs A (i) (ii) and (iii) shall not exceed $5,000 per occurrence. C. Additional Insured. City, its elected and appointed officers, agents, and employees shall be named as additional insured on policies referred to in subparagraphs A (i) and (ii). D. Primary Insurance. The insurance required in paragraphs A (i) (ii) and (iv) shall be primary and not excess coverage. E. Evidence of Insurance. Consultant shall furnish CITY, prior to the execution of this Agreement, satisfactory evidence of the insurance required, issued by an insurer authorized to do business in California, and an endorsement to each such policy of insurance evidencing that each carrier is required to give CITY at least 30 days prior written notice of the cancellation of any policy during the effective period of the Agreement. All required insurance policies are subject to approval of the City Attorney. Failure on the part of CONSULTANT to procure or maintain said insurance in full force and effect shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement or procure or renew such insurance, and pay any premiums therefore at CONSULTANT'S expense. 15. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT In the event that legal action is commenced to enforce or declare the rights created under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees in the amount to be determined by the court. 16. NON-DISCRIMINATION Consultant shall not discriminate in the hiring of employees or in the employment of subcontractors on any basis prohibited by law. 17. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST No member of the governing body of the CITY and no other officer, employee, or agent of the CITY who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and carrying out of the project, shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement; and the CONSULTANT further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed. 18. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT The CONSULTANT is and shall at all times remain as to the CITY a wholly independent consultant. Neither the CITY nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of the CONSULTANT or any of the CONSULTANT's employees, except as herein set forth. The CONSULTANT shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of the CITY. 19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties hereto with respect to the employment of CONSULTANT by CITY and contains all the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect such employment in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement or amendment hereto shall be effective unless executed in writing and signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT. 20. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and all applicable federal statutes and regulations as amended. 21. Notices. All notices and communications shall be sent to the parties at the following addresses: CITY: CONSULTANT: City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 22. Authorized Signature. Consultant affirms that the signatures, titles, and seals set forth hereinafter in execution of this Agreement represents all individuals, firm members, partners, joint ventures, and/or corporate officers having a principal interest herein. 23. Entire Agreement; Modification. This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or written, between the parties and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the parties. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that any other agreement, statements or promise not contained in this Agreement shall not be valid or binding. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only if signed by the party to be charged. The parties acknowledge and a• ree that their respective obligations under the Agreement have been fully discharged. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants herein contained and have caused this Agreement to be executed in duplicate by setting hereunto their names, titles, hands, and seals this day of , 2015. CONSULTANT: (Title) Agency: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of the City of Rolling Hills Attested: Heidi Luce, City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills Date: Attest as to Form: Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Date: THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK GROUP DELTA December 18, 2015 City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Attention: Ms. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director GDC Proposal No. LA15-095 RECtI V to DEC 2 1 2015 City of Rolling Hills Rv Subject: PROPOSAL FOR HYDROLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW CONSULTING SERVICES, PROPOSED 2 -LOT SUBDIVISION PROJECT FOR A POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, APN . 7567-011-020, ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA. Ms. Schwartz: Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (GDC) presents this proposal to provide hydrology, geologic, and geotechnical consulting services for the referenced project. This proposal was prepared in response to the City of Rolling Hills' request for proposals (RFP) dated December 7, 2015. GDC reviewed the following documents in preparation of this proposal: • Request for Proposal entitled "Hydrology and Related Investigations for a Proposed 2 -Lot Subdivision Project for a Potential Development of Two Single Family Residences. Currently the Parcel is Undeveloped Having APN: 7567-011- 020, Rolling Hills, CA," prepared by the City of Rolling Hills, dated December 7, 2015. • Project plans Sheets 1 through 6 prepared by Bolton Engineering Corp., dated May 27, 2015. The plans include a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, a Grading Plan, Topographic Cross Sections, Topographic Survey, and Hydrology / Hydraulics. Our understanding of the project and our proposed scope of work, schedule and fee are presented below. 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site consists of one 7.05 -acre undeveloped lot located at 23 Crest Road East, which is along the south side of Crest Road East in the City of Rolling Hills and is adjacent to the Flying Triangle, which is designated as a "Geotechnical Hazards Area". GDC understands that an application has been submitted to the City of Rolling Hills (the City) to subdivide the existing lot into two lots with areas of 3.7 and 3.34 acres to be developed as single family residences. We understand that the City requests qualifications and 370 Amapola Avenue, Suite 212, Torrance, CA 90501 TEL: (310) 320-5100 Anaheim — Irvine — Ontario — Oakland — San Diego —Torrance — Victorville www.GroupDelta.com I ,3 LA15-095 Hydrology Study and Geotechnical Peer Review Proposal December 18, 2015 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California Page 2 estimates for the completion of "soils, geotechnical, geological, hydrology and related studies" to assess the feasibility of development of the proposed project. The project site is currently undeveloped and slopes from an elevation of approximately 1,340 feet above mean sea level adjacent to Crest Road East down toward the southwest to an Elevation of approximately 1,110 feet at the southwest property boundary. The property site is bordered by two natural drainages on the west and east of the site. . 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK The proposed scope of work includes a hydrology study and a geotechnical review for the site. The hydrology study will be performed by JMC2 as a subconsultant to GDC and the geotechnical review will be performed by GDC. This section provides GDC's proposed scope of work based on our project understanding and knowledge of the general project area. 2.1 Hydrology Study 2.1.1 Site Visit and Meeting JMC2 will visit the project site to perform a visual reconnaissance of the site topography and local environmental conditions. The scope of work in this proposal may need to be modified based on the field observations during this site visit. We recommend that a site and City representative accompany JMC2 during the site visit. Our scope of work includes attendance by JMC2 and GDC at one meeting with the City to discuss the project and findings. 2.1.2 Hydrology Analyses and Report Preparation JMC2 will perform a hydrology analyses for the project and prepare a written report. The scope of work for the hydrology study will consist of the following: Grading and Drainage Plan Review • Perform a review of the proposed grading and drainage plans for the new building pads, ancillary structures, access roads, courtyards, driveways, paved areas, site drainage, and landscaping to confirm they comply with City and industry standards. • Work includes review of associated earthwork calculations, details, and sections. Work does not include structural reviews. GROUP DELTA LA15-095 Hydrology Study and Geotechnical Peer Review Proposal December 18, 2015 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California Page 3 Analysis and Calculation • Perform analysis and calculation of flow rates and volumes for existing site conditions, storm water runoff for the design site conditions, and below grade water and effluent percolation and dissemination for the design site conditions Hydrology Effects • Determine potential hydrology effects of the proposed development that could alter the existing drainage pattern or create or contribute excess runoff water. Hydrology/Hydraulics Report • Perform a site -specific hydrology study for the project and prepare a written report. The report will be prepared to City Public Works standards and include the following: o Discussion of proposed project and grading and drainage plan review. o On -site storm water generation (flow rates) and recommendations to treat the first rainfall per City standards. o Recommendations for directing water flow from the project site to existing City storm water systems or other non -erosive storm water systems. o Results of hydrology study and drainage system research. 2.2 Geotechnical Peer Review 2.2.1 Site Visit and Meeting GDC will visit the project site to perform a visual reconnaissance of the site topography, surface geology, and local environmental conditions. We will also view adjacent properties from the site and publicly -accessible areas. We recommend that a site and City representative accompany GDC during the site visit. • • Our scope of work includes attendance by GDC at one meeting with the City to discuss the project and findings. 2.2.2 Data and Peer Review GDC will review existing soil data, information reports, records, maps, and additional data available in the City files. Additionally, even though utilities are not expected at the site, GDC anticipates that the City will provide information regarding existing active underground utility lines or other facilities. GROUP DELTA LA15-095 Hydrology Study and Geotechnical Peer Review Proposal December 18, 2015 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California Page 4 GDC will also review available geologic data within the project area, including published historical landslide information for Rolling Hills and Rancho Palos Verdes, geologic and soils maps, consultant's reports, aerial photography, and topographic maps. The referenced plans prepared by Bolton Engineering Corp. (Bolton) include a topographic map and we assume we will be provided the CAD file for the topographic map. Our geotechnical peer review will be based on the information provided in the following geotechnical and percolation reports: • "Geotechnical and Geologic Assessment for Proposed Residential Construction at 23 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, California" by Coast Geotechnical, Inc. dated July 17, 2015. • "Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geological `Investigation Report, Proposed Residential Development, APN 7567-011-020, Tentatively 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California." by Hamilton and Associates, dated July 19, 2015. • "Deep Seepage Pit Percolation Testing, Tentative Parcel Map 72775 Lots 1 @ 2, APN 7567-011-020, Tentatively 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California." By Hamilton and Associates, dated May 29, 2014. 2.2.3 Review and Stability Analyses GDC will use results of the hydrology study and the information obtained from the data review, and peer review to perform a stability analysis of the site under current and proposed conditions. Since we will rely on the data provided by others and our work does not include subsurface exploration, the stability analysis is intended to serve as a review of the stability analyses in the submitted geotechnical report by others and is not intended to be used as design recommendations. 2.2.4 Reporting Our data review, peer review, and the results of our analyses will be presented in a report. The report will include the following information: • Results of the data and peer review. • Results of the hydrology review and any supplemental studies/ analyses. • Results of the review -level stability analyses. • Review -level geotechnical recommendations for site grading. GROUP DELTA LA15-095 Hydrology Study and Geotechnical Peer Review Proposal December 18, 2015 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California Page 5 3.0 QUALIFICATIONS GDC has extensive experience in geotechnical engineering and geologic assessments in the Los Angeles region, including the Palos Verdes Peninsula area. We have performed investigations in the City of Rolling Hills. Qualifications outlining pertinent project experience and resumes for GDC and JMC2 are provided as attachments to this proposal. 4.0 FEES AND SCHEDULE GDC proposes to complete the scope of work presented above for a not -to -exceed feeof as shown in Table 1 and in accordance with our attached fee estimate and fee schedule. We anticipate that the scope of work can be completed within 5 weeks of receiving notice to proceed. Table 1— Fee Estimate TASK FEES Hydrology Study $16,000 Geotechnical Study $14,000 Total 530,000 Our schedule is subject to factors beyond GDC's control such as delays in site access and other factors. 5.0 ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions have been made in the preparation of this report: • The property is not within a flood plain. • The site will be accessible from public streets or private access roads for which the owner and/or City will obtain access agreements. 6.0 INDEMNITY In agreeing to the scope of work contained in this proposal, the City of Rolling Hills acknowledges that it agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Group Delta Consultants, Inc., its employees, and subcontractors from and against any and all liability expense (including defense and legal costs) or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever, arising from or connected in any way with the project site, except where such liability expense is the result of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Group Delta Consultants, Inc., its agents, employees, officers, directors, shareholders, or subcontractors. GROUP DELTA LA15-095 Hydrology Study and Geotechnical Peer Review Proposal December 18, 2015 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California Page 6 7.0 CLOSURE If this proposal is acceptable, please sign and return one copy as our notice to proceed, or provide us with other suitable authorization. We look forward to being your geotechnical consultants on this project. Please feel free to call us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Group Delta Consultants Jaime Buena, P.E. Associate Engineer Distribution: E-mail to Addressee 3 Hard Copies to Addressee ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED" Client*: Name (Please Print): Signature: Title: Date: Address: Telephone No: ( ) FAX No: ( ) Invoice to be sent to the Client', who will be responsible for the payment of services. Client's special invoicing instructions/PO Number Attachments: Schedule of Fees Qualifications Resumes t GROUP OE_LTA ( C-3, GROUP DELTA GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 2015 FEE SCHEDULE HOURLY CHARGES FOR PERSONNEL (Engineer/Geologist/Scientist) SENIOR PRINCIPAL $ 295 PRINCIPAL $225 ASSOCIATE $195 SENIOR $175 PROJECT $155 STAFF $135 DESIGNER / ILLUSTRATOR / AUTOCAD $95 TECHNICAL / PROJECT SUPPORT / Admin $75 TESTING & INSPECTION SERVICES PROJECT MANAGER $165 QUALITY CONTROL MANAGER $145 LABORATORY MANAGER $135 TECHNICIAN / INSPECTOR - PREVAILING WAGE $100 TECHNICIAN / INSPECTOR— NON-PREVALING WAGE $80 CHARGES FOR EQUIPMENT VEHICLE: FIELD VEHICLE MILEAGE (PER CURRENT IRS RATES) NUCLEAR DENSITY GAUGE OTHER CHARGES $ 8.00/hour $ 0.575/mile $ 8.00/hour Outside services will be charged at cost plus 15 percent. Technician and support personnel time for work over eight (8) hours per day will be charged at 1.5 times the regular rates. Holidays and weekends hours (all hours) will be charged 2.0 times the regular rates. LITIGATION FEES Fees for participation in deposition, arbitration, trial, etc., will be charged at an hourly rate of $400 per hour, 4 -hour minimum, portal to portal. EID3 cu 5 L C C . p o m u o a W E O Gc in > Ql NO L Q to L V in m V P Co O o N E o E t m c 'm 'v.r c g L c Q1 t0 o 2 to ' L O L Q . •' m . m NJ ra " re) to 2rn O�tn O O1 Ari Q� GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGIC SERVICES 44' c ` tiTcrilypiaDe µv.. a c s tingpgeot0hfiical :'an environmentall englneenngfirmvith seven offices located in the counties`of Orange, Los Arigeles, San Bernardino, San Diego and Alameda: Our team consists of civil and geotechnical. engineers, ,environmental engineers, engineering geologists, laboratory and field technicians, deputy inspectors, drafting/CADD technicians, and drilling and support personnel specialized in their respective fields. We offer a broad range of services to serve the needs of our clients. - Feasibility studies — Third Party Reviews — Foundation design — Earth Retaining Structures Design — Pavement Design - Earthwork and Grading — Earthquake and Fault Studies - Geologic Hazard Evaluations - Numerical Modeling Analyses — Seismic Design & Hazard Assessments — Hydrogeologic Evaluations — Dewatering — Ground Improvement Analysis & Design - Laboratory Testing — Slope Stability & Landslide Investigation & Mitigation - Instrumentation and Ground Monitoring ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Tank/Hazardous Materials Sanipling�,', Hollywood Fault Study Pile Drivability & Load Tests - Seismic Retrofitting Design — Geologic Reconnaissance & Mapping — Geophysical lnvestigations — Trenching Investigations — Phase I Initial Site — Assessments (ISAs) / Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) - Hazardous Materials Management & Industrial Hygiene — Surveys and Investigations — Technical Abatement Specifications and Work Plans Abatement'and Remediation Monitoring Services — Phase II Site Investigations (Sls), - Consteuction;Environmental Compliance<,: ase. IIIsSIte Rernedlataon 4 = tormwaterr zr . ate , ICI EL- IRENSIC5ERVIC - Earthquake ;Damage Assessments Causationstudles and preparation of repair recommendations. Landslide Investigations'f 'Cat sation studies and/or development of stabilisation schemes: — Construction Vibrations: Vibration monitoring and geotechnical testing. Dam Investigations - Settlement Analyses: Floor level surveys, causation studies and/or preparation of repair recommendations. - Expansive Soils: Subsurface investigations, preparation of repair recommendations. - Groundwater: Subsurface investigations, preparation of subsurface drainage recommendation. TESTING AND INSPECTION SERVICES Group Delta has two materials testing laboratories located in Anaheim and San Diego, California. Our laboratories are licensed as an approved testing facility by various agencies including the Division of the State Architect (DSA), City of Los Angeles, Caltrans, CCRL and AASHTO. In addition, Group Delta's San Diego laboratory has been awarded accreditation to the technical competence and quality assurance requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:2005 as determined by the Laboratory Accreditation Bureau (L -A -B). Soils Testing — Classification & Index — Strength Tests — Volumetric Change — Permeability - Compaction — Aggregate/Subgrade Materials Testing - Asphalt Testing - Concrete Aggregate — Concrete Cylinders — Concrete Beams - Masonry —_ - 'Asphalt &R,Valueiesting_- _• Direct Shear, Consolldatlon:;& sand+EquNalent,T,esting ' — Masonry Unit Cubes — Masonry Prisms — Grout/Mortar — Dry Pack Blocks — Shotcrete — Batch Plant Inspections - Reinforcing Steel — Structural Steel — Chemical Physical Properties — AWS/CWI Welding — Post -Tensioning — Epoxy Dowels/ Drilled in Anchors - Pull Testing — Non Destructive Testing— UT/MT — High Strength Bolting Fireproofing Inspections and Sampling — Concrete & Masonry Coring and Extraction — Mix Design Reviews & Trial Batched — Fiber Wrap Inspection - Vapor Emissions Testing eita-meets all the-cequtrements-as accreddm certiflcatioi oath ro hies :.ISO 17025 (San:Diego Laboratory) - AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) - ACI (American Concrete Institute) - AMRL (AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory) - ANSI (American National Standards Institute) - APWA (American Public Works Association) - ASNT (American Society of • Nondestructive Testing) - ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) - AWS/CWI (American Welding Society/Certified Welding Inspector) - California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) - CCRL (Cement and Concrete Reference Laboratory) - City of Los Angeles Inspectio9.. toyed testing agency witIttbe,following local and national' - t ueow*wn - % A<cRIOTAnox Certificate of Accreditation SIO6[ vev,woi c.,.e..na.V0e..mw Group Delta Consultants 9 ;5 ActMly NMO. Sully 103 S,,n oanoCA 9irm e. 311335514 3.4 .13 31151353 371.71,5.4 34.40.133 13111115 05111 114,1.113 Ann • LuitAtti. as: • - DSA (Division of the State Architect) - ICBO (International Conference of Building Officials) - NICET (National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies - UBC (Uniform Building Code Earthwork Inspection and Testing - Group Delta provides geotechnical observation and testing services for all stages of site grading. Our field compaction testing services are provided by experience soils technicians working under the supervision of licenses professional engineers.. Asphalt Inspection and Testing - Group Delta provides comprehensive asphalt testing and AC Mix Design Services. Concrete Inspection and Testing - Group Delta's concrete inspection ant testing staff is re -certified bi-annually by the Cement and Concrete Reference Laboratory (CCRL) and annually by Caltrans. Our ACI certified concrete technicians perform field and batch plan sampling of concrete materials to assure compliance with project specifications. Specialty Construction Inspection - Group Delta provides experience special inspectors license by the International Code Counsel (ICC) for • Sprayed Applied Fireproofing, Structural Masonry, Structural Steel' Bolting . and Welding,'Pre-StressedConprete, and Reinforced,Concrete.GroupDelta n also provide Certified Welding Inspectors- (CWI) licensed ,by mericdn-Welding Society (AV115)-andAdrtiete structive testing lath as m -1g —vii' 1. ` rb"- t Cf __r particle,and_ultra_sonlcx#estmg-a—�.---�-�;�� Group Delta Technicians & Inspectors hold the following certifications: ICC Inspection - Masonry - Structural Steel/Welding - Concrete - Fireproofing - Pre -Stressed - Concrete Caltrans Certified - Materials Testing - Soils Testing • NuclearGauge Safety ACI°_Certified Concrete �OIIS • r .. j oofzl-A Deputy Inspector W V Z W CC a X W H U W Eli a POPPY TRAIL LANDSLIDE Rolling Hills, CA • • C:,._ .u.�_. Kr • A significant landslide failed and completely blocked Poppy Trail • Landslide measured 300 ft. long, 150 ft. wide, with a headscarp of 30 to 40 feet vertical to the lower graded pad • Vertical fissures, extending 20 ft. deep, were not within the central portion of the slide mass itself AY www.GROUPDELTA.com sr- • Addressed the stability and ultimate repair of the landslide, roadways, and affected adjacent properties • Developed strategy to re -open Poppy Trail immediately • Developed strategy to stabilize hillside and restore lower graded pad to a long term stable condition f; Client: Owner: Completed: f City of Rolling Hills City of Rolling Hills 2011 • ;JEW _;L;, j\ CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ON -CALL Rancho Palos Verdes, CA • Abalone Cove Beach improvements including foundation evaluation • Point Vicente Interpretive Center Geotechnical Investigation/Review • Hess Park Geotechnical Investigation and Evaluations • Point Vicente observation and testing • Completed a variety of projects as part of the on -call contract • Provided geotechnical investigations for slope repairs, utility pads, street repairs • Provided geotechnical investigations for storm drain installations • Provided materials testing and special inspection services Client: Owner: Completed: .r. x <• r, City of Rancho Palos Verdes City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2012 www.GROUPDELTA.com Project is the largest construction of this type in the history of the city Sits on the cliffs overlooking the Pacific Ocean on 102 acres providing a spectacular view Hotel is 400,000 sf and includes 50 casitas, 32 villas and 20 bungalows Amenities include spa, three swimming pools, 1,075 parking spaces and 9 -hole golf course Provided services to the City as the project Inspector of Record Provided subsurface investigations and reviewed safety requirements Conducted daily building inspections included electrical, plumbing, fire sprinklers, HVAC systems as well as overseeing all special inspections and materials sampling t4; I@ Awarded the Gold Nugget Award in the single- family detached home category at the Pacific Coast Builders Conference Newly developed runway office, retail and housing project that will serve as Playa Vista's downtown Newly developed 66,000 sf $45 Million, IMAX Headquarters Lead Geotechnical Engineering firm during both the design and construction phase Implemented multiple surcharge programs to mitigate large settlements Observed the installation of over 10,000 piles and hundreds of acres of grading Performed over 50 static axial pile load test Total Cost: $12 Billion Completed:. Ongoing =1 i -1 F L) L J1.? A -TOWN PLATINUM TRIANGLE Anaheim, CA 190.,1 i • Area surrounds Angel Stadium, Honda Center and the Grove of Anaheim • Project will bring 9,500 housing units, 5 million sq. ft. of office space and 2 million sq. ft. of commercial use • Urban development is under the guidelines of The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan • Provided geotechnical investigations that provided cost-effective foundation recommendations • Services included critical sequencing of shoring/excavation due to high density structures planned for the site • "I— -, •• • c 9P i t '! i . + t ri -qtr.; f v--A ••�' r �f f+ ns.a,wrY �-�:_ -_ .mow^ f -.v ,4 f I �@ r ' `"`y-- �sR 0C .ir '. Ili _ 11t ...1� •'r jet, i lr •, 1.11•-1 `l� .r. --} — �.e -.. i , Z. r I \Asters Ave.`)( 0 A Gene Autry Wy, Orangewood Ave. \ [] COMPLETED PROJECTS APPROVED PROJECTS saw B k 4. • 41 Y — G Map area 1 Client: Lennar Owner: Lennar Total Cost: $1 Billion Completed: On -going www.GROUPDELTA.com CITY OF ANAHEIM ON -CALL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • Provide on -call environmental services for City Parks, Anaheim Regional Transportation intermodai Center (ARTIC ) and road improvement projects • Provided Phase II ESA for the ARTIC site to evaluate the potential for contaminated soil and groundwater and identify management requirements • Performed hazmat surveys on 30 structures in City Parks and along Brookhurst Street www.GROUPDELTA.com L Client: Owner: Total Cost: Completed: City of Anaheim City of Anaheim $100,000 Ongoing 711 DIAMOND BAR SLOPE FAILURE Diamond Bar, CA • Several slope failures occurred during the rainy seasons • Surficial slope failure occurred at three locations within the Diamond Bar Center site • Slope failures were up to 4 ft. deep and resulted in down slope movement • Heavy rainfall had caused saturation of surface soils and slope parallel seepage www.GROUPDELTA.com • Performed a geotechnical investigation and developed detailed recommendations, plans and specifications to provide necessary factors of safety for slope parallel seepage conditions • Repair involved excavation of a keyway, placing layers of geogrid reinforcement at 3 -ft vertical spacing, installation of geocomposite drains and gravel drain blankets Client: City of Diamond Bar Owner: City of Diamond Bar Completed: 2007 GROUP DELTA : r ac .d...s BLACK MOUNTAIN RANCH WATER RESERVIOR San Diego, CA • 25 million gallon new reservoir for the growing community of Black Mountain Ranch • Below grade cast -in -place reinforced concrete reservoir poured over metavolcanic rock • Project included inlet/outlet building, new pump station, piping and utilities, access roads • Subject to review by the State of California - Division of Safety of Dams • Provided geotechnical design recommendations and plan review • Provided quality assurance/quality control testing services during construction of the reservoir, pump stations and associated pipelines .o... -+-•-- w www.GROUPDELTA.com ►2z Client: Taylor Woodrow Homes Owner: City of San Diego Total Cost: Calibri 11 Completed: Caiibri11 271 I) SANTA ANA RIVER TRUNK SEWER Riverside, CA • New sewer is four miles long beginning at the east end of the Water Quality Control Plant • Sewer will be 4 to 5.5 feet in diameter and 10 to 20 feet deep • Approximately 2,500 feet of the alignment is tunneled under the existing railroad and in an area where a park exists al. www.GROUPDELTA.com eca,clicinAtif ijob • Reviewed existing information and provided geotechnical engineering information for design of pipeline • Evaluated liquefaction and lateral spreading potential along alignment • Provided extensive field explorations and laboratory testing Client: Owner: Total Cost: Completed: Brown & Caldwell County of Riverside $11,660 Million 2011 A GROUP DELTA STATE ROUTE 22 IMPROVEMENTS Orange County, CA Project Highlights • Project was awarded the ACEC 2006 Project of the Year • Improvements were made for approximately 12 miles and extended through four cities • Included 32 bridge structures, 83 retaining walls and sound walls, 51 ramps and 317 utility crossings DESIGN -BUILD $490 MILLION Group Delta Highlights • Developed 33 post advanced planning study geotechnical data reports for 33 bridges • Work performed under a formal QA/QC program in accordance with the 150 9000 • Provided construction support services including material testing and inspection • Moderate seismic accelerations and shallow groundwater Client: Parsons Owner: Orange County Transportation Authority/ Caltrans TotalCost: ; ; $490 Million_ Comp tedcm: t 008`. 0 Dpi I-5/GENE AUTRY INTERCHANGE Anaheim, CA • Awarded 2014 Bridge Project of the Year by American Society of Civil Engineers • New westerly access to 1-5 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes • Project Stakeholders include City of Anaheim, OCTA and Caltrans District 12 • Project connects Disneyland Resort with Angel Stadium .rnr .Aw- l) Nag MrN) construclion,' 1 {- T .`, • tt• a"r" / ., ••chc lr www.GROUPDELTA.com Group • • Provided quality assurance materials testing and inspection for construction management firm • Inspection and testing was provided in strict accordance with Caltrans' right-of-way and Greenbook specifications for City of Anaheim right-of-way r Client: Hill International Owner: OCTA/Caltrans/ City of Anaheim Total Cost: $45 Million • Completed: 2013 ANAHEIM REGIONAL TRANSPORTION INTERMODAL CENTER Anaheim, CA • New Architectural iconic terminal building, 117 ft. high with an approximate footprint of 48,000 sf • 68,000 sf steel -framed tubular structure with Ethylene Tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) and glass cladding as part of the terminal • One of the largest welding projects in California www.GROUPDELTA.com • Managed and responsible for all inspection and testing including coordination of welding non- destructive testing (NDT) • Responsible for deep dynamic soil compaction, ETFE roof installation, and monolithic mat foundation inspections Client: City of Anaheim Owner: Orange County Transportation . Authority (OCRA) Total Cost _ =: -$220: Million, Com 0 pleted h2014 GERALD DESMOND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT Port of Long Beach, CA • Highest vertical clearance of all cable -stayed bridges in the United States (US) • Gerald Desmond Bridge accounts for 15% of waterborne cargo movement in the US • Higher clearance to accommodate the newest generation of efficient cargo ships • 2nd tallest cable -stayed bridge design in the US • Serving as Environmental Compliance Manager • Groundwater contamination characterization, monitoring and modeling and hazardous materials surveys • Stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) inspections and impacted soil management www.GROUPDELTA.com Client: Shimmick, FCC, Impregilo JV • Owner: Port of Long Beach/ Caltrans Total Cost: $1 Billion Completed: Ongoing HYATT REGENCY GRAND COAST RESORT Huntington Beach, CA • 504 -room, four-story, hotel complex includes two levels of subterranean parking and extensive landscape and hardscape features • Additional features include ballrooms, conference rooms, and retail facilities • Amenities include tennis courts, walkways and pedestrian bridges crossing Pacific Coast Highway • Scope of work included geotechnical review of existing information for the site that resulted in providing recommendations that saved client more than $1 Million in pile foundation cost • Additional geotechnical recommendations were provided for grading, site preparation, seismic hazards, liquefaction evaluation, surcharge program and pavement design Client: Robert Mayer Corporation Owner. Hyatt Corporation Total'Cost: $70 Million Completed: ,'._ 2010; -. Resort is located just east of Pacific Coast Highway, 500 feet from coastal bluffs of Carlsbad State Beach Development included the construction of a three-story wood -framed hotel with separate three-story parking garage, both with basement areas Provided geoteehnical investigations for site development During'construction provided grading oversight and testing Construction support services included materials testing and inspection services Wave Crest Oceanfront, LLC Hilton'Hotels ti Calib i $75;Million:..: WESTMINSTER SENIOR HOUSING Westminster, CA r�ct }i lihts • Development consists of two-story and three- story senior townhouse apartments • Site is 3.07 acres and includes eight buildings with a total of 832,006 sf *,Group Deita.-Hfgthl ht ._ • Provided geotechnical investigations and design recommendations • Construction support services included quality control materials testing and inspection 1°10 Client: -s- Related Companies of California Owner: Westminster Redevelopment Agency Completed: 2003 JMC2 ti ABOUT G'f-MF 111101 Focus John M. Cruikshank Consultants, Inc. (JMC2) is committed to providing high -quality surveying and civil engineering services. Founded in 1996, the firm emphasizes client service and custom tailored work approaches that fit each client's individual needs. With a flexible organizational structure, JMC2 is able to focus on ensuring quality and cost effectiveness, maintaining tight schedules, and remaining responsive to client's revisions. Clients have come to rely on our accuracy, automation, and innovation providing engineering and management which saves them the most money possible on the back end of their projects. JMC2 is dedicated to working closely with clients to best accomplish their goals consistent with engineering regulations. Continuous workshops and seminars show our commitment to engineering education, as well as our dedication to the highest standards of client service. The firm has a tremendous portfolio of LEED-certified buildings and is currently working on design build and BIM projects. JMC2 provides services in: • Land Surveying — ALTA surveys, cadastral, boundary, topography, right-of-way mapping, construction as-builts, GIS mapping • Civil Engineering —earthwork calculations, green street designs, low impact development (LID), storm water management, public facilities, land development, street design, dry/wet utilities, street and parking lot lighting, WaterCAD modeling • Traffic Engineering — studies, striping, signage, traffic signalization • Permit Processing — cities, counties, state, coastal, federal • Construction Support — SWPPP, traffic control, shoring, constructability reviews, construction staking Quality Control/Assurance Technology The key to keeping up with the ever-increasing demands of the client is to continually utilizing the latest electronic tools and industry information. JMC2's office offers its professionals a wide area network (WAN) and digital line access to quickly share data internally and extemally; thus - minimizing duplication. This philosophy carries over to project team members (architects, owner, etc.) through extensive use of the Internet in sharing project information. The full utilization of modem technology has allowed JMC2 to provide its clients with big firm's quality with a small firm's service. Visit us on the Web at hup://www.imc-2.com/. Tel: 310-241-6550 Fax: 310-833-6555 Email: jcruikshank@jmc-2.com 411 N. Harbor Boulevard, Suite 201, San Pedro, CA 90731 www.jmc-2.com ti Professional Experience John Cruikshank established John M. Cruikshank Consultants, Inc. (JMC2) a professional service company to provide engineering and surveying services to architecture and engineering (A/E) companies, public agencies, contractors, and private clients. JMC2 provides the essential technical knowledge and products to develop solutions that address the unique problems of the client. The following is a listing of relevant JMC2 projects: • 15935 Skytop Road, Los Angeles, CA. Project civil engineers for slope failure repair at this vacant residential lot. Private client purchased this lot uphill from his home and hired JMC to prepare Slope Repair Plans, grading, drainage, hydrology, utility easements, and erosion control to stabilize and to enhance this single family lot. Work included close coordination with the project soils engineers, client, and City of LA Bureau of Engineering. • 3541 N. Knoll Road, Los Angeles, CA. After a severe slope failure occurred at this and the two neighboring downhill properties, JMC2 was asked to come in and provide civil engineering consulting services to develop repair plans agreeable to all parties including the City of LA. Work included project management, site reconnaissance, grading, hydrology, drainage, retaining wall plans, cost estimates, erosion control, permit processing, and construction administration. • 1812 Melhill Way, Los Angeles, CA, Frederick Fisher and Partners Architects. Project civil engineers for the design of this new, 2 -story single family home, hardscaping, landscaping, hillside repair, bum/bulk debris control, and bioretention system in the City of Los Angeles. Work included project coordination, grading, drainage, hydrology, retaining walls, utilities, SUSMP, construction administration, and City of LA permit processing for grading, hydrology, and flood control. • El Niguel Terrace HOA Slope Repair, Laguna Niguel, CA, David H. Lee & Associates. Project surveyors and engineers for the GPS/aerial mapping and engineering analysis and plans for slope repair for this ten acre, 68 -unit El Niguel Terrace complex.. Work included aerial and topographic surveys, hydrology/hydraulics, grading and drainage, erosion control, SWPPP, and construction monitoring. • 2332/2324 Mandeville Canyon Road, Los Angeles, CA. Project civil engineers for the design of this new, 5,000 sqft home, pool, hardscaping, landscaping, and bioretention system spanning two residential lots in the City of Los Angeles. Work has included design -build coordination, grading, drainage, hydrology, retaining walls, utilities, SUSMP, SWPPP, construction administration, and City of LA and LA County permit processing for grading, hydrology, and flood control. • BMSZ Residence, Beverly Glen, CA, Landry Design. Project civil engineers for this new, 30,000 square foot residence located in the Los Angeles hills. Design work includes site grading, retaining walls (spread and pile foundations), drainage, and erosion control. • Newman SFR Drainage Improvement Project, Pacific Palisades, CA, C & C Partners, Inc. Project civil engineer for the preparation of Drainage Plans to mitigate storm water runoff throughout the property and to their downstream neighbors. Work included 3d base mapping, storm water assessment, design alternatives, and construction documents. • 32232 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA, Private Resident. Project civil engineers for the reconstruction of this coastline residence damaged by slope instability issues. Work included the design of a earth stabilizing, geogrid system plans, retaining walls, grading, drainage, SUSMP, permit processing, and construction support. • Austin Residence, Malibu, CA, Choate Associates Architects. Project engineers for preparation of site grading plans, Storm Water Management Plan, storm water design (includes detention basin), access road design, and utility coordination. The new home will be an 8,300 square foot, single-family residence overlooking Malibu City Hall. • Reiher SFR Drainage Improvement Project, Upper Bel Air, Los Angeles, CA, Reiher Family. Project civil engineers for the preparation of Drainage Plans to mitigate potential terrace slippage during a significant storm water event. Work included surveys, base mapping (3d), Storm Water Management Plan, design alternatives, and Drainage Plans. • Reams Residence, Malibu, CA, C & C Partners, Inc. Project engineers for site grading and drainage plans for a new, multi -story hillside residence. Work complied with City of Malibu's standards for the redevelopment of a fire rebuild. • Lever Residence, Point Dume, CA, Choate Associates Architects / Bart Prince Architects. Project civil engineers for site grading and drainage plans for this new, multi -story beach cottage. The grading involved the analysis of several different pad variations along with a new, fire access road. • 11101 Chalon Road, Bel Air, CA, ARYA Architects. Project engineers for the grading, drainage and retaining wall plans for a two single-family residence in Bel Air. Work included hydrology studies, utility plans and storm water pollution prevention plans and construction administration pursuant to current City of Los Angeles codes and standards. Public lnfrastructu_re • Via Rosa Storm Drainage System, Palos Verdes Estates, CA, City of Palos Verdes Estates. Project civil engineers for a new, miscellaneous transfer drain at Via Rosa and Palos Verdes Drive for the City of Palos Verdes Estates. Work includes survey, soils reports, hydrology study, site and as - built investigation, city coordination, and construction documents for this I/3 —mile City system. • 241b Street Sewer Realignment, Hermosa Beach, CA, City of Hermosa Beach. Civil engineers for new sewer lines and street improvements at 24ih Street and The Strand in Hermosa Beach. Work included surveys, sewer trunkline design, and hardscape upgrades in close coordination with Hermosa Beach's Engineering Department and construction company during installation. • Project Management of Citywide Storm Drainage Projects, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, Public Works Department. Civil engineering/management consultants who directly assisted the Director of Public Works manage several citywide storm drainage projects. Work includes priority assessments, site reconnaissance, request for proposal development, consultant oversight, and quality assurance. . Constructability Reviews • 0 Camino College Humanities Building, Torrance, CA, Construction Specialty Services. JMC2 provided civil engineering constructability reviews for the new Humanities Building at El Camino College. Work included reviews of all on- and off -site civil engineering plans, landscape plans, and cross-check coordination with all other disciplines. • Los Angeles Trade Technical College South Campus, Los Angeles, CA, Construction Specialty Services. JMC2 provided civil engineering and architectural constructability reviews for the new South Campus at the Los Angeles Trade Technical College. Work has included reviews of all on- and off -site civil engineering plans, landscape plans, and architectural plans. (33 GROUP DELTA www.GroupDelta.com Michael Reader, GE Principal Geotechnical Engineer Professional Registrations Geotechnical Engineer, California No. 2259 Civil Engineer, California No. 44918 Education MS Civil (Geotechnical) Engineering California State University, Long Beach B5 Geotechnical Engineering, University of Arizona Years Experience: 25 EXPERIENCE SUMMARY Mr. Reader has more than 25 years of experience performing geotechnical investigations for a wide range of projects in the Southern California area. His experience includes investigations for highway and bridge development, public works projects, commercial development, city redevelopment studies, landslide analysis and stabilization, water and wastewater treatment plants, hospitals, educational facilities, mid -rise structures, liquefaction, and seismicity. His specialties include soil dynamics, faulting and ground motion analysis, liquefaction, and computer programming. He has developed a number of sophisticated in-house geotechnical computer programs for use in pile capacity, ground motion, liquefaction, response spectra, and foundation settlement. Mr. Reader has extensive knowledge of piles and pile placement techniques. He has given seminars in the subject and is continually seeking updated information and ideas in order to for him to keep up with the latest developments and specifications. Cranks Road Slide, Culver City, California: Project Manager responsible for providing the geotechnical review of the initial slope repair recommendations for this urban landslide repair project located in a densely populated city in the County of Los Angeles. Mr. Reader was asked to perform the review by the city engineers familiar based on his success with sensitive engineering issues at the nearby Playa Vista development. His review allowed the city to re -design the initial repair recommendation to include a greater factor of safety, a shorter construction time frame, and at a reduced cost. Abalone Cove Beach Improvements, Rancho Palos Verdes, California: Project Manager for the geologic evaluation of a study for a proposed parking lot at the toe of the Abalone Cove Landslide in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The evaluation included review of previous geologic studies of the landslide, geologic evaluation of air photos, review of proposed grading plans, a limited geologic field investigation, and slope stability of the proposed grading slopes. The project also involved discussions with City engineering and the Coastal Commission staff about the project. County of Los Angeles SMRF Analysis: Principal -In -Charge for this project where Group Delta provided site -specific earthquake ground motions and response spectra used to analyze Seismic Resistant Frames (SMRFs) for Los Angeles County courthouses and other public buildings. Lunada Bay Canyon Erosion Study, Luanda Bay, California: Project Manager for this project. Geologic evaluation of the inland progression of the Lunada Bay Canyon, including limiting resident layers, scouring, and landsliding. The study included mapping of the of the erodible and more resistance geologic units, estimating the rate of retreat from historic air photos, and providing recommendations, for mitigation of further erosion of the softer geologic and alluvial unties to prevent the erosion from affecting nearby residences and streets. On -Call Seismic Bridge Retrofit, Los Angeles, California: Senior Engineer for the geotechnical engineering of two bridge seismic retrofit on -call contracts (ranked teams 81 and #3). These projects include over 30 bridges in District 7 (Los Angeles County), District 4 (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), and District 5 (San Luis Obispo and Santa Anaheim Irvine Oakland Ontario San Diego Torrance Victorville Michael Reader, GE Page 2 Barbara Counties). The projects included liquefaction analyses for two railroad overheads in Paso Robles, as well as as -built pile analyses and foundation analyses, seismic hazard analyses, and new pile analyses for the most of the other structures. Paleo-Seismic Investigation, Newport -Inglewood Fault, California: Principal Engineer for a paleoseismic investigation of the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone for a 50 -lot residential development in Huntington Beach Paleo-Seismic Investigation, San Gabriel Fault Zone, Santa Clarita, California: Principal Engineer for a paleo-seismic investigation for a 900 acre residential development at old Bermite Munitions site in Santa Clarita Playa Vista Development Westchester Bluff Study, Los Angeles, California: Project Manager for evaluating the stability and bluff studies of the Westchester Bluffs for the Playa Vista Development since 1999. The bluffs have a total length for approximately 2 miles, and have undergone erosion, slumping and other instabilities for the last 80 years. The study result aim to provide recommendation to mitigate these instabilities, while maintaining, as much as possible, the natural for and landscape of the slopes. These measures include surficial grading, bio-mat coverage, stability fills, and drainage improvements. The study includes working with the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety and the California Coastal. Queensway Bay Bridge over Shoreline Drive, Long Beach, California: Project Manager for the seismic retrofit study and detailed liquefaction analysis for this Los Angeles County bridge. Caltrans Statewide On -Call Bridge Retrofit, Southern California: Project Manager for the geotechnical analysis for bridge retrofits statewide. This included liquefaction evaluations, seismic slope stability analyses, as -built foundation analysis, seismic soil/structure interaction analysis, and ground improvement recommendations. Culver City On -call Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology, Culver City, California: Project Manager for this city-wide on -call contract which Group Delta has maintained since 1998. The contract has involved geotechnical investigations city-wide for storm drains, water lines, sewers, and pavement, as well as emergency response for landslide analysis and mitigation. City of Rolling Hills On -call Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology, Rolling Hills, California: Project Manager for this city-wide on -call contract. The contract has primarily involved the emergency response, geotechnical and geologic investigations, and technical consulting with the City regarding the Poppy Trail Landslide, which destroyed a hillside and roadway in 2005. City of Rancho Palos Verdes On -call Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology, Rancho Palos Verdes, California: Project Manager for this city-wide on -call contract which Group Delta has maintained since 2000. The contract has involved geotechnical investigations city-wide for storm drains, water lines, sewers, and pavement, as well as emergency response for flood damage to streets and storm drains. • CROUP DELTA Anaheim Irvine Oakland Ontario San Diego Torrance Victorville e - www.GroupDelta.com 95 [SOUP DELTA www.GroupDelta.com Curt Scheyhing, GE Principal Geotechnical Engineer Professional Registrations Civil Engineer, California No. 59216 Geotechnical Engineer, California No. 2766 Education MS Civil Engineering, San Diego State University BS Civil Engineering, San Diego State University Years of Experience: 20 SUMMARY Mr. Scheyhing has more than 19 years of experience including project management, design review, directing field and laboratory investigations, performing engineering analysis and design, and preparing geotechnical studies and reports. He has played a key role in numerous Caltrans and local agency transportation projects in the counties of Riverside/San Bernardino (District 8), Orange (District 12), Los Angeles (District 7), and San Diego (District 11). Project experience includes Mission Valley East LRT and SR-54/SR-125 Design Build (Dist. 11), SR -22 Design Build and West County Connector projects (Dist. 12), Ocean Boulevard/ Terminal Island Freeway Interchange in the Port of Long Beach (Dist. 7), and SR -210, SR -30, Bundy Canyon Road widening, and SR -91 Serfas Club Drive widening in Riverside/San Bernardino (Dist. 8). He specializes in geotechnical engineering for roadways, bridges, and retaining structures in a variety of terrain ranging from liquefaction prone hydraulic fills to alluvial sites to soft and hard rock sites, and has prepared numerous Preliminary Foundaton Reports (PFRs) and Foundation Reports (FRs) for walls and bridges, and Materials Reports (MRs) and Geotechnical Design Reports (GDRs) for roadways, following applicable Caltrans standards. His analytical/design experience includes analysis of static and seismic slope stability of soil and rock slopes, design of spread footings, driven piles, and drilled piles for bridge and retaining wall foundations, geotechnical design of earth retaining structures including cast -in -place concrete walls, MSE walls, soil nail walls, retaining walls, sound walls and tieback walls, settlement analysis for foundations and earth fills, lightweight fills, liquefaction evaluation, and ground improvement including surcharge and stone columns. EXPERIENCE Santa Anita Canyon Road Slope Repair Project, Arcadia, California: Project Geotechnical Engineer responsible for evaluation and repair of storm damage along this winding mountain road that occurred in the 1995 rainy season. The slope repair was performed using geogrid and Sierrascape baskets to reconstruct a deep erosion gully that formed in the winter of 1995 on a 100 foot high 1H: 1V Decomposed Granite (DG) slope resulting in collapse of a portion of the roadway and leaving a 30 foot high near vertical scarp. The erosion occurred when a landslide from the upper slope blocked the roadway, and heavy storm runoff flowing down the paved roadway discharged over the side. The City required a repair that stayed entirely within the City right of way, and wanted a "non-structural" solution (no soldier piles or tiebacks, etc.). Due to the space limitations a steep reinforced soil slope solution was selected. Mr. Scheyhing directed and performed geologic and geotechnical evaluations, and developed detailed recommendations for the repair. These included geologic mapping, post -repair global slope stability evaluation utilizing back -calculated shear strength parameters, evaluation of temporary excavation stability, recommendations for backfill strength parameters and compaction, and sub -drainage. Mr. Scheyhing also reviewed (and corrected) the wall vendor's design plans and calculations using our software package ReSSA 2.0, and required them to upgrade the strength of the geogrids as a result. Mr. Scheyhing also provided construction engineering support in the field including observation and acceptance of the keyway, modifications of the benching, and directed field compaction control to verify compliance with the compaction specifications. Anaheim Irvine Oakland Ontario San Diego Torrance Victorville Curt Scheyhing, GE Page 2 Big Canyon Slope Repair Project, Newport Beach, California: Project Geotechnical Engineer responsible for evaluation and repair of numerous surficial slope failures that occurred between 1998 and 2005 due to heavy rainfall events on the 1.5H: 1V fill slopes below the multi -million dollar homes surrounding the golf course in Big Canyon Country Club. His responsibilities included geotechnical investigation, evaluation of the causes of the failures, geotechnical analyses, and development of geotechnical recommendations for the slope repairs. Mr. Scheyhing also prepared plans and specifications approved by the City of Newport Beach for construction of the repairs, and provided construction oversight for the repairs and compaction testing to ensure the repairs were performed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations. The slope repairs were achieved by installing subsurface drainage devices, strengthening the soils with geogrid reinforcement, and installing erosion control fabric and landscaping. The slope repairs were successfully constructed and remained stable during subsequent heavy rains. Diamond Bar Slope Failure, Diamond Bar, California: Senior Geotechnical Engineer for several slope failures that occurred on the slopes of Diamond Bar Center. Diamond Bar Center building and surrounding parking lots were developed on top of a natural hillside. Surficial slope failures occurred at three locations within the Diamond Bar Center site, due to heavy rainfall, saturation of surface soils, and slope parallel seepage. The failures were up to 4 feet deep, and resulted in down slope movement of soils into the mid -slope v -ditch. Group Delta performed geotechnical investigation and developed detailed recommendations, plans, and specifications to provide the necessary factors of safety for slope parallel seepage conditions. The repair involved excavation of a keyway, placing layers of geogrid reinforcement at 3 foot vertical spacing, installation of geocomposite drains and gravel drain blankets, benching into the hillside, and reconstructing the slope with on -site and imported fills. GDC also provided engineering support and full-time observation and compaction testing services during construction. Pouk vs. Taylor Woodrow, San Diego, California: Project Geotechnical Engineer for a geotechnical investigation in lawsuits filed by homeowners against developers. Mr. Scheyhing performed interior and exterior house inspections and documentation reports for numerous residences. He also conducted floor level manometer field survey, data analysis, and contouring. After a deep fill settlement evaluation, Mr. Scheyhing concluded that there was distress. This project also required borings and lab testing. Planet Pacific, San Diego, California: Project Geotechnical Engineer tasked to determine if there was building distress due to settlement and lateral movement of deep expansive soil side -hill fill. Main duties included: monitoring of exterior foundations, floor level manometer surveys, construction observation of remedial repairs and monitoring of building tilt. Mr. Scheyhing also performed inclinometer installation and monitoring of slope deformations; engineering evaluations of causes of building distress including deep full settlement and lateral fill extensions were completed. Post -repair monitoring of foundations and floor slabs were also conducted by Curt. GROUP DELTA Anaheim Irvine Oakland Ontario San Diego Torrance Victorville "J% www.GroupDelta.com JMCZ RESUME FOR LEE JOHNSON, PE EDUCATION Dec 1957 BSCE, Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS July 1962 Registered Civil Engineer/California CJ 3560 EXPERIENCE Leland F. "Lee" Johnson is a graduate of Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. Upon graduation from college, he moved to California to take a position in the water division of the City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power. After a short stint at DWP, he joined a private consulting engineering company in Los Angeles. This firm's main line of work was land development, along with some military and municipal projects. Approximately two years later he, along with two other engineers, founded a new private consulting engineering firm in Los Angeles, Ervin Engineering, where he remained for the next 21 years. This firm also performed land development, municipal and military engineering projects. Upon leaving Ervin Engineering, he joined Lockman & Associates, in Monterey Park, CA. This firm also did land development, municipal and military projects. While at Lockman and Associates, he managed a branch office in the City of San Juan Capistrano. One of his main projects was a 2000 acre land development called Lomas San Juan. He remained with Lockman & Associates for I I years. He joined the firm of DMJM + Harris--riuw a part of AECOM--at offices located in Long Beach, and Orange, CA. Some of the major projects he worked on were the Alameda Corridor, Oceanside to Escondido 22.5 mile rail project, and Piers S and T container terminals in the port of Long Beach. In 2005 he joined John M. Cruikshank Consultants, Inc., located in San Pedro, as a Senior Project Manager. 15935 Skytop Road, Los Angeles, CA. Project civil engineer for slope failure repair at this vacant residential lot. Private client purchased this lot uphill from his home and hired JMC2 to prepare Slope Repair Plans, grading, drainage, hydrology, utility easements, and erosion control to stabilize and to enhance this single family lot. Work included close coordination with the project soils engineers, client, and City of LA Bureau of Engineering. 3541 N. Knoll Road, Los Angeles, CA. After a severe slope failure occurred at this and the two neighboring downhill properties, JMC2 was asked to come in and provide civil engineering consulting services to develop repair plans agreeable to all parties including the City of LA. Work included project management, site reconnaissance, grading, hydrology, drainage, retaining wall plans, cost estimates, erosion control, permit processing, and construction administration. El Camino College Humanities Building, Torrance, CA, Construction Specialty Services. Civil engineer who provided civil engineering constructability reviews for the new Humanities Building at El Camino College. Work included reviews of all on- and off -site civil engineering plans, landscape plans, and cross-check coordination with all other disciplines. El Niguel Terrace HOA Slope Repair, Laguna Niguel, CA, David H. Lee & Associates. Project surveyor and engineer for the GPS/aerial mapping and engineering analysis and plans for slope repair for this ten acre, 68 -unit El Niguel Terrace complex.. Work included aerial and topographic surveys, hydrology/hydraulics, grading and drainage, erosion control, SWPPP, and construction monitoring. Mulholland Drive and Jennings Drive Bulkhead Design -Build Repairs, Clarke Contracting Corporation, Los Angeles, CA. QA/QC Manager for bulkhead repairs at three locations within City of John M. Cruikshank Consultants, Inc. Tel: 310-241-6550 Fax: 310-833-6555 411 N. Harbor Boulevard, Suite 201, San Pedro, CA 90731 www.jmc-2.com ti Los Angeles (City) right-of-way. Work included topographic surveys, public records research, coordination meetings, site reconnaissance, erosion control plans, shoring calculations and plans, specifications, permit processing, and construction administration. Santa Monica State Beach Parking Lot 4S Rehabilitation, Santa Monica, CA, City of Santa Monica Public Works Department. Project manager for the preparation of plans and specifications to resurface, rehabilitate, and restripe Santa Monica Beach Parking Lot 4S. Work included surveying, CAD basemap preparation from aerial photos, engineer's site visit pavement assessment, paving repair plans, striping plans, and construction administration for this l0 -acre asphalt parking facility. Water and Power Office and Warehouse Building, Pasadena, CA, Gonzalez Goodale Architects. Project civil engineer for the design and construction administration services for the renovation of the existing Water and Power Office and Warehouse Building and the development of a new 18,000 SF office building. Work has included site plan development, grading and drainage plans, SUSMP, utility plans, specifications, paving plans (includes pervious concrete), erosion control, cost estimates, demolition plans, bidding and negotiations, and construction administration services. The Canyons at Big Horn — Golf Course and Residential Development: Lead civil engineer for grading plans, street designs, storm water layouts, sewer and water design, and Hwy 74 and existing street widening for the new golf course and maintenance facilities. Palm Springs and Desert Springs Development Projects: Mr. Johnson has been the project civil engineer on numerous projects in the City of Palm Springs, including: Palm Springs Railroad Station — parking lot, Marriott Desert Springs Resort and Villas Expansion — grading, drainage, sewer, and water lines, Palm Springs Mall Renovation, Wind Farm at Palm Springs — access roads and layouts, and numerous individual subdivisions — lot grading and improvements Pier S and Pier T, Port of Long Beach: For Pier S, Mr. Johnson was in responsible charge and lead designer for the major utility lines including water, sewer, and storm drainage. He was responsible for grading, drainage, and outfall pump station lines at Pier T. Los Angeles County Community Pools — Lead civil engineer for site evaluation reports, grading, drainage, facilities upgrades, structural improvements, erosion control, and SUSMPs for numerous LA County pool facilities. Bagram, Afghanistan — Grading and drainage improvements for 150 -acre munitions storage facility. Plan review and approval by US Army Corp. of Engineers. Grading.and drainage improvements for a I55 -acre military barracks for the Afgan Nation Army. Plan review approval by US Army Corp. of Engineers. La Moore Naval Air Station - 1998 — New housing development for military personnel grading, drainage and street improvements. Improvements to solve drainage problems in existing naval housing on base. Camp Pendleton — Grading, drainage and street improvements for new housing development for officer family quarters. Beale Air Force Base, California — Recommendations for improvements for to solve drainage problems around existing officer and enlisted housing on base Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan, Orange, CA, The Arroyo Group. Project civil engineer in charge of the engineering and infrastructure assessment for this historic and unique cultural city center area. Work included data collection, analysis, and baseline information from all local utility companies and city departments. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK zv GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 23241 Ar oyo Vista • Rancho Sant Margarita, CA 92688 • phone: 949.888.6513 • fax 949.888.1380 • info@gmugeo.com • www.gmugeo.com Ms. Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Subject: December 17, 2015 RECEIVED DEC 2 1 2015 City of Rolling Hills By GMU Proposal P-15175 Revised Proposal to Provide Hydrology Studies and Third -Party Geotechnical Review Services, 23 Crest Road East (APN: 7567-011-020), City of Rolling Hills References: Listed on Page 7 Dear Ms. Schwartz: At your request, we are pleased to present this proposal in response to the reference (1) Request for Proposal to provide the services outlined below in regards to the subject property. Based on our review of the Request for Proposal, the reference (2) plans, conversations with you, and our knowledge of the subject site area, we have prepared the subsequent scope of work and cost estimate. Proiect Understanding Based on our overview of the reference documents, we understand the existing undeveloped site has been brought to the City for potential subdivision and development. As part of the property owner's development design efforts, a plan showing conceptual grading and hydrology (reference (2)) has been prepared, and a geotechnical investigation report has been published (reference (5)). Additional geotechnical documents have also been prepared, including a percolation study (references (3) and (4)). We also understand it is the City's desire that additional work be performed by an independent third -party consultant, including: 1) geotechnical peer review, 2) hydrology studies, and 3) geotechnical assessment of hydrological impacts. While analysis of below grade water and effluent impacts to the site during storms was also requested, we understand from conversations with you that this scope item has been clarified to be "assessment of the impact of the proposed onsite storm water and wastewater systems on the site and adjacent properties, including downslope properties within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes". Ms. Yolanta Schwartz, CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Hydrologic Studies and Geotechnical Review Services for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills The reference (2) plans indicate the site will be subdivided into two single-family residential lots with onsite wastewater systems and a storm water retention/infiltration system. Grading will consist of cuts and fills to create two building pads, two stable pads, and associated driveways and slopes. Our review and understanding of the planned project indicates there are three significant feasibility issues that may affect the development: • Potential impact of drainage and/or infiltration changes on both the subject site and adjacent properties, including the potential effect on landslides and properties downslope of the site, including the Klondike Canyon Geotechnical Hazard Assessment District (KCGHAD); • Stability of all slopes, both natural and proposed, within the development and property; • Potential impact to stability of adjacent properties, in particular the Flying Triangle landslide located downslope of the property. Given the above, we have prepared the subsequent scope of work and cost estimate. Oualifications and Experience GMU Geotechnical, Inc. (GMU), has provided geotechnical consulting and peer review services since 1968. Our clients rely on us for proactive project involvement, responsiveness, and ability to develop innovative solutions for complex projects. As a result, our clients choose to develop long-term relationships with us. GMU has provided geologic, geotechnical, and hydrology services on numerous projects similar to the subject development, as well as extensive peer review services on similar projects. Our hydrology staff has performed detailed studies for custom developments similar to the proposed project, and has detailed experience in the Palos Verdes Peninsula, including the adjacent area within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Our hydrologist recently prepared the Master Plan for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and has access to their analysis of the hydrologic conditions within that city down -canyon of the subject site, which will be used to assist our analysis, as needed. Details about our services and project history, as well as Principals and key staff, may be found on our website at www.gmugeo.com. A brief list of our project experience is provided below. References are available upon request. December 17, 2015 2 02-(3. ^ GMU Proposal P-15175 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz, CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Hydrologic Studies and Geotechnical Review Services for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills Sample Relevant Projects • Poppy Trail Landslide Repair, Rolling Hills — Geotechnical design and construction services for removal and reconstruction of a failed slope, and redevelopment of two custom home lots. • Via Violeta Residence, Coto de Caza — Geotechnical design and construction services for development of single-family custom home in gated community. • Landslide Stabilization, Anaheim Hills — Extensive geotechnical evaluation and design of repair options for stabilization of active landslide in Association common area. • Palos Verdes Drive East Roadway Stabilization (Bluff Cove Landslide), Rancho Palos Verdes — Geotechnical and geo-structural design, and geotechnical construction services of stabilization of roadway above headscarp of active landslide. • San Ramon Canyon Stormdrain System (South Shores Landslide), Rancho Palos Verdes — Geotechnical investigation of South Shores landslide and storm water impacts for development of storm drain system design. • City Geotechnical Consulting Services — GMU provides consulting services to multiple Cities for public works, planning, engineering, grading, and building departments. Services include peer review, geotechnical investigation, design, and construction observation and inspection for a wide variety of projects. Key Staff The geologic aspects of this project will be managed by our Associate Engineering Geologist, Ms. Lisa Bates. Lisa has provided geological consulting services on many projects in the Palos Verdes area, including the recent Poppy Trail landslide repair project within the City of Rolling Hills. Additionally, Lisa has worked extensively on the ancient Portuguese Bend landslide, including the active Portuguese Bend landslide, Abalone Cove landslide, and Parcel 4 landslide, as well as other known landslides on the Peninsula. Lisa also has years of experience performing peer reviews of geotechnical reports, including complex sites with adverse geotechnical conditions, including landslides and hydrologic constraints. As a result, her experience will be of great benefit to the proposed scope of work. A brief resume of Lisa's body of work is provided in the Appendix of this proposal. The geotechnical engineering aspects of this project will be overseen by our President and Principal Geotechnical Engineer, Mr. Greg Silver. Greg has provided geotechnical engineering consulting on numerous projects in the Palos Verdes area, including the aforementioned Poppy Trail repair, the Bluff Cove landslide roadway stabilization project, and has also provided his services as Geotechnical Consultant to the City of Palos Verdes Estates. Greg's extensive knowledge of the Palos Verdes area and experience on similar development projects in the area will also benefit this project. A resume of Greg's project experience is provided in the Appendix of this proposal. December 17, 2015 3 6J GMU Proposal P-15175 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz, CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Hydrologic Studies and Geotechnical Review Services for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills Scope of Work , Our scope of work is based on our review of the reference documents, our conversations with you, and our knowledge of the Palos Verdes area. • Task 1 — Perform geotechnical peer reviews of the existing onsite investigation reports (see References), including review -level stability analysis of the proposed development. Perform background document research of available regional publications and historical aerial photographs pertinent to the proposed project. If necessary, research of City files and unpublished records available through fellow industry professionals will be performed in order to provide additional data useful to the project. • Task 2 — Perform hydrology studies, including the following: o Analysis and calculation of flow rates and volumes for existing site conditions, including Paintbrush Canyon and Little and Big Klondike Canyons (extending to the KCGHAD). Conditions for 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year storms will be considered. The results of this analysis will be included on an existing condition hydrology map to be attached to our report. o Analysis and calculation of flow rates and volumes for the design site conditions (as shown on the proposed plans) without mitigation, for the same areas with the same storm flows (2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year). These results will also be included on a proposed condition hydrology map to be attached to our report. o Assessment of storm flow infiltrating into the slope based on the rain and runoff relationships from the proposed hydrology. In addition, some qualitative assessment of potential impacts from the onsite wastewater system will be performed based on existing percolation data and use assumptions. Note: Prediction of subsurface water travel is difficult in the subsurface conditions underlying the subject site, and therefore assumptions will need to be made to complete this task. o The text of our report will include a discussion of hydrology analysis, including: • Overall potential hydrologic impacts of development on the site; • Overall potential hydrologic impacts of development on adjacent properties and canyons; • Specific changes in drainage patterns, flow rates, volumes, and erosion or flooding potential; • Feasibility -level recommendations for mitigation of potential adverse hydrologic impacts. o Our report will also include the calculations and associated watershed graphics. • Task 3 — Perform geotechnical analysis of the results of the hydrology study to qualitatively assess potential impacts to adjacent properties. December 17, 2015 4 GMU Proposal P-15175 Ms. Yoianta Schwartz, CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Hydrologic Studie. and Geotechnical Review Services for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills • Task 4 — Prepare a letter summarizing the results of our peer review, hydrology studies and analyses, and any recommendations in regards to additional work or analyses to be performed prior to permitting of the planned development. • Task 5 — Attendance at one meeting at City Hall or the project site. Assumptions • No field exploration or laboratory testing will be required. • Digital topography will be made available to us, including the subject site and the Flying Triangle landslide, such that geotechnical cross -sections may be drawn. Costs to obtain digital topography (should it not be available) are not included in our scope of work. Cost Estimate Our cost estimate is based on our current fee schedule, the scope of work above, and the assumptions listed above. Task I $ 7,300 Task 2 $ 14,000 Task 3 $ 4,800 Task 4 $ 2,700 Task 5 $ 2,900 Total $ 31,700 Our costs will be billed on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with our current fee schedule (attached), and will not be exceeded without written authorization by you. Additional hourly costs for meeting attendance are as follows: Greg Silver (Principal Geotechnical Engineer) - $255/hour Lisa Bates (Associate Engineering Geologist) - $225/hour Any other staff requested to attend meetings or perform additional work will be billed at the corresponding rate on the attached fee schedule. December 17, 2015 GMU Proposal P-15175 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz, CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Hydrologic Studies and Geotechnical Review Services for 23 Crest Road east, Rolling Hills We appreciate this opportunity to provide this proposal to you. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions regarding the contents of this proposal. %ONnt. Gp0♦ 4.�p,L. 13gT Cn a No. 2233 °t• CERTIFIED ENGINEERING u-1 , ,ct� GEOLOGIST x\C l A �/�UFI:SSIllidq� t?y„ ilw g es 2338 Respectfully submitted, GMU GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Lisa L. Bates, PG, CEO 2293 Associate Engineegtg Georogist t\ t ` tv` \. 0 `\ Gregory`P. Silver,' M.Sc., PE, GE 2336 President 1' Principal Geotechgical Engineer Attachments: 2015 Schedule of Charges Appendix — Resumes (Greg Silver and Lisa Bates) IIb/P-15175 (12-17-15) revised December 17, 2015 6 GMU Proposal P-15175 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz, CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Hydrologic Studies and Geotechnical Review Services for 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills References (1) "Revised — Hydrology and Related Investigations for a Proposed 2 -Lot Subdivision Project for a Potential Development of Two Single Family Residences...," City of Rolling Hills, dated December 7, 2015. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #72775, City of Rolling Hills, prepared by Bolton Engineering Corp., dated May 27, 2015. :`Geotechnical and Geologic Assessment for Proposed Residential Construction at 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California," prepared by Coast Geotechnical, Inc., dated July 17, 2015. (4) "Report of Deep Seepage Pit Percolation Testing, Tentative Parcel Map 72775 Lots 1 & 2, APN: 7567-011-020, Tentatively 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California," prepared by Hamilton and Associates, dated May 29, 2014. "Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geological Investigation Report, Proposed Residential Development, APN: 7567-011-020, Tentatively 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California," prepared by Hamilton and Associates, dated July 19, 2013. (6) Ehlig, P.L., 1987, Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex, Southern California: Geological Society of America Centennial Field Guide — Cordilleran Section, pp. 177-182. (7) Anderson, J.L, 1987, The Flying Triangle Landslide: Geologic, Geomorphic, and Tectonic Factors: Geology of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay. (5) December 17, 2015 7 otoi- GMU Proposal P-15175 GEOTECHNICAL.INC. 2015 SCHEDULE OF CHARGES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Staff Engineer or Geologist $ 125.00/hour Senior Staff Engineer or Geologist $ 170.00/hour Project Engineer or Geologist $ 190.00/hour Senior Engineer or Geologist $ 215.00/hour Associate Engineer or Geologist $ 225.00/hour Principal/Director $ 255.00/hour Senior Principal $ 305.00/hour Deposition/Testimony $ 500.00/hour CAD, GIS, and Geo-BIM Design Document Preparation and Project Services FIELD INSPECTION & TESTING SERVICES $ 112.00/hour $ 90.00/hour Staff Engineering Technician $ 102.00/hour• • Services provided under direct supervision of a Senior Engineering Technician Senior Engineering Technician $ 112.00/hour* • Inspections for soils/grading, asphalt, concrete, batch plants, piles/caissons, etc. • Certifications by ACI, ICC, Caltrans, local jurisdictions, etc. Registered Special Inspector (No 4 hour minimum) $ 112.00/hour* • Certifications by ACI, ICC, Caltrans, local jurisdictions, etc. • Reinforced concrete, Post -Tension, Masonry, Welding, Bolting, Fireproofing Instrumentation Engineer $ I70.00/hour • Slope inclinometer and Piezometer monitoring • Manometer for floor -level surveys • Stormwater Turbidity & pH meter • Pressure transducer, datalogger, & water chemistry meter for groundwater monitoring • Pipeline video camera for drains, wells, etc. Engineering Seismological Technician (includes 3 -channel seismograph) $ 150.00/hour • Blast vibration monitoring • Construction vibration & noise monitoring (pile driving, drilling, demolition, etc.) Seismic Refraction Studies (includes geologist, technician, & I2 -channel seismograph) $ 400.00/hour *Notes: (I) Rates include vehicle, nuclear density gauge, and equipment for testing, inspection, and sampling. (2). No 4 -hour minimum charges apply. (3) Overtime is charged at 1.5 times the base rate. Overtime is defined as time worked on the project in excess of 8 hours per day and all time on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. (4) All rates are Non -Prevailing Wage. See separate Schedule of Charges for Prevailing Wage. LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES Laboratory Testing $ 112.00/hour (For special materials testing and laboratory costs on a per -lest basis, see GMU's Laboratory Fee Schedule) OTHER CHARGES Outside Services Cost + 15% Reimbursables Cost .2,0Dt APPENDIX Resumes GEOTECHNICAL, INC. GREGORY SILVER, M.Sc., PE, GE President Principal Engineer Fri] al GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PROFESSION Geotechnical Engineer Civil Engineer REGISTRATIONS Registered Civil Engineer — State of California Registered Geotechnical Engineer - State of Califomia Registered Civil Engineer — State of Nevada Registered Civil Engineer — State of Utah EDUCATION M.S. Civil Engineering (Geotechnical Engineering) — California State University, Long Beach B.A. Geological Sciences (Geophysics) — University of California at Santa Barbara PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE GMU Geotechnical, Inc. (1997 -Present) President, Principal Engineer, Rancho Santa Margarita, California Bing Yen & Associates, Inc. (1988-1997) Project Engineer to Associate/Manager of Municipal Services, Irvine, California G.C. Masterman & Associates, Inc. (1984-1986) Technician to Project Engineer Van Nuys, California PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS ASCE— Member CalGeo — Past President FEWA - Member SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE & QUALIFICATIONS Mr. Silver has over 29 years of progressively responsible engineering and management experience in a wide variety of geotechnical engineering projects. He has worked successfully for and with industrial, residential, and commercial developers, master community planners, and governmental agencies. He has extensive experience in landslide evaluation and remediation design, geotechnical instrumentation, residential and commercial development, public works projects, municipality consultation, mechanically stabilized earth walls, and forensic projects. In addition, he has served as an expert witness in regards to numerous geotechnical issues over the last 20 years. Over the period of 1988 to 1997, Mr. Silver was City Geotechnical Engineer for numerous cities throughout Southern California. Currently, Mr. Silver serves as President and Principal Engineer. Mr. Silver recently completed his term as President of CalGeo. Selected types of projects representative of Mr. Silver's experience are listed below: • Landslides • Residential Development Projects/Master Planned Communities • Commercial Development Projects • High-rise Structures • Major Roadways • Bridges • Water Resource Projects • Miscellaneous Public Works Projects • Govemment/Civic Centers • Sportsparks • Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls • Soil Nail Walls • Geotechnical Instrumentation • Tie -back Slope Reinforcement • Pavement Engineering and Design • City Geotechnical Engineer/Consultant • Legal Consultation • Special Studies 23241 Arroyo Vista, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 926881 ph: 949.888.65131 fax: 949.888.13801 web www.gmugeo.com GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LANDSLIDES: Brancato Landslide — San Jose, California: Lead Engineer — Detailed geotechnical engineering analysis of large, deep-seated landslide including shear strength determination, static and pseudo -static analyses, seismic deformation analyses, and development of geotechnical mitigation schemes. Belmont Estates Horseshoe Landslide — Anaheim Hills, California: Lead Investigator — Comprehensive geological and geotechnical engineering evaluation of re -activated ancient landslide. Development of remediation scheme consisting of horizontal drains, buttress grading, and tie -backs. • Voyager Lane Landslide — Laguna Niguel, California: Lead Investigator — Detailed evaluation of long-term monitoring data leading to the development of an innovative long- term repair consisting of a horizontal drain system, a surface water infiltration mitigation system, and roadway stabilization and subgrade strengthening. Rambla Pacifico Landslide Stabilization - Malibu, Califomia: Project Director on one million dollar landslide stabilization design. Involved working with FEMA and OES and within NEPA/CEQUA guidelines. Calle Montecillo Roadway Stabilization - Agoura Hills, Califomia: Project Director - Evaluation and design of roadway slope stabilization. Design, plans, and specifications. • Big Rock Mesa Landslide Area - County of Los Angeles, Califomia: Project Engineer - Large-scale geotechnical investigation and evaluation, deep dewatering and horizontal drain installation, pump tests, and geotechnical instrumentation and monitoring. Montellano Landslide - Hacienda Heights, Califomia: Project Manager/Engineer - Pump tests, geotechnical monitoring, and long-term surface drainage improvement design with plans and specifications. • Mystic Hills Landslide - Laguna Beach, California: Project Geotechnical Engineer - Third party geotechnical evaluation of the stability of an ancient landslide for the City of Laguna Beach. Kanan Dume Road Landslide - Malibu, California: Project Director - Monitoring, geotechnical evaluation, geological evaluation, remediation design for a 100 -foot roadway embankment failure. Via Estoril Landslide — Laguna Niguel, California — Emergency response to large landslide which endangered numerous residential structures, emergency geotechnical recommendations, review of interim and final repairs. Gregory P. Silver 2 ;al • South Facing Slope Landslide - Malibu, California: Project Director - Detailed geotechnical engineering evaluation of an ancient landslide. Investigation included specialty laboratory testing including ring shear testing and x-ray diffraction, two- and three-dimensional stability analyses, and parametric groundwater and seismic evaluation. • Tract 33410 Slope Failures - Agoura Hills, California: Project Director - Detailed geotechnical evaluation of one deep-seated and two surficial slope failures. Tasks included preparation of plans and specifications for repair and expert witness -related consultation. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS/MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITIES: Banning Ranch Development — Newport Beach, California: Project Director — Comprehensive geotechnical and fault evaluation study for proposed residential and hotel development. Fault investigation included thousands of lineal tests of fault trench through the Newport -Inglewood fault zone. Ladera Ranch Planned -Community Development - Rancho Mission Viejo Company, County of Orange, California: Project Engineer - Geotechnical investigation and design for portions of major master planned community. Crystal Cove Development — Newport Coast/County of Orange, California: Principal — Oversight of geotechnical engineering for mass grading, public works improvements, and residential development. Talega Planned -Community Development — San Clemente, California: Principal — Oversight of geotechnical engineering for mass grading, public works improvements, and residential development. Rancho Santa Margarita Planned -Community Development - Rancho Santa Margarita, California: Project Engineer/Manager - Geotechnical investigation, grading and foundation design, and construction observation for a number of planning areas in a major residential planned community development. Edgewater Development — Chino, California: Project Director — Geotechnical investigation and design for large residential development area with recreational lake network. Planning Area 19A Feasibility Study - Irvine, California: Project Engineer - Geotechnical investigation to advise on planning -related issues for roadway and general development in a marsh/soft clay site environment. Various Foundation Investigations 1984-88 - Single-family residences, large tracts, commercial/industrial structures and high-rise buildings throughout Los Angeles County. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS: Block 500 Development — Newport Beach, California: Principal -in -charge — one 20 -story high-rise office building and adjacent 6 -story parking structure (4 stories subterranean). Design involved mat and spread footing foundation design and analyses, shoring design, and permanent retaining wall design. Gregory P. Silver _ a Z 3 Block 600 Development — Newport Beach, California: Principal -in -charge — one 20 -story high-rise office building and two adjacent multi -story parking structures with up to 2 -story subterranean sections. Design included pile foundation design, spread footing design, shoring design, and permanent retaining wall design. • 20/40 Pacifica Office Towers — Irvine, California: Lead Geotechnical Engineer — Two high-rise office buildings and multi -story parking structure. Design involved foundation systems consisting of driven piles and geopiers. • ,Capitol Group Office Campus — Irvine, Califomia: Lead Geotechnical Engineer — Large 'office'campus on highly expansive soils. Project involved geopier and select 'soil' replacement subgrade improvement strategies. ririe • Spectrum 5, Spectrum 7, Spectrum 1 — Irvine, California: Principal Geotechnical Engineering oversight of investigation design and construction. Bridgepark Plaza, Mercantile East, Mercantile West, and Corporate Terrace — Ladera Ranch, California: Principal Geotechnical Engineering oversight of investigation design and construction. University Research Park Office Development - Irvine, California: Principal Geotechnical Engineering oversight of investigation design and construction. MAJOR ROADWAYS: Ortega Highway Widening — County of Orange/City of San Juan Capistrano: Lead Geotechnical Engineer/Principal-in-Charge — Geotechnical investigation and development of design recommendations. City of Irvine/Irvine Industrial Company - Irvine Center Drive, Lake Forest Drive, and Sand Canyon Boulevard Street Widening - Irvine, California: Principal Geotechnical Engineering oversight of design and construction. City of San Clemente/Talega Associates — Avenida Vista Hermosa, Avenida La Pata Avenida Fresas, Avenida Saluda, and Avenida Talega — San Clemente, California: Principal Geotechnical Engineering oversight of design and construction. La Pata Avenue Extension — County of Orange/City of San Juan Capistrano/City of San Clemente, Califomia: Principal Geotechnical Engineering oversight and project management for planning, EIR and design. BRIDGES: • Ortega Bridge Widening — County of Orange, California: Project Director — Geotechnical investigation and development of design recommendations for Caltrans bridge. Gregory P. Silver 4 Cow Camp Bridges — County of Orange, California: Project Director — Geotechnical investigation and development of design recommendations for two bridges crossing complex geotechnical environs. San Juan Creek Bridge Widening — County of Orange, California: Project Director — Geotechnical investigation, detailed geotechnical evaluation of seismic retrofit, and development of widening foundation recommendations. Wildlife Crossing Bridge Widening — County of Orange/Ladera, Califomia: Principal Geotechnical Engineer - Oversee widening project of existing bridge. Las Flores Bridge - Malibu, California: Project Engineer/Manager - Evaluation of bridge design and alternatives for the City of Malibu. Crown Valley Parkway Bridge — County of Orange, California: Lead Geotechnical Engineer for 238 -meter -long, 27 -meter -high bridge. Detailed geotechnical analysis for pile foundation design, abutment design, and geotechnical input to bedrock scour design. Oso Parkway Pedestrian Bridge - County of Orange, California: Project Engineer - Geotechnical design for 65 -foot span pedestrian bridge. "A" Street Bridge at Barranca Parkway - Irvine, Califomia: Project Engineer/Manager - Geotechnical investigation and design for new bridge over San Diego Creek. "Los Angeles Avenue Bridge" - Moorpark, California: Project Engineer/Manager - Geotechnical assessment of proposed bridge expansion and retrofit. Development of preliminary design recommendations. Tustin Avenue Bridge Widening — Anaheim, California: Principal Geotechnical Engineering oversight for widening project of existing bridge. Washington Boulevard Bridge - Los Angeles County, California: Project Engineer Geotechnical investigation and design for seismic retrofit of existing bridge. WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS: Homo Basin Detention Basin — County of Orange: Project Director — Geotechnical investigation and design for detention basin, spillway, bio-filtration system, and sub -drainage recapture system. Oso Creek Geotechnical Scour Study — Mission Viejo, California: Project Director — Geotechnical evaluation of insitu geotechnical materials for scour evaluation and revetment study. Gregory P. Silver 5 Various Water Lines, Sewer Lines, Talega Lift Station, South Ranch Lift Station, San Juan Creek Lift Station, and Ladera Zone 2 Reservoir, Talega Zone I Reservoir and Covenant Hills Reservoir and Lift Station for Santa Margarita Water District - Rancho Santa Margarita, Las Flores, Coto de Caza, and Ladera Ranch, California: Principal Geotechnical Engineering oversight. Las Flores Canyon Sedimentation - Debris Flow Study - Malibu, California: Project Manager/Engineer - Geotechnical and geological input for hydraulic analyses. Northwood Reservoir - Irvine, California: Project Geotechnical Engineer - Evaluation of foundation design and settlement potential for 4.5 MG reservoir. Hicks Canyon Detention Basin - Irvine, California: Geotechnical Consultant - Geotechnical analysis and design for two large detention basins. San Diego Creek Channel Improvements - Irvine, California: Project Manager/Engineer - Geotechnical investigation for proposed channel improvements consisting of soil cement and "keystone" geogrid-type revetments. MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS: City of Laguna Niguel - Metrolink Station - Laguna Niguel, California: Principal Geotechnical Engineering oversight for a regional OCTA-funded commuter rail station. BRM Storm Drain Replacement Project - Malibu, California: Project Manager/Engineer - Evaluation of storm drain pipe design in landslide and erosion prone area following destruction of system by fire. Metro -Rail Vibration Testing - Los Angeles, California: Project Engineer - Geotechnical exploration and input for vibration study. Big Rock Mesa Dewatering Well Project - Malibu, California: Project Engineer/Manager - Design, plan and specification preparation, installation and construction oversight for six dewatering wells to 350 feet and four horizontal drains. Montellano Winterization - Hacienda Heights, California: Project Engineer/Manager - Design and construction oversight of long-term, multi -year landslide winterization. Pavement Evaluation - Pomona, California: Project Manager/Engineer - Pavement evaluation for 4000 lineal feet of distressed pavement. GOVERNMENT/CIVIC CENTERS: Chino Hills Government Center Complex — Chino Hills, California: Project Director — Geotechnical investigation, development of recommendations and plans for multi -faceted government center consisting of multi -story government buildings and a four-story parking structure. Gregory P. Silver 6 Vista Civic Center — Vista, California: Project Director — Development of final geotechnical design recommendations for Vista Civic Center. Laguna Niguel Civic Center — Laguna Niguel, California: Lead Geotechnical Engineer - Geotechnical design oversight for investigation and design recommendation development. SPORTSPARKS: La Paz Sportspark — Laguna Niguel, California: Project Director — Geotechnical design for sportspark complex with synthetic fields. Infiltration design of subsurface field drainage system. Chino Hills Sportspark — Chino Hills, California: Project Director — Geotechnical investigation and design for large sportspark complex with numerous synthetic fields. Long Beach Sportspark — Long Beach, California: Project Director — Geotechnical investigation and design for planned regional sportspark in oil fields operation area. Developed unique design recommendations for proposed facilities to be placed on top of buried rubble and debris. • Jarupa Water Park — Jarupa, California: Project Director — Geotechnical investigation and design for multi -acre water park facility. GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION: Ladera Residential Development — County of Orange, California: Principal Geotechnical Engineering Oversight of "real time" monitoring system for electrical towers above temporary slopes during grading. La Paz Road — Laguna Niguel, California: Project Manager — Long-term monitoring of on -going slope movements. Monitoring program enables City of Laguna Niguel to incrementally and cost-effectively implement roadway stabilization project on an as -needed basis. Instrumentation includes slope inclinometers, multi -stage piezometers, and survey. Crystal Cove — Newport Coast, California: Project Director — Long-term evaluation of surface and subsurface survey network and slope inclinometers to evaluate deep fill/fill slope performance. Oceanside Dewatering - Oceanside, California: Project Engineer - Construction overview and monitoring of dewatering tunnel, horizontal drain, and tie -back installation. Port of Los Angeles, Pier 300 Expansion - POLA, California: Project Manager/Engineer - Design, installation, and monitoring of specialty geotechnical instrumentation for port expansion. • Big Rock Mesa - Malibu, California: Project Manager/Engineer- Managed monitoring and dewatering district consisting of dewatering wells, horizontal drains, slope inclinometers, Gregory P. Silver a2 7 piezometers, multi -position extensometer, survey network, and groundwater discharge analysis. Calle del Barco - Malibu, California: Project Manager/Engineer - Managed monitoring and dewatering district consisting of dewatering wells, horizontal drains, slope inclinometers, piezometers, and crack gauges. Malibu Road - Malibu, California: Project Manager/Engineer - Managed monitoring and dewatering district consisting of piezometers, horizontal drains, and crack gauges. Latigo Canyon - Malibu, California: Project Manager/Engineer - Managed monitoring and dewatering district consisting of slope inclinometers, piezometers, horizontal drains, dewatering wells, and crack gauges. Rambla Pacifico Landslide - Malibu, Califomia: Project Engineer - Installation and monitoring of slope inclinometers and multi -stage pneumatic piezometers. La Conchita Landslide - Ventura County, Califomia: Project Engineer/Manager - Design, installation, and monitoring of a system of slope inclinometers and multi -stage piezometers. Hope Church - Rancho Bernardo, California: Project Engineer/Manager - Design, installation, and monitoring of complex monitoring array consisting of tiltmeters, survey network, slope inclinometers, and multi -stage pneumatic piezometers. CITY GEOTECHNICAL ENCINEER/CONSULTANT: City of Laguna Niguel (1997 -Present): Review of geotechnical reports, preparation of guidelines, public works projects, geotechnical hazards analysis including testimony in front of state legislative committees, emergency response and legal consultation. City of Newport Beach (2009 -Present): Public Works projects including street rehabilitation, construction observations and testing, marina construction, and legal consultation. City of Chino Hills (1992-97 & 2002 -Present): Review of geotechnical reports, preparation of guidelines for report submittal and grading procedure requirements, public works projects, and general geotechnical consultation. City of Dana Point (2001-2014): Review of complex geotechnical projects, emergency and litigation consultation, and public works projects. City of Vista (2000-2005): Review of geotechnical reports and general geotechnical consultation. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2004 -Present): Alternate member of Geotechnical Appeals Board. Gregory P. Silver q 8 City of Malibu (1991-97): Review of geotechnical reports, preparation of guidelines, policy and standards for report submittal, public works projects, geotechnical hazards analysis, emergency response, planning evaluation, legal consultation. City of Moorpark (1995-97): Review of geotechnical reports, preparation of guidelines, policy and standards for report submittal. City of Agoura Hills (1988-97): Review of geotechnical reports, preparation of guidelines, policy and standards for report submittal, public works projects, geotechnical hazards analysis, emergency response, planning evaluation, legal consultation. City of Palos Verdes Estates (1992-97): Review of geotechnical reports, preparation of guidelines, policy and standards for report submittal, public works projects, geotechnical hazards analysis, emergency response, planning evaluation, legal consultation. City of Hidden Hills (1992-97): Review of geotechnical reports, preparation of guidelines, policy and standards for report submittal. Additional Geotechnical Consultation to Cities: Cities of Lake Forest, La Habra Heights, and Laguna Beach. PAVEMENT ENGINEERING AND DESIGN City of Irvine Public Works Department — Irvine, California (2012-2014). Principal -in - Charge. Various projects including: Irvine Center Drive, Campus Drive, Jamboree Boulevard, and Jeffrey Road pavement rehabilitations. Irvine Industrial Company — Cities of Irvine and Lake Forest, California (1997-2010). Principal -in -Charge. Various projects including: Irvine Center Drive, Lake Forest Drive, Bake Parkway, Portola Parkway, and Sand Canyon Boulevard street widening and overlays. City of Dana Point — Dana Point, California (2002-2014). Principal -in -Charge. Various projects including: Street of the Golden Lantern, Stonehill Drive, Del Obispo Street, Camino Capistrano, Pacific Coast Highway, Del Prado overlays, and miscellaneous residential street overlays and slurry seals. City of Aliso Viejo — Aliso Viejo, California (2012-2014). Principal -in -Charge. Various projects including: Aliso Creek Road, Pacific Park Drive, Moulton Parkway, Oso Parkway, La Paz Road overlays. City of Laguna Niguel — Laguna Niguel, California (2002-2014). Principal -in -Charge. Various projects including: Street of the Golden Lantern, Camino del Avion, Niguel Road, Cabot Road, Paseo de las Colinas, Camino Capistrano, Aliso Creek Road, La Paz Road rehabilitation and overlays, and miscellaneous residential street overlays and slurry seals. City of Newport Beach — Newport Beach, California (2009-2014). Principal -in -Charge. Various projects including: Newport Center Drive, Balboa Avenue, River Avenue, Mesa Drive, Bayside Drive overlays, and miscellaneous residential street overlays and slurry seals. Gregory P. Silver 9 212 City of Rancho Santa Margarita — Rancho Santa Margarita, California (2011-2014). Principal -in -Charge. Various projects including: Santa Margarita Parkway, Antonio Parkway, Robinson Ranch Road overlays and slurry seals (2006-2014); and miscellaneous residential street overlays and slurry seals. City of Laguna Niguel — Laguna Niguel, California (2002-2014). Principal -in -Charge. Various projects including: Street of the Golden Lantern, Camino del Avion, Niguel Road, Cabot Road, Paseo de las Colinas, Camino Capistrano, Aliso Creek Road, La Paz Road rehabilitation and overlays, and miscellaneous residential street overlays and slurry seals. County of Orange Ortega Highway Widening — San Juan Capistrano,_Califomia (2009- 2011). Principal -in -Charge. Pavement design for Phase 1 widening of Ortega Highway from the City of San Juan Capistrano border to Antonio Parkway. Design involved pavement rehabilitation of existing roadway and widening of both roadway shoulders. GEO-STRUCUTRAL ENGINEERING MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE) WALLS: The Irvine Company Development Areas 2C4 and 5 - County of Orange, Newport Coast, California: Design and construction oversight of numerous Loffel walls throughout the Newport Coast development area for The Irvine Company. Wall heights range up to 25 feet in height. Ladera Development - County of Orange, California: Design and construction oversight of 50 -foot -high "Loffel"-type MSE wall at the entrance to the Ladera Development in South Orange County. The wall was the highest wall permitted in the County of Orange to date. Due to the wall's height, it involved an extensive design and review process. In addition, the wall was instrumented with slope inclinometers and an array of specially designed survey points integrated into the block facing. An abstract for a paper describing the wall design and instrumentation results has been accepted to the ASCE GEO-DENVER 2000 Conference. Distressed "Keystone" Wall Evaluations — 1) Placentia, California: Forensic evaluation of distressed "Keystone" wall for Shea Homes, 2) Agoura Hills, Califomia: Forensic evaluation of distress behind "Keystone" wall for Oaks Christian School, 3) Rancho Bernardo, California: Comprehensive forensic evaluation of severely distressed "Keystone" Wall at the Legacy/Toshiba development. Crystal Cove Access Road - Orange County, California: Design of up to 40 -foot -high "Loffel"-type MSE wall to support a major access road to a detention basin and recreation area. Special design considerations included: high seismic area, use of select backfill in both reinforced and retained zones, and erosion protection at the toe of the wall. Spectrum 5 Commercial Development Area - Irvine, California: Design and construction oversight for over 1700 lineal feet of a "Loffel"-type MSE wall. Gregory P. Silver I0 (23 San Dimas Residential Development (Tract 52717) — San Dimas, California: Development of design plans and specifications for over 30 MSE walls incorporated into rough grading plans for a large residential development. SOILNAIL AND TIE -BACK WALLS/SLOPES • China Cove Soil Nail Wall/Slope — Corona Del Mar, California: Structural and geotechnical Design and construction oversight for soil nail wall and slope with "boulderscape" facing. Design done to mitigate long term surficial failure problem and upgrade the look of a high profile slope. • Placentia Slope Stabilization — Placentia, California: Structural design for soil nail wall at the rear of several homes in residential development. Wall was designed to stabilize slope while minimizing space impacts in rear yard. City of Orange HOA Tie -back Slope Stabilization — Orange, California: Structural and Geotechnical Design and construction oversight for tie -back slope stabilization project. Complete design plans and specifications were provided. Geotechnical and special inspections performed during construction. Services also included construction management. MASONRY RETAINING WALLS Masonry Wall Design — Sendero Development of Rancho Mission Viejo, California: Complete geotechnical and structural design for masonry walls for level ground, toe -of -slope and top -of -slope conditions. Includes complete structural plans and details. Designs for miscellaneous structures such as pilasters, monuments also provided. Masonry Wall Design — Esencia Development of Rancho Mission Viejo, California: Complete geotechnical and structural design for masonry walls for level ground, toe -of -slope and top -of -slope conditions. Includes complete structural plans and details. Designs for miscellaneous structures such as pilasters, monuments also provided. CAISSON WALLS Palos Verdes drive Roadway Stabilization — Palos Verdes Estates, California: Performed geotechnical and structural design and construction oversight for caisson tie -back wall to provide lateral support to a portion of Palos Verdes Drive north. Complete plans and specifications were developed. Bereuist Residence Caisson Supported Retaining Wall — Dana Point, California: Performed structural engineering for caisson supported top of slope retaining wall. Complete plans and specifications were developed. Gregory P. Silver 11 20-)0 LEGAL CONSULTATION: Mr. Silver has provided geotechnical consultation for litigation on a wide variety of projects for over 20 years in the States of California and Nevada. He has been deposed numerous times and testified in court on a number of occasions. The type of litigation cases that Mr. Silver has been involved in include: • Landslides • Foundation distress due to expansive soils and settlement • Concrete corrosion/sulfate damage • MSE walls/retaining walls • Groundwater problems • Public works failures • Site drainage SPECIAL STUDIES: Residential Foundation Deterioration Study for the Cities of Lakewood, La Palma, and Cypress California: Staff Engineer - Regional evaluation of concrete corrosion performed for CDMG. Study included: analysis of soil and groundwater conditions, review of construction practice and code requirements and other geotechnical/geological contributing factors. PUBLICATIONS: Sandri, D., Silver, G., Trazo, R., 2000, "Design, Construction, and Monitoring of a 14.9M High Geosynthetic Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall in a Seismically Active Region", ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication (GSP) "Advances in Transportation and Geoenvironmental Systems using Geosynthetics". Silver, G., Van Thiel, D., 2006, "Permanent Deflection and Performance Study of Drivable Grass", Published in Stormwater Magazine 2007 and Stormwater Solutions Magazine — 2008. Shlemon, Roy J., Davis, Paul, and Silver, Gregory, 2008, "Relative Activity of North Branch Splays (NBS) of the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone, West Newport Oil Field, Newport Beach, California". Silver, Gregory, Bates, Lisa, 2013, "Landslide Stabilization Using High Strength Aggregate - Cement Slurry"., ASCE/Geo Institute 2013 Geo-Congress: Stability and Performance of Slopes and Embankments I11, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 231 Bastani, Ali, Silver, G., Atkinson, D., 2014 "CPT Based Settlement Prediction over California Softy Rock, CPT -14 — 3`d International Symposium on Cone Penetrometer Testing. Gregory P. Silver 12 LISA L. BATES, PG, CEG Associate Geologist GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PROFESSION Engineering Geologist REGISTRATIONS Certified Engineering Geologist — State of California Professional Geologist — State of California EDUCATION B.S., Geological Sciences, University of California at Santa Barbara, 1994 Summer Field Studies, Oregon State University, 1994 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE GMU Geotechnical, Inc. (2000 to present) Project Geologist to Associate Geologist, Rancho Santa Margarita, California Leighton and Associates, Inc. (1995 to 2000) Senior Staff Geologist, Irvine, California AFFILIATIONS National Association of Women In Construction, Orange County Chapter — Chapter President South Coast Geological Society SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE & QUALIFICATIONS Ms. Bates has over 19 years experience in various aspects of the geotechnical field. She has worked successfully with both residential and commercial developers, master community planners, and governmental agencies on both private and public works projects. She has extensive experience in a wide variety of projects including: residential and commercial development, public works projects, hillside grading, landslide investigation and mitigation, and forensic investigations. She excels at managing and providing geologic input for the geotechnical aspects of residential and commercial development from conceptual planning to construction. Ms. Bates also excels at landslide and slope failure investigations and repairs, and has served as an expert witness for several legal matters. In addition, she is the Reviewing Geologist for several public agencies. Her goal is to provide an outstanding product to her clients in a timely and cost-efficient manner, while upholding the high standards and mission of GMU. Selected project categories representative of Ms. Bates' experience are described below: • Landslide/Slope Failure Investigation and Repair Projects • Construction Management • Public Works Projects • Residential/Commercial Projects • Single Family Residential Custom Developments • Forensic Investigations/Expert Witness • Reviewer for Cities of Laguna Niguel, Chino Hills, and Dana Point Notable projects from Ms. Bates' portfolio are summarized on the following pages. 23241 Arroyo Vista, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 I ph: 949.888.6513 I fax: 949.888.1380 1 web: www.gmugeo.com LANDSLIDE/SLOPE FAILURE INVESTIGATION AND/OR REPAIR • Poppv Trail Landslide, Rolling Hills — California Joint Powers Insurance Authority: Project included geotechnical investigation and design of repair of a large landslide within a hillside residential area. Challenges included steep terrain, adjacent properties, and complex geology. Duties included geologic investigation and grading observations, project oversight, and construction management advisor services. • Philemon Landslide, Dana Point — Private Developer: Project included geotechnical investigation and design of repair of a landslide impacting four residential structures. Challenges included existing residences and adjacent properties, adverse geologic structure, and poor shear strengths for onsite soils. Repair design included innovative slurry backfill of keyway excavation. Duties included geologic investigation, project oversight, and grading observations. Project won 2014 CalGeo Project Award and was presented at 2013 Geo- Congress in San Diego. • Horseshoe Landslide, Anaheim Hills — Homeowners Association: Project included emergency geotechnical services after re -activation of ancient landslide within developed area. Duties included geotechnical investigation, construction management advisor services, long-term monitoring, groundwater monitoring, development of repair plan, coordination with the Association and their legal counsel, and communication with public agencies. Landslide is underlain by complex geology, and crosses City boundary. • Woodview Road Slope Failures, Chino Hills — City of Chino Hills: Geotechnical investigation, design of repair, and construction observation of slope failures undermining hillside roadway. Repair plan included tiebacks, caissons, and soil removal and replacement. • Deerhaven Landslide, Cowan Heights — private client: Project included geotechnical investigation, design of repair, coordination with public agencies including utilities, and observation during repair construction. Landslide occurred within two residential properties and residential street. • Meats Avenue Slope Failure, Anaheim Hills — Homeowners Association: Project included geotechnical investigation of failure of graded slope, repair design, construction observation, in -grading monitoring of slope and structures above failure, and coordination with public agency to expedite failure repair. • Shallow Slope Failures, Dana Point, Laguna Niguel — Cities of Dana Point and Laguna Niguel: Projects include limited geotechnical investigation, design of repair plan and construction observation for several small slope failures occurring after water infiltration. • Portuguese Bend Landslide, Rancho Palos Verdes - Palos Verdes Land Holdings: Geotechnical investigation of ancient mega -landslide complex, including active Portuguese Bend landslide. Project included design and feasibility study of mitigation plans, detailed surface and subsurface investigation of geologic structure, groundwater studies, and a feasibility investigation for proposed development. Lisa L. Bates 2 2/3 • Bluff Face Failures, Palisades Bluff, Capistrano Beach — City of Dana Point: On -call services for emergency management of slope failures along over -steepened bluff descending to Coast Highway. Duties include emergency response, on -site evaluation of failures and observation and recommendations for clean-up. Priorities are maintenance of Coast Highway right-of- way and public safety. • Ocean Trails Golf Course, Rancho Palos Verdes - Zuckerman Building Company: Geotechnical investigation and slope stability monitoring during construction of blufftop golf course through complex geologic structure and multiple ancient landslides. PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS • Long Beach Sports Park, Long Beach — PBS&J/City of Long Beach: Geotechnical investigation for planned recreational sports complex including artificial turf soccer and baseball fields, clubhouse/concessions, office building and skate park to be constructed on property used for oil field operations and debris disposal. Project included complex investigation to evaluate buried alluvial channel and marshland overlain by debris and fill soils, and development of geotechnical recommendations for corrective grading and design of structures. • La Pata Interim Widening for New High School, San Juan Capistrano — Capistrano Unified School District: Project included geotechnical investigation and construction observation during widening and re -paving of existing roadway. • Reclaimed and Domestic Water Reservoirs, Chino Hills — City of Chino Hills: Geotechnical investigation for proposed water reservoirs in semi -developed areas. Project included subsurface investigation for reservoir sites and access roadways as well as review of proposed plans. • Crown Valley Community Park, Laguna Niguel — City of Laguna Niguel: Geotechnical investigation and design support for improvements to multiple portions of the park, including a new bridge, and improved park facilities. • La Pata Avenue Gap Closure, South Orange County — County of Orange: Geotechnical investigation for proposed alignments of widening and extension of La Pata Avenue from Ortega Highway to San Clemente. Project included study of multiple large landslide complexes, fault alignments, and complex geology. • Sports Park, Chino Hills — City of Chino Hills: Project included geotechnical investigation, input on design, and construction observations during rough and precise grading, including paving and construction of artificial grass fields. Lisa L. Bates 3 • City Hall, Laguna Niguel — City of Laguna Niguel: Geotechnical investigation for proposed City Hall site on existing graded area. Project included subsurface investigation, design support, and grading observations. • Portuguese Bend Beach Club, Rancho Palos Verdes - Army Corps of Engineers: Geotechnical investigation for proposed seawall and buttress at toe of active Portuguese Bend landslide. Investigation included design and analysis of alternative methods to preserve coastal environment. • Government Center, Chino Hills — City of Chino Hills: Geotechnical investigation, design recommendations, plan review, and observation of construction of new civic center. Center includes new parking structure, City Hall, fire, and police buildings as well as residential development. • Ortega Highway (State Route 74) Widening between San Juan Creek and Orange/Riverside County Line, Orange County — private contractor: Project included providing on -call geotechnical services to general contractor, including evaluation of temporary slope stability in hard rock and rock fill. • Jurupa Aquatic Park, Jurupa — RJM Design Group/County of Riverside: Geotechnical investigation for development of aquatic sports park including multiple swimming pools, "lazy river", aquatic building and parking lot. Provided geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of project. RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL PROJECTS • Edgewater, Chino Basin — private client: Multi -phase residential development in mapped potential seismic hazard area with shallow groundwater and highly organic surficial soils. Project includes geotechnical investigation for Environmental Impact Report and agency approval. • Irvine Spectrum, Irvine — The Irvine Company: Numerous investigations for development and construction of retail and office buildings, streets, utilities, and storm drain systems. Structures planned included multi -story and subterranean levels. • Emerald Bay Entrance Widening, Laguna Beach — Homeowners Association: Project included geotechnical investigation for widening of community entrance by re -constructing graded slope adjacent to existing park and Coast Highway. • The Ranch Plan, Orange County — Rancho Mission Viejo: Geotechnical investigation for proposed development of large planned community. Project includes geotechnical design recommendations, landslide identification and mitigation, fault investigation, and "hard rock" issues. Lisa L. Bates 4 • Santaluz (Black Mountain Ranch), San Diego — Taylor Woodrow Homes: Geotechnical investigation and grading observations of master planned community, including "hard rock" and hillside grading areas. • Talega, San Clemente — Talega Associates: Geotechnical investigation and geotechnical design recommendations for master planned community, including landslide and slope stability mitigation for hillside development. • Ladera Ranch, Rancho Mission Viejo - DMB Ladera, LLC: Geotechnical investigation and grading/construction observations of 8000+ unit master planned community. • Crystal Cove, Newport Beach - The Irvine Company: Geotechnical investigation for proposed development and geotechnical observation during grading for residential development, including hillside grading and MSE wall design and construction. • Centex Homes, Signal Hill - Alamitos Land Company: Geotechnical investigation and grading/construction observations for residential development within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Studies Zone. Development underlain by complex geologic structure. Project included working with Signal Hill Petroleum to maintain oil production operations on -site during construction. • Point View, Rancho Palos Verdes - York Longpoint, Inc.: Geotechnical investigation and landslide study for proposed residential development on ancient mega -landslide complex. Investigation included feasibility study for release from development moratorium, and impact study on the adjacent Abalone Cove landslide. FAULT STUDIES • The Ranch Plan, Orange County — Rancho Mission Viejo: Fault investigation of Mission Viejo fault located within proposed development bubble. • Seacliff Shopping Center, Huntington Beach - Shea Homes: Fault investigation of branch of Newport -Inglewood fault zone located within Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Studies Zone for proposed shopping center. Investigation included extensive trenching and design review. • Hoag Hospital, Newport Beach - Hoag Hospital: Fault investigation of Newport -Inglewood fault zone and observation during grading of additional parking area and proposed structures. • Foothill Transportation Corridor, CP Alignment, Orange County - Transportation Corridor Agencies: Fault investigation of branch of Cristianitos fault crossing proposed toll road alignment. Lisa L. Bates rTh 5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOM DEVELOPMENTS • Rear Yard Remodel, Coto de Caza — private client: Project included re -design of rear yard improvements for custom residence, including conversion of large pond to swimming pool complex. Services included investigation of conceptual design, preparation of documents for submittal to governing agency, and observation of construction to satisfy permit requirements. • Residential Development, San Juan Capistrano — private client: Services included preliminary investigation for conceptual design of residence and input on design. • Construction of Residence, Crustal Cove — private client: Project includes geotechnical recommendations for construction and observation during construction of custom residence including basement and subterranean garage. CONSULTANT TO PUBLIC AGENCIES • City of Chino Hills • City of Laguna Hills • City of Laguna Niguel • City of Rancho Santa Margarita PUBLICATIONS: Silver, Gregory, Bates, Lisa, 2012, "Landslide Stabilization Using High Strength Aggregate - Cement Slurry". Lisa L. Bates 6 on- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 6-A Mtg. Date: 02/08/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THROUGH: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 346 OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING SECTION 17.12.220 AND CHAPTER 17.26 RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION OF TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. ATTACHMENTS: 'k. Comparison table of the existing ordinance and proposed amendments (as amended on 1/25/16) Draft Ordinance No. 346 Correspondence received since January 25, 2016 City Council meeting D. [ur repo 1 14 1. It is recommended that the City Council review the proposed amendments for second reading and adoption. 2. The City Council held public hearings in the matter of amendments to the View Preservation Ordinance at their January 11, 2016 and January 25, 2016 meetings and directed staff to bring forth the ordinance with the amendments made at the public hearings. 3. At the January 25 meeting, the City Council reviewed the proposed ordinance in detail and made several changes, which are reflected in the attached comparison table, and have been incorporated into Ordinance No. 346, also attached; and include: • 17.12.220 include bathrooms and hallways - in the definition of areas in a principal residence from which one may claim a view • 17.26.040 D, change to 60 -days the time an applicant has to file a complaint with the City, after mediation fails, or the application would be deemed terminated • 17.26.050 C, cost of obtaining an expert opinion should be borne by the complainant. Additionally, provisions were added for when an application would be deemed withdrawn (i.e. if the complainant refuses or fails to pay the cost of expert opinion, and others) • 17.26.060 C, the cost of maintenance of trees (following initial restorative action) shall be borne by the owner of property where the trees are located • 17.26.080 change wording to "a document" shall be recorded (not "informational covenant") • 17.26.100 delete Indemnification provision. 4. During the hearing the residents testified as follows: • Change outdated terminology when referring to restorative actions (lace, crown lifting, crown reduction, etc.) and include in the ordinance pictorial depictions of methods of trimming trees • Introduce arbitration procedures, rather than involve City in disputes • Complainants should pay for their own arborist and counsel 5. Correspondence received since the 1/25/16 City Council meeting is also included with this staff report. Mr. Lynn Gill proposes that the terminology in the ordinance related to treatment of trees is outdated and should be replaced with restorative actions already being used by CTV which are approved by ISA and other arborist associations, and that the definitions and images of the different type of remediation be included in the ordinance. Mr. Hal Light, representing Mr. and Mrs. Hassoldt, residents, submitted a declaration from a registered consulting arborist, which relates to an appeal case before the City Council. However, he requests that the declaration be considered by the City Council in adoption of the ordinance, as it describes why the proposed language of "mature" and "maturing" trees is flawed. This issue relates to the Interpretation of Measure B agenda item, and not Ordinance No. 346, and therefore it is included in both. 6. All of the documents and information provided to the City Council at the January 11, 2016 meeting continue to be relevant and are available at City Hall. Please refer to your January 11, 2016 packet and January 25, 2016 staff report. ORDINANCE COMPARISON CHART (NEW UNDERLINED) DEFINITIONS AND CHAPTER 17.26 VIEW PRESERVATION CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS 17.12.220 "V" words, terms and phrases. "View" means a view from a principal residence and any immediately adjoining patio or deck area at the same elevation as the residence which consists of a visually impressive scene or vista not located in the immediate vicinity of the residence, such as a scene of the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, city lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills or Los Angeles Harbor. "View impairment" means a significant interference with and obstruction of a view by landscaping, trees or any other planted vegetation. "View" means a view from a principal residence, but not including from bathrooms, hallways, garages or closets, and any immediately adjoining patio or deck area at the same elevation as the residence which consists of a visually impressive scene or vista not located in the immediate vicinity of the residence, such as a scene of the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, city lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills or Los Angeles Harbor. "View impairment" means a significant interference with and obstruction of a view by landscaping, trees or any other planted vegetation. "View corridor" means a view from a designated viewing area broken into segments by vegetation. Add that bathrooms hallways; closets, garages, & hallways are not considered viewing areas. City Council excluded "bathrooms and hallways". Measure B introduced language that one is not eligible to a "panoramic" view but to a view corridor. This section defines view corridor. 17.26.010 Intent and purpose. The City recognizes the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the City. Panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island, City lights and Los Angeles Harbor are a special quality of property ownership for many residential lots in the City. These views have the potential to be diminished or eliminated by maturing landscaping located on private property. The purpose of this chapter is to protect this important community asset by establishing procedures for the protection and abatement of The City recognizes the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the City. Views of the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island, City lights and Los Angeles Harbor are a special quality of property ownership for many residential lots in the City. These views have the potential to be diminished or eliminated by maturing landscaping located on private property. The purpose of this chapter is to protect this important community asset by establishing procedures for the protection of Delete the word "Panoramic" and add "of views" in the last sentence Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart -1- CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS view obstructions created by landscaping, while at the same time protecting natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal. views and abatement of view obstructions created by landscaping, while at the same time protecting natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal. 17.26.020 Committee on trees and views. A Committee on Trees and Views is established for the purpose of administering the provisions of this chapter. The Committee shall be composed of three members of the Planning Commission appointed by the Commission annually at the same time as the Commission selects its officers, or whenever a vacancy occurs. Committee meetings shall be scheduled as adjourned or special meetings of the Commission. The Committee is authorized to consult with City officials and with specialists such as landscape architects and arborists as required, but shall not incur any expense on behalf of the City without prior approval of the City Council. No change 17.26.030 Desirable and undesirable trees. A. The Committee is authorized and directed to prepare lists of types of desirable and undesirable trees for planting within the City. The list shall be based upon tree size and shape, rate of growth, depth of roots, fall rate of leaves or bark or fruit or branches, and other factors related to safety, maintenance and appearance. The purpose of this provision is to make information available to property owners which may serve to avoid future occasion for permits, complaints, and other proceedings authorized by this chapter. No change Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart -2- CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS 17.26.040 Abatement of view impairment — Procedure. Any person who owns or has lawful possession of a residence from which view is impaired by vegetation growing on property other than their own may seek abatement of the view impairment under the following procedure: A. Application Required. The complainant shall submit a complete application for abatement of view impairment on a form provided by the City. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as provided for in Section 17.30.030 of this title. The complainant shall describe in the application what efforts have been made by the complainant to resolve the view impairment prior to filing the complaint. A complaint shall not be accepted for filing unless the complainant can demonstrate that the owner of the view -impairing vegetation has been given notice of the impairment and a reasonable opportunity to abate it, but has refused to do so. Any person who owns or has lawful possession of a residence from which a view is impaired, pursuant to the definition of "view Include reference to the definition of a view impairment. A. Clarify the process and submittal requirements for mediation and if the mediation fails; clarify the process to apply to the Committee on Trees and Views (CTV). B. Add new Paragraph "B": A person may file an application for a view impairment even if there are trees/foliage on his/her property that contribute to the view impairment. A person may file against multiple tree owners to seek abatement of the same view. A person may impairment" in Section 17.12.220 of this title, by vegetation growing on property other than their own may seek abatement of the view impairment under the following procedure: A. Mediation Application. The complainant shall submit a complete application for abatement of view impairment by mediation on a form provided by the City. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as provided for in Section 17.30.030 of this title. The complainant shall describe in the application what efforts have been made by the complainant to resolve the view impairment prior to filing the mediation application. An application shall not be accepted for filing unless the complainant can demonstrate that the owner of the view -impairing vegetation has been given notice of the impairment and a reasonable opportunity to abate it, but has refused to do so. B. Eligibility. A person shall not be precluded from filing an application for abatement of a view impairment on grounds that vegetation located on the complainant's property contributes to impairment of the requested view. A person who has obtained an order abating impairment of a view against a property shall not be precluded from filing a subsequent application to abate impairment of Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart - 3 - CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS the same view by vegetation on another pursue remedies simultaneously or separately for view abatement of more than one view, but the views must be disjointed and be from separate viewing areas property. An application may be filed to abate impairment of one or more distinct views listed in Section 17.12.220 "View;" however, if multiple views are identified, each must be disjointed and observable from a separate viewing area. B. Mediation. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application as complete, the City Manager shall refer the matter to a mediator for conduct of a mediation session to abate the view impairment. The mediator shall be responsible for notifying the property owner of the view -impairing vegetation of the application and for scheduling and managing the mediation process. If agreement is reached through mediation, it shall be implemented in accordance with Section 17.26.060. C. Public Hearing. In the event mediation fails to achieve agreement, the matter shall be returned to the City Manager, who shall schedule the matter for a public hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views. C. Mediation. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application as complete, the City Manager shall refer the matter to a mediator for a conduct of a mediation session to abate the view impairment. The mediator shall be responsible for notifying the property owner of the view -impairing vegetation of the application and for scheduling and managing the mediation process. At the conclusion of C. Clarification of the mediator's role and that if an agreement is reached through mediation it shall be implemented per the terms of the agreement. D. The current language uses the word "shall", as if it was mandatory that the complaining party apply to CTV after mediation fails. The City Council Ad Hoc Committee considered and the Planning Commission concurred that a time period should be established for when the complainant may apply to mediation, the mediator shall advise the City Manager as to whether the complaint has been resolved. Agreement reached through mediation shall be reflected in an executed contract and implemented in accordance with the terms of the agreement. D. Public Hearing Application. In the event mediation fails to achieve agreement, the complainant may submit an application and accompanying fee asprovided for in Section 17.30.030 of this title for a public hearing. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application for a public hearing as complete, the City Manager shall schedule the matter for a public hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views. If a complete application for a public hearing is not received within 30 sixty (60) days of the mediator's notification set forth in Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart -4- CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS Section 17.26.040(C), the City shall terminate, the CTV after mediation fails. If one waits too long, the circumstances could change and trees could grow, which could change the scope of the application when it finally reaches the CTV, without a time frame. City Council changed to without prejudice, all proceedings related to the application. 60 days. 17.26.050 Hearing procedure and findings. A. Notice Required. Public notice of the hearing shall be given a minimum of fifteen days prior to the hearing. The hearing shall not proceed unless proof is shown that the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation received notice of the hearing as provided herein: 1. Notice shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation and to the complainant; 2. Notice shall be given by first class mail to all property owners within one thousand feet of the exterior boundary of the property on which the tree or other obstructing vegetation are located and to other persons who, in the Committee's judgment, might be affected. B. Content of Notice. The notice shall state the name of the complaining party, the name of the property owner against whom the complaint is filed, the location of the tree or other vegetation, and the time and place of hearing. The notice shall invite written comments to be submitted prior to or at the hearing. A. No Change B. No Change Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart - 5 - • CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS C. rules hearing, and connection Committee of shall Conduct of Hearing. The Committee shall adopt for the conduct of required hearings. At the the Committee shall consider all written oral testimony and evidence presented in with the application. In the event the requires expert advice in consideration the matter, the cost of obtaining such evidence be borne by the complainant, pursuant to written agreement with the City. C. Conduct of Hearing. The Committee shall adopt rules for the conduct of required hearings. At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written and oral testimony and evidence presented in connection with the application. If during the course of the C. This item clarifies that additional information may be submitted by the applicant and that the CTV could request more information; or that an amended application could be submitted. The Planning Commission discussed and voted to add a provision that if an expert opinion/report is requested by the CTV, that the members of the Committee could require either the complaining party, or under certain circumstances both parties to pay for such an opinion/report. City Council proceedings it is discovered that information submitted in an application is inaccurate or incomplete such that it could be misleading, or a significant change has occurred impacting either the view or the obstruction, an applicant may be directed to amend the application or submit supplemental information. In the event the Committee requires expert advice in consideration of the matter, the cost of obtaining such evidence shall be borne by the complainant the Committee, pursuant to written agreement with the City. The City shall select such expert and enter into an agreement only upon receipt changed that the complainant is of a payment for the selected service from the to pay for expert opinion. Also party or parties. added to this provision is the method by which such an opinion should be obtained; and that an application would be deemed withdrawn under certain conditions. City Council included An application shall be deemed withdrawn and all proceedings shall be terminated with respect thereto, without prejudice, if the parties to a complaint notify the City that it has been voluntarily resolved, or if the complainant fails or refuses to provide supplemental information requested by the City or fails or refuses to pay the cost of the expert services or additional provisions of when the complainant requests a delay of the the application would be proceedings for more than one hundred eighty deemed withdrawn. (180) days unless good cause exists for the delay. Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart -6- CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS D. Findings. Based on the evidence received and considered, the Committee may find any of the following: 1. That no view exists within the meaning of this chapter; 2. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter, but that the view is not significantly impaired; or 3. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter and that it is significantly impaired. The Committee shall make specific written findings in support of the foregoing determinations. E. Action. If the Committee makes finding subsection (D)(3) of this section, it shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment and to restore the complainant's view, including, but not limited to, removal, pruning, topping, thinning or similar alteration of the vegetation. Such order is not intended to create an unobstructed view for applicants. Instead it is intended to create view corridors and a view through trees. The Committee may impose conditions as are necessary to prevent future view impairments. In no event shall restorative action be required if such action would adversely affect the environment or would unreason -ably detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the property on which the objectionable vegetation is located. E. Action. If the Committee makes finding subsection (D)(3) of this section, it shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment, including, but not limited to, removal, pruning, topping, thinning or similar alteration of the vegetation. Such order is not intended to create an unobstructed view for applicants. Instead it is intended to create view corridors and a view through trees. The Committee may impose conditions as are necessary to prevent future view impairments. In no event shall restorative action be required if such action would adversely affect the environment or would unreason -ably detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the property on which the objectionable vegetation is located. If restorative action is precluded by the existence D. No Change E. Deleted "and to restore the complainant's view" from first sentence. Language added that if restorative action is precluded due to environmental constraints, CTV shall make specific findings to that effect. of one or more such limiting factors, the Committee shall make specific written findings to that effect. Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart -7- CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS F. Finality of Decision. The Committee's decision shall be final twenty days after adoption of its written findings, unless it is appealed to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.54. F. Environmental Review. If the Committee F. Add new paragraph "F" specifying that environmental review pursuant to CEQA requirements shall be conducted prior to adoption of a final makes finding subsection (D)(3) of this section and orders restorative action, the proposed order shall be reviewed by City staff to determine the appropriate level of environmental review. If the action is decision by CTV and that if the project is deemed not to be exempt from CEQA, the complainant shall bear reasonable cost of the environmental review including consultant fee. G. This provision in the current ordinance is confusing, since pursuant to the zoning ordinance, a decision of the final reviewing body is final upon adoption of a Resolution and is effective 30 -days later, unless an appeal has been filed. View cases are not automatically reviewed by the City Council, unless appealed. This clarification is necessary to be consistent with other provisions. determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a resolution containing the Committee's written findings shall be presented for adoption at the Committee's next meeting. If the action is determined not to be exempt from CEQA, the complainant shall bear the City's reasonable costs of environmental review and CEQA compliance, including consultant fees. G. Finality of Decision. The Committee's decision shall be final on the date the Committee adopts a resolution setting forth its decision. The decision shall become effective thirty days after adoption of the resolution, unless an appeal has been filed to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.54. For purposes of such an appeal, references to the Planning Commission in Chapter 17.54 shall be interpreted as inclusive of the Committee on Trees and Views. 17.26.060 Implementation of restorative action. A. Within thirty days of a final decision ordering restorative action, the complainant shall obtain and present to the owner of the obstructing vegetation A. The complainant shall bear the cost of the A. This is to clarify up front that the complainant is to pay for the initial restorative action. initial restorative action. Within thirty days of a final decision ordering restorative action, the Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart -8- CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS three bids from licensed and qualified contractors for performance of the work, as well as a cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. In order to qualify, the contractors must provide insurance which protects and indemnifies the City and the complainant from damages attributable to negligent or wrongful performance of the work. Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of the City. B. The owner of the obstructing vegetation may select any licensed and qualified contractor to perform the restorative action (as long as the insurance requirements of subsection A of this section are satisfied), but shall be responsible for any cost above the amount of the cash deposit. The work shall be completed no more than thirty days from receipt of the cash deposit. C. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be performed as prescribed by the Committee's final decision at the cost and expense of the owner of the property on which the vegetation is growing. The vegetation shall be maintained in accordance with the final decision so as not to allow for future view impairments. A notice of the decision shall be recorded against the complainant shall obtain and present to the owner of the obstructing vegetation three bids from licensed and qualified contractors for performance of the work, as well as a cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. In order to qualify, the contractors must provide insurance which protects and indemnifies the City and the complainant from damages attributable to negligent or wrongful performance of the work. Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of the City. B. The owner of the obstructing vegetation may select any licensed and qualified contractor to perform the restorative action (as long as the insurance requirements of subsection A of this section are satisfied), but shall be responsible for any cost above the amount of the cash deposit. The work shall be completed no more than ninety (90) days from receipt of the cash deposit or if additional time is necessary due to weather or unique conditions of the vegetation, at the earliest date recommended by the contractor, but no later than one year, and approved by the City Manager. C. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be performed at the cost and expense of the owner of the property on which the vegetation is growing, unless -the an-alternative-eest-aileeatienr which shall L.. alternative allocatio_. The vegetation shall Chapter 17.26 View Preservation - 9 - Comparison Chart B. Some species of trees cannot be remediated in certain months; therefore a 30 -day period is too restrictive. Both the Ad Hoc Committee and the PC reviewed this provision and agreed on this change. C. The City Council Ad Hoc Committee could not agree on who should pay for the maintenance of trees, following the initial restorative action; and deferred this item to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS title of the property and shall run with the land, thereby giving notice of this obligation to all future owners. D. The implementation method provided for in this section may be modified by the parties or in any final decision if grounds exist to justify such a modification. In particular, the Committee may allocate the cost of restorative action as follows: 1. If the Committee finds that the tree or other vegetation constitutes a safety hazard to the complainant or his property, and is being maintained by the owner in disregard of the safety of others, the owner may be required to pay one hundred percent of the cost of correction; or 2. If the owner is maintaining a hedge fifteen feet or more in height, the Committee may allocate the cost of correction to the property owner, provided that the owner of the land on which the hedge exists shall not be required to pay more than twenty-five percent of the cost of such correction be maintained in accordance with the final decision so as not to allow for future view impairments. D. To be deleted recommends that the CTV have the ability to require the owner of the trees or both parties to maintain the trees, depending on the circumstances. City Council changed to require that the owner of the trees maintain the trees. D. Paragraph D is deleted. Some of the provisions of this paragraph are incorporated in the other paragraphs of Section 17.26.060; and some of the language is very vague and does not belong or apply to the ordinance. 17.26.070 Enforcement. A. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter or to comply with any provision of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars or six months in County Jail, or both. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter shall A. No Change Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart - 10 - CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS further constitute a public nuisance which may be abated in accordance with the procedure contained in Chapter 8.24. B. A final decision rendered under this chapter may be enforced civilly by way of action for injunctive or other appropriate relief, in which event the prevailing party may be awarded attorney's fees and costs as determined by the court. C. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the prosecution of any civil cause of action under the law by any person with respect to the matters covered herein. 17.26.080 Notification of subsequent owners. The owner on whose property the offending vegetation exists shall notify all successor owners 4f the final decision in any proceeding under this chapter, and such decision shall be binding upon all such successors in interest. Within thirty days of the final decision, an informational covenant shall be recorded against the title of the property on a form provided by the City. Within thirty days of the final decision of the Clarifies that the City will record an informational covenant for both properties that would run with the land. Currently the covenant is recorded against the property on which the vegetation exists. City Council changed the Committee, or the City Council on appeal, an a document shall be recorded against the title of the property on which the offending vegetation exists and the complainant's property, on a form provided by the City, which shall run with the land and be binding upon all successors in interest. wording to "document" 17.26.090 Preservation of views defined. Notwithstanding any other provision of Chapter 17.26.010 to 17.26.080 inclusive, the following provision shall apply and supersede in priority any other provision. 1. A view is defined in Chapter [Section] 17.12.220 and only applies to that view existing from the date any current owner of a property in the City of Rolling actually acquired the property. 2. Chapter [Section] 17.26.010 provides that the intent of the Ordinance is to protect views from ADDED BY MEASURE B. No Change. Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart - 11 - CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS "maturing" vegetation. As such, in addition to the limitations otherwise set forth in Chapter 17.26, including but limited to this Section 17.26.090, any vegetation which is already mature at the time any party claiming a view impairment actually acquired the property shall be exempt from Chapter 17.26. "Mature" versus "Maturing" shall be defined by industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists. 3. The burden of proof to show that any view is impaired shall be upon the party claiming such impairment, and the standard shall be by "clear and convincing evidence". Evidence shall be weighted in the following order of priority: a. Photographs; b. Expert testimony; and lastly c. Other evidence. Editor's note — Ord. No. 333 (Measure B) which added the provisions set out herein, was adopted March 18, 2013, as a result of a vote of the electorate and thus cannot be changed except by another vote. Said ordinance states, "This Section 17.26.090 shall be effective retroactively to the date Chapter 17.26 was first made an Ordinance to the City of Rolling Hills." MEASURE B No Change. INDEMNIFICATION -Not currently in the Ordinance 17.26.100 Indemnification New provision- deleted. City Council excluded the Indemnification provision. hold harmless the City, its The City Council Ad Hoc Committee couldn't agree whether a provision should be included in the ordinance agents, officers, from attorneys and employees any claim, the City it: action or proceeding against or to agents, officers, attorneys or employees Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart - 12 - CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS attack set asid^void ^ al a decision ^f regarding indemnification of the City, and deferred that decision to the Planning Commission. After lengthy discussion, public input and deliberation, the Planning Commission recommends that the complaining party indemnify the City. thenvise challenge_. ^ seeks `damages from, the issuance, defense, resulting decisions by the City in control over made connection with an action. Chapter 17.26 View Preservation - 13 - Comparison Chart THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ORDINANCE NO. 346 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING SECTION 17.12.220 AND CHAPTER 17.26 RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION OF TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does ordain as follows: Section 1. Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC") Chapter 17.26 governs the process by which a property owner whose scenic view has become impaired by vegetation growing on another property may obtain abatement of the view impairment. Section 17.12.220 defines a view. Collectively, RHMC Chapter 17.26 and the definition of a view make up the City's "View Ordinance." The City has been engaged in a long-term effort to update the View Ordinance to clarify its provisions and address circumstances that have arisen in the Committee on Trees and Views' application of the View Ordinance. Section 2. Chapter 17.50 of the RHMC sets forth procedures for amending the Zoning Ordinance. A public hearing before the Planning Commission is necessary before a recommendation for a Zoning Code amendment can be made to the City Council. After receiving presentations from staff at the February 17, 2015 and March 17, 2015 meetings, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on April 21, 2015, which was continued to May 19, 2015, June 16, 2015, July 21, 2015 and August 16, 2015. Public comment was received at each continuance of the public hearing, which the Planning Commission considered in concert with the recommendations of the City Council's Ad Hoc Committee created to recommend changes to the View Ordinance, and reports from City staff. Notice of the public hearings was provided as required by law. Section 3. After considering all of the evidence in the record on this matter, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Section 17.12.220 and Chapter 17.26 of Title 17 (Zoning) of the RHMC. Section 4. Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code Section 21000 to Section 21177, State CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, staff analyzed the proposed amendments to the View Ordinance and concluded that the amendments are exempt from CEQA because they consist only of minor revisions and clarifications to the RHMC and will not have the effect of deleting or substantially changing any regulatory standards or findings. The proposed Ordinance is an action that does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment, but rather will clarify the process by which persons may apply for and obtain an order from the City to abate view impairments. Accordingly, the proposed Ordinance is exempt pursuant to the "common sense" exemption set forth in Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because there is no possibility that the Ordinance could have a significant effect on the environment. Furthermore, the proposed Ordinance does not constitute a "project" that requires environmental review (see specifically 14 CCR § 15378 (b)(2, 5)). Section 5. After considering the information presented during public hearings on this matter, the City Council finds that the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments comply with the requirements of the City of Rolling Hills General Plan and State Planning and Zoning Laws (Government section 65000 et seq.) and will preserve the public health, safety and general welfare, while balancing property DRAFT Ordinance No. 346 1 rights. Notice of the public hearings was provided as required by law. Section 6. The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance amending Section 17.12.220 and Chapter 17.26 of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code as follows: A. Amend Section 17.12.220 of the RHMC to amend the definition of "View" and add the definition of "View corridor" in alphabetical order to read as follows: "View" means a view from a principal residence, but not including from garages or closets, and any immediately adjoining patio or deck area at the same elevation as the residence which consists of a visually impressive scene or vista not located in the immediate vicinity of the . residence, such as a scene of the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, city lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills or Los Angeles Harbor. "View impairment" means a significant interference with and obstruction of a view by landscaping, trees or any other planted vegetation. "View corridor" means a view from a designated viewing area broken into segments by vegetation. B. Amend Section 17.26.010 of the RHMC to read as follows: 17.26.010 Intent and purpose The City recognizes the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the City. Views of the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island, City lights and Los Angeles Harbor are a special quality of property ownership for many residential lots in the City. These views have the potential to be diminished or eliminated by maturing landscaping located on private property. The purpose of this chapter is to protect this important community asset by establishing procedures for the protection of views and abatement of view obstructions created by landscaping, while at the same time protecting natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal. C. Amend Section 17.26.040 of the RHMC to read as follows: 17.26.040 Abatement of view impairment - Procedure. Any person who owns or has lawful possession of a residence from which a view is impaired, pursuant to the definition of "view impairment" in Section 17.12.220 of this title, by vegetation growing on property other than their own may seek abatement of the view impairment under the following procedure: A. Mediation Application. The complainant shall submit a complete application for abatement of view impairment by mediation on a form provided by the City. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as provided for in Section 17.30.030 of this title. The complainant shall describe in the application what efforts have been made by the complainant to resolve the view impairment prior to filing the mediation application. An application shall not be accepted for filing unless the complainant can demonstrate that the owner of the view - impairing vegetation has been given notice of the impairment and a reasonable opportunity to abate it, but has refused to do so. DRAFT Ordinance No. 346 13. Eligibility. A person shall not be precluded from filing an application for abatement of view impairment on grounds that vegetation located on the complainant's property contributes to impairment of the requested view. A person who has obtained an order abating impairment of a view against a property shall not be precluded from filing a subsequent application to abate impairment of the same view by vegetation on another property. An application may be filed to abate impairment of one or more distinct views listed in Section 17.12.220 "View;" however, if multiple views are identified, each must be disjointed and observable from a separate viewing area. C. Mediation. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application as complete, the City Manager shall refer the matter to a mediator for conduct of a mediation session to abate the view impairment. The mediator shall be responsible for notifying the property owner of the view - impairing vegetation of the application and for scheduling and managing the mediation process. At the conclusion of mediation, the mediator shall advise the City Manager as to whether the complaint has been resolved. Agreement reached through mediation shall be reflected in an executed contract and implemented in accordance with the terms of the agreement. D. Public Hearing Application. In the event mediation fails to achieve agreement, the complainant may submit an application and accompanying fee as provided for in Section 17.30.030 of this title for a public hearing. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application for a public hearing as complete, the City Manager shall schedule the matter for a public hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views. If a complete application for a public hearing is not received within sixty (60) days of the mediator's notification set forth in Section 17.26.040(C), the City shall terminate, without prejudice, all proceedings related to the application. D. Amend Section 17.26.050 of the RHMC to read as follows: 17.26.050 Hearing procedure and findings. A. Notice Required. Public notice of the hearing shall be given a minimum of fifteen days prior to the hearing. The hearing shall not proceed unless proof is shown that the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation received notice of the hearing as provided herein: 1. Notice shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation and to the complainant; 2. Notice shall be given by first class mail to all property owners within one thousand feet of the exterior boundary of the property on which the tree or other obstructing vegetation are located and to other persons who, in the Committee's judgment, might be affected. B. Content of Notice. The notice shall state the name of the complaining party, the name of the property owner against whom the complaint is filed, the location of the tree or other vegetation, and the time and place of hearing. The notice shall invite written comments to be submitted prior to or at the hearing. C. Conduct of Hearing. The Committee shall adopt rules for the conduct of required hearings. At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written and oral testimony and evidence DRAFT Ordinance No. 346 3 presented in connection with the application. If during the course of the proceedings it is discovered that information submitted in an application is inaccurate or incomplete such that it could be misleading, or a significant change has occurred impacting either the view or the obstruction, an applicant may be directed to amend the application or submit supplemental information. In the event the Committee requires expert advice in consideration of the matter, the cost of obtaining such evidence shall be borne by the complainant, pursuant to written agreement with the City. The City shall select such expert and enter into an agreement only upon receipt of a payment for the selected service from the party. An application shall be deemed withdrawn and all proceedings shall be terminated with respect thereto, without prejudice, if the parties to a complaint notify the City that it has been voluntarily resolved, or if the complainant fails or refuses to provide supplemental information requested by the City or fails or refuses to pay the cost of the expert services, or the complainant requests a delay of the proceedings for more than one hundred eighty (180) days unless good cause exists for the delay. D. Findings. Based on the evidence received and considered, the Committee may find any of the following: 1. That no view exists within the meaning of this chapter; 2. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter, but that the view is not significantly impaired; or 3. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter and that it is significantly impaired. 4. The Committee shall make specific written findings in support of the foregoing determinations. E. Action. If the Committee makes finding of subsection (D)(3) of this section, it shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment, including, but not limited to, removal, pruning, topping, thinning or similar alteration of the vegetation. Such order is not intended to create an unobstructed view for applicants. Instead it is intended to create view corridors and a view through trees. The Committee may impose conditions as are necessary to prevent future view impairments. In no event shall restorative action be required if such action would adversely affect the environment or would unreason -ably detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the property on which the objectionable vegetation is located. If restorative action is precluded by the existence of one or more such limiting factors, the Committee shall make specific written findings to that effect. F. Environmental Review. If the Committee makes finding of subsection (D)(3) of this section and orders restorative action, the proposed order shall be reviewed by City staff to determine the appropriate level of environmental review. If the action is determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a resolution containing the Committee's written findings shall be presented for adoption at the Committee's next nieeting. If the action is determined not to be exempt from CEQA, the complainant shall bear the City's reasonable costs of environmental review and CEQA compliance, including consultant fees. G. Finality of Decision. The Committee's decision shall be final on the date the Committee adopts a resolution setting forth its decision. The decision shall become effective thirty (30) DRAFT Ordinance No. 346 4 goo days after adoption of the resolution, unless an appeal has been filed to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.54. For purposes of such an appeal, references to the Planning Commission in Chapter 17.54 shall be interpreted as inclusive of the Committee on Trees and Views. E. Amend Section 17.26.060 of the RHMC to read as follows: 17.26.060 Implementation of restorative action. A. The complainant shall bear the cost of the initial restorative action. Within thirty (30) days of a final decision ordering restorative action, the complainant shall obtain and present to the owner of the obstructing vegetation three bids from licensed and qualified contractors for performance of the work, as well as cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. In order to qualify, the contractors must provide insurance, which protects and indemnifies the City and the complainant from damages attributable to negligent or wrongful performance of the work. Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of the City. B. The owner of the obstructing vegetation may select any licensed and qualified contractor to perform the restorative action (as long as the insurance requirements of subsection A of this section are satisfied), but shall be responsible for any cost above the amount of the cash deposit. The work shall be completed no more than ninety (90) days from receipt of the cash deposit or if additional time is necessary due to weather or unique conditions of the vegetation, at the earliest date recommended by the contractor, but no later than one year, and shall be approved by the City Manager. C. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be performed at the cost and expense of the owner of the property on which the vegetation is growing. The vegetation shall be maintained in accordance with the final decision so as not to allow for future view impairments. F. Amend Section 17.26.080 of the RHMC to read as follows: 17.26.080 Notification of subsequent owners. Within thirty (30) days of the final decision of the Committee, or the City Council on appeal, a document shall be recorded against the title of the property on which the offending vegetation exists and the complainant's property, on a form provided by the City, which shall run with the land and be binding upon all successors in interest. • PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this DRAFT Ordinance No. 346 5 day of 2016. JEFF PIEPER MAYOR ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 346 entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING SECTION 17.12.220 AND CHAPTER 17.26 RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION OF TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on , 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK DRAFT Ordinance No. 346 6 RECEIVED JAN 2 9 2016 From: Lynn Gill City of Rolling Hills Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 12:20 PM By To: Yolanta Rolling Hills, City of Subject: Sec. 17.26.030 E. , Restorative Actions- Definitions Hello Yolanta, Please include the attached two letters and bulletin in the packet for the next public hearing on trees/views. The attachment to the 1-29 letter is only pages circle 8 and circle 9 from the Hassold view matter (not the whole document). Summary: Terms used in Sec. 12.26.030 E. are ambiguous and not approved by arborists. I propose that they be replaced with restorative actions already being used by CTV which are approved by ISA and other arborist associations, and that the definitions and pictures be included in ordinance "Definitions." Order in packet: letter dated jan 29 circle 8 and circle 9 letter dated jan 19 Don't Top bulletin If the council decides to revise the terminology and add the pictures to definitions, I can provide you with a Word document with the clip - art of the pictures. Best regards, Lynn :EIVED 1 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 t January 29, 2016 City Council City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274 ISA APPROVED PRUNING TECHNIQUES/DEFINITIONS ALREADY BEING USED BY CTV Dear Councilpersons: JAN 2 9 2016 L..ty of Roiling Hiiis- Ry Further to my letter dated January 18, 2016 recommending that outmoded terminology in Section 17.26.030 E. be replaced with ISA approved terminology. This suggested terminology is already being used by the CTV (see attached pages circle 8 and circle 9 from the staff report 10-7-2015). The suggested revision would simply bring the ordinance language into synch with what CTV is already using. I also suggest that the pictures of the arborist-approved techniques be included in the definitions section of the ordinance, as most cities do (see staff report containing other city ordinances). I think it would be helpful to citizens reading the view ordinance to see that these techniques to reduce the height and density of trees are not scary, but reasonable —it might take some of the emotion out of the view committee meetings! Section 17.26.030 E. "The Committee.... shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment and to restore the complainant's view, including, but not limited to,_pruning, thinning lacing, topping, crown lifting, crown reduction, stand thinning, er—removal or similar alteration of vegetation." Topping or heading back of a tree is expressly forbidden. Sincerely, Lynn E. Gill Page 1 1 s X44 TYPE OF TREE AND TREE # LOCATION ACTION MAINTENANCE 1 Eucalyptus NO ACTION NO ACTION 2 Eucalyptus- along Roadway easement -front Lace, shape & crown reduce to no higher than the current height of Palm Trees Every y two ears 3 Washington Fan Palm along N/E side of property Remove the dead fronds Every two years 3-A Washington Fan Palm- along N/E side of property Remove the dead fronds Every two years 4 Eucalyptus & various volunteers- S/W comer of lot Lower the canopy and trim to old cuts for city view Every two years 4-A Olive & various volunteers- S/W corner of lot Lower the canopy and trim to old cuts for city view Every two years 5 Eucalyptus- by garage Reduce crown to the height of top of pole Every two years 6 California Pepper- along front Shape & reduce canopy to old cuts Every two years 6-A California Pepper -along front Shape & reduce canopy to old cuts Every two years 7 corner Olive Tree- along front; S/E Shape, reduce crown and balance to 2009 view Every two years 8 Acacia NO ACTION NO ACTION 9 Olive Tree- lawn area NO ACTION NO ACTION 9-A Olive Tree- lawn area NO ACTION NO ACTION TOTAL 9 Trees Subject to Initial Restorative Action The locations of the above listed trees are shown on the aerial photograph attached hereto as Exhibit C. G. The actions described above shall be accomplished per ISA industry standards and best arborist practices, and the following definitions shall apply: CTV Resolution No. 2015-03-CTV Crown Reduction: Height reduction to specified height by removing selective branches, deadwood, stems and foliage to reduce the height and spread of a tree. Lace: Thin out thick areas of the canopy to expose the structure of dominant branches, clean out the crown, shaping and balancing the tree. Section 10. Upon conclusion of the Initial Restorative Action, the Complainant shall contact the City to schedule a site visit during which City staff shall visit 18 Portuguese Bend Road and take photograph(s) from the Designated Viewing Areas to be attached as Exhibit D to this Resolution for the purpose of establishing the level of restorative action for future maintenance. Section 11. There shall be no restorative action required for the remainder of the trees on the property at 15 Portuguese Bend Road not listed in the Initial Restorative Action in this Resolution. However, trees on the property not included in this Resolution shall be maintained at current configuration and any new growth that extends into the view established by this Resolution shall be removed at the same time as the maintenance is conducted for the Obstructing Trees, at the sole expense of the Owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road. Section 12. The parties by mutual agreement, if they so desire, may modify the implementation action in this Resolution, as set forth in Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.060 D. Any such mutual agreement shall be recorded. Section 13. In the event that any party requests inspection of implementation of CTV Resolution 2015- 03 on grounds that the restorative action or maintenance is not compliant with this Resolution, the City may be required to incur substantial costs in investigating the complaint. Therefore, the City shall be entitled to recover its costs from a non -compliant party, for activities including, but not limited to, hiring independent consultants. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by Members of the Committee on Trees and Views this 7th day of October 2015. Jill V. Smith Chairperson ATTEST: Heidi Luce City Clerk CTV Resolution No. 2015-03-CTV RECEIVED 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 January 18, 2016 City Council City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274 JAN 2 9 2016 City of Rolling Hills By RESTORATIVE ACTION DEFINITIONS- REPLACE WITH ISA APPROVED DEFINITIONS THAT ACCOMPLISH TH E SAME REM EDIATION GOAL Dear Councilpersons: There are view abatement actions specified in Section 17.26.030Ethatare ambiguous and in some cases are actions not approved by arborists that may injuretrees and makeviewobstructionsworse. Other beneficial abatementactions are notlisted. Fortunately, after the RH view ordinance was written nearly 30 years ago, pruning actions that are approved by arborists and give specific guidance about what the term means have been defined in arboriculture glossaries Below, I propose that certain restorative actions be deleted and replaced with actions that are defined by ISA or other arborist associations and accomplish the same remediation goal. I show these deleted actions as lined -out, followed by an arborist approved actions. Other appropriate remediation actions are added I have reordered the terms from least severe to most severe. Section 17.26.030 E. "The Committee .... shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment and to restore the complainant's view, including, but not limited to, pruning, thinning, lacing, topping, crown lifting, crown reduction, stand thinning, of removal or similar alteration of vegetation." Topping or heading back of a tree is expressly forbidden. - Pruning. The term "Pruning" is eliminated as it is a very general non-specific term. Dr. Gilman in An Illustrated GuidetoPruning requires almost 500 pages to define proper pruning techniques. Page 11 - Thinning replaced by Lacing. Lacing means a method of pruning that selectively removes excess (primarily interior) limbs and foliage to improve the structure of the tree and to provide a view through the tree. No more that 30 percent of the foliage should be removed. Before and After Lacing • Topping replaced by "Crown lifting" and "Crown reduction." Topping is the removal of the entire top of a tree's crown by cutting back large diameter branches to stubs and truncating the main stem/trunk. Topping damages and weakens trees, often results in explosive new growth, and topped trees appear disfigured and mutilated. Most cities have tree/view ordinances that forbid topping of trees (see attached "Don't Top Trees!"). WAS Page 12 • Crown lifting. Means removing the lower branches of a tree so that a view can be experienced under the tree. • Crown reduction. Means a method of pruning that reduces a tree's height and or/spread. Crown reduction entails reduction of the top, sides or individual limbs by removal of leaders or the longest portions of limbs to a lateral limb large enough to assume the tree's growth. This arborist approved method of reducing the height and/or spread of a tree replaces "topping," which has many undesirable effects. %'4 t' Page 1 3 • Stand thinning. Means the selective removal of specific trees from a grove of trees. - "Heading back." This severe method of reducing the mass of a tree by cutting back major limbs to stubs is forbidden in tree/view ordinances in most cites. It causes explosive new growth, similar to topping, that results in a dense ball of vegetation. Heading back makes a tree look ugly and makes view impairment worse. I recommend that "topping" and "heading back" should be expressly forbidden in the view ordinance. Sincerely, Lynn E. Gill Page 1 4 WHY NOT TO TOP: 8 GOOD REASONS 1. Starvation: Topping removes so much of' the tree's leafy crown that it dangerously reduces the tree's food -making ability. 2. Shock: By removing the protective cover of the tree's canopy, bark tissue is exposed to the direct rays of the sun. The resultant scalding can cause the tree's death. 3. Insects and Disease: The exposed ends of topped limbs are highly vulnerable to insect invasion or fungi spores decay. 4. Weak Limbs: New branches that grow from a stubbed limb are weakly attached and more liable to break from snow or ice weight. 5. Rapid New Growth: Instead of controlling the height and spread of the tree, topping has the opposite effect. New branches are more numerous and often grow higher than before. 6. Tree Death: Some tree species can't tolerate major branch loss and still survive. At best, they remain weak and disease -prone. 7. Ugliness: A topped tree is a disfigured tree. Even with new growth, it never regains the grace and character of its species. 8. Cost: The true cost of topping is often hidden - lower property values, expense of removal, and replacement if the tree dies. City of Rolling Hillstrom the TREE CITY USA' By BULLETIN The sight of topped trees is a!l too common in communities and along the roadways of America - minks with stubby limbs standing naked in the landscape, trees stripped of all dignity and grace. Trees are often topped because they grow into utility wires, interfere with views or solar collectors, or simply grow so large that they worry the landowner. But, as one arborist has said, "Topping is the absolute worst thing you can do for the health of your tree." PROPER PRUNING — THE ALTERNATIVE TO TOPPING TOPPING YEAR 3 YEAR 6 When a decision is made to reduce the size of an older tree, it can be topped, or it can be pruned properly. Although the speed and nature of re -growth will depend on species and local factors, any comparison between irresponsible topping and competent pruning will be dramatic. Qualified arborists use crown reduction to control height when necessary. Selected limbs are removed at their junction with the trunk or a limb at least one-third the diameter of the removed limb. YEAR 1: The topped tree is an ugly stub and a remnant of a once -lovely tree. If pruned properly, the tree's size is reduced but form and beauty are retained. YEAR 3: Vigorous sprouts have sprung out of the topped tree in large numbers and are growing with abnormal rapidity. The pruned tree adds growth, but it does so more slowly and distributes it more normally. YEAR 6: In a relatively short time, the topped tree is as tall - and far bushier and more dangerous - than it was to begin with. The properly pruned tree is safer, more beautiful, and its size is better controlled. Arbor Day Foundation' 100 Arbor Avenue • Nebraska City, NE 68410 31 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD J. LIGHT 1135S WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD. SUITE 300 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90064-1614 TELEPHONE (310) 473-2233 FAX (310) 413-0011 February 2, 2016 Via Overnight Delivery City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 RECEIVED FEB 032016 City of Rolling Hills By Our File No: 2122.05 Re: Appeal of Resolution No. 2015-03-CTV of the Committee on Trees and Views to the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills Filed By William and Judith Hassoldt Number 15 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills Consideration of Ordinance No. 346 Amending Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code Relating to View Preservation In Zoning Case No. 881 and Zoning Code Amendment No. 2015-03 Dear City Staff: As you know, this office represents the owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road in the City of Rolling Hills CNo. 15 PBR"), William and Judith Hassoldt (the "Hassoldts") in connection with the referenced appeal from the decision of the City's Committee on Trees and Views. In connection with that appeal and the appeal by Steve and Diana Nuccion from that same decision (the "Appeals"), enclosed please find a declaration of Registered Consulting Arborist, Ruben Green ("Mr. Green"). At the November 23, 2015 meeting, Council Member Black inquired whether there was any impediment to the Hassoldts' trimming trees on No. 15 PBR during the pendency of this process and the City Attorney responded that there was not. Accordingly, as they have always made clear they intended to do, the Hassoldts have caused restorative trimming to be performed on trees located at No. 15 PBR. In an effort to make certain that such trimming would be done in a way that was best for the health and safe growth of the trees, the Hassoldts retained Mr. Green to oversee the trimming on their property. In the enclosed declaration, Mr. Green discusses the trimming of the Hassoldts' trees and also addresses the issue(s) surrounding the determination of whether any City of Rolling Hills February 2, 2016 Page 2 particular tree on No. 15 PBR (and/or within the City) should be considered "mature". While Mr. Green's analysis, stated under oath, is relevant to the Appeals, it also has direct application to the City's evaluation of proposed changes to the View Ordinance. For that reason, the Hassoldts respectfully request that the City Council also receive and consider Mr. Green's declaration in connection with its analysis of the issues surrounding the proposed amendment(s) to the City's View Ordinance. In order to facilitate the City Council's consideration of Mr. Green's declaration in connection with both of the above referenced matters, I am enclosing sixteen (16) copies of Mr. Green's declaration. Eight (8) of the copies have a face page which reads "Declaration of Arborist Ruben Green Re: Appeals from Resolution No. 2015-03-CTV of the Committee on Trees and Views to the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills". The other eight (8) copies have have a face page which reads "Declaration of Arborist Ruben Green Re: The Rolling Hills City Council's Consideration of Ordinance No. 346 Amending Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code Relating to View Preservation in Zoning Case No. 881 and Zoning Code Amendment No. 2015-03". If anyone from the City has any questions about Mr. Green's declaration, or anything else, they should not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD J. LIGHT LIYJ. LI HJL:akb Enclosures DECLARATION OF ARBORIST RUBEN GREEN RE• THE ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 346 AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION IN ZONING CASE NO. 881 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-03 RECEIVED FEB 0 3 2016 City of Rolling Hills By 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 DECLARATION OF RUBEN M. GREEN I, Ruben M. Green, declare as follows: 1. I know the facts set forth in this declaration of my own personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, T could and would competently testify to such. facts under oath. 2. I am an arborist and the president of Evergreen Arborists Consultants, Inc. An arborist is a tree specialist who uses his or her education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees through pruning. I have been retained I,o (Ivel'Nee the pruning services in connection with trees and palms located on property owned by William and Judith Hassoldt (the "Hassoldts") located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road in the City of Rolling Hills (the "Hassoldt Property"). I have also been asked to opine on the issue of how arborisis define "mature" trees. My Education, Training and Experience 3. I have over 30 years of experience in the landscape industry. My background includes hands-on experience in tree care, landscape maintenance, construction, and irrigation management. I have a Master's Degree i.n pl.ant science from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. I provide detailed investigations, independent analysis, and, since 2003, expert witness testimony. I am a Registered Consulting Arborist with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, a certified arborist and a certified tree risk assessor with the International Society of Arboriculture ("ISA"), licensed pesticide applicator with the state of California, and a C-27 licensed California contractor. A true and correct copy of my curriculum vitae is attached to this declaration as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as if set forth here in full. 4. I have examined thousands of trees and performed hundreds of forensic examinations on trees. I am knowledgeable and have experience in tree pruning. I have Declaration of Ruben M. Green 1 lectured at ISA sponsored events and taught classes on tree pruning at tree industry 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 events. My Site Visits to the Hassoldt Property 5. On December 9, 2015, December 29, 2015, and again on January 27, 2016, I conducted site inspections of trees on the Hassoldt Property. I understand that the adjacent, uphill property is owned by Diana Nuccion and Steve Nuccion (the "Nuccions") and is located at 18 Portuguese Bend Road in the City of Rolling Hills (the "Nuccion Property"). The Pruning of the Hassoldts' Trees 6. I supervised tree and palm pruning at the Hassoldt Property on January 27, 2016. The objective of this pruning was to maximize the stability of the trees' structures by preventing (or minimizing) the creation of internal and external defects. The pruning method used on the Hassoldts' trees is referred to as "cleaning", which involves the selective removal of dead, diseased, detached, and crossing/rubbing and broken branches. This is the preferred pruning method for mature trees because it does not remove live branches unnecessarily and does not remove branches indiscriminately. This method of pruning was chosen to reduce the risk of branch failure, promote safety, provide clearance, increase light exposure, maintain tree health, and to adequately support the weight of the branches, leaves, and fruit, and reduce the effects of wind, as much as possible. 7. .Because the trees which were trimmed at the Hassoldt Property (other than the Palms) had previously been topped, in order to improve the health and structural stability of the trees it is very important that great care be exercised in pruning. For this reason, in overseeing the pruning I made certain that standard arboricultural pruning guidelines -- such as the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) Z1 33.1 Standard, Declaration of Ruben M. Green 2 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 the National Arborist Association pruning standards, and the Western Chapter ISA Pruning Standards -- were followed in order to maximize the structural stability (and otherwise seek to preserve the health) of the trees. The Definition Of "Mature" Trees 8. In the course of my retention to oversee the trimming of trees on the Hassoldt Property, it came to my attention that the Nuccions' had retained an arborist, Kevin Eckert ("Mr. Eckert"), to opine that the trees are not mature. At the outset, there is no basis for the suggestion that Mr. Eckert's claimed expertise in connection with the ISA "Glossary of Arboricultural Terms" gives him special insight into the definition of the words "mature" and "maturing". In this regard, it is important to note that the ISA does NOT provide a definition of a mature tree. That is, neither "mature" nor "maturing" is defined in the 2015 ISA "Glossary of Arboricultural Terms". 9. Mr. Eckert has apparently suggested that the determination of whether or not a tree is "mature" is based on the "maximum height that a plant is likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site are favorable". In adopting this position, Mr. Eckert seems to be suggesting that the definition of "mature height" determines the definition of what is a "mature tree." This is simply not accurate. The issue of assessing a tree's mature height is for the purpose of determining how tall a tree is likely to grow, and it involves an evaluation of the range of heights a particular species of tree may achieve depending on conditions. A tree's mature height does not, in and of itself, define the maturity of a tree and is not consistent with industry standard or predominantly accepted by arborists in determining whether any particular tree is "mature." 10. Moreover, it is neither logical nor accurate to say that maturity should be only when a tree reaches the maximum of "mature height." As an example of the impropriety of Mr. Eckert's suggestion that we should tie the definition to such a narrow finding, we need look no further than the Cal Poly site which Mr. Eckert references. This Declaration of Ruben M. Green 3 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 site is also the Official Registry of California Big Trees. By Mr. Eckert's definition, only 353 trees in California would qualify as mature trees. 11. I was also surprised to see Mr. Eckert comparing tree heights referencing Wikipedia. I do not consider Wikipedia to be a particularly reliable source. Indeed, the Wikipedia "Terms of Use" state that citation to Wikipedia in research may be considered unacceptable. That is because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source. 12. Finally, Mr. Eckert neither visited the site nor conducted any examination of the surrounding trees, but only "reviewed all of the photographs dated 2010 and 2011" and "reviewed the live video feed from the Nuccion property to consider the status of all 11 of the subject trees." Although I do not have access to these photographs or the video, in my experience, attempting to assess living trees from photographs or video without actually seeing those trees in person is extremely difficult and should be avoided. 13. In contrast to Mr. Eckert, I visited the Hassoldt property on three occasions. Height alone is an inadequate and insufficient criteria for assessing whether a tree is mature. If height were the only consideration, a "mature" tree that breaks from wind loads would be shorter and because of the reduction in height would no longer be "mature". Such an analysis of maturity would be nonsensical. Likewise, the suggestion that an otherwise mature tree which has had its crown reduced is no longer "mature" on account of the crown reduction makes no sense whatsoever. Other factors such as a tree trunk's diameter and the age of the tree must be considered in determining whether a tree in a particular area is mature. In this regard, several studies and analyses have been done which evaluate whether trees are mature taking into account other than the maximum height a tree is expected to grow.' In addition, trees must be compared with 1 For example, an analysis of trunk diameter was included in Management Guidelines for Mature Trees, (2014), Greening, Landscape and Tree Management Section, The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: Development Bureau. See also, Gupta, P.K., and Durzan, D.J., (1985), "Shoot multiplication from mature trees of Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana)," Plant Cell Reports, University of California, Davis, CA, for an analysis of maturity based on the age of the tree. Declaration of Ruben M. Green 4 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 similar species within the specific area with similar conditions (i.e., in the community of Rolling Hills). 14. In order to assist in my evaluation of the Hassoldts' trees, on December 29, 2015, I surveyed Red Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) trees within Rolling Hills. The results of my survey, when combined with my experience, made clear to me that the Eucalyptus trees which were trimmed with my oversight are unquestionably mature. Likewise, viewing the Olive and Palm trees and researching historical photographs also clearly demonstrates that those species on the Hassoldt Property which were pruned are also mature trees. For example, it is clear that two of the Olive trees on the Hassoldt Property are at least 75 years old and any suggestion that trees of that age are not mature is not supportable under any analysis. 15. I have been informed that the City of Rolling Hills has been asked to pass an ordinance declaring that a tree cannot be considered "mature" if it has been previously trimmed, and therefore would not be subject to certain protections already contained in the municipal code. However, regular pruning and clearing of trees is a part of good tree maintenance and has absolutely no bearing on whether those trees are mature. In this regard, it is important to note that failure properly to maintain trees can result in very significant property damage, personal injuries, and even deaths. Accordingly, in my opinion it would be imprudent to pass an ordinance that discourages proper tree maintenance. Interference With Pruning by Neighbor at the Nuccion Property 16. At the time of the trimming on January 27, 2016, I was informed by the tree trimming crew that a woman, who stated that she was the owner of the Nuccion Property, stopped the crew shortly after they began pruning the Eucalyptus tree on the southwest corner of the Hassoldt Property, claiming that they were crossing onto the neighbor's • property to pick up cut branches, and she refused to allow them to do so. This prevented Declaration of Ruben M. Green 5 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 the crew from properly pruning the tree and additional work ceased on that tree. In my opinion, to maintain the best health of this tree, both sides of the tree should be pruned and it is not good for only half of the tree to be trimmed. Accordingly, it was my recommendation that unless we could trim the entire tree, the tree trimmers should stop trimming the tree altogether and that is what happened. Of all the trees on the Hassoldt Property, in my opinion the one that the neighbor would not allow us to trim is the one that needs the most pruning. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on February 2, 2016, at Mission Viejo, California. Ruben M. Green Declaration of Ruben M. Green 6 EXHIBIT A CURRICULUM VITAE 2015 Ruben M. Green, M.S. President, Evergreen Arborists Consultants, Inc. Forensic & Consulting Arborist rgreen@greenarborists.com www.greenarborisfs.com Ruben Green, president of Evergreen Arborists Consultants, Inc. has over 30 years of experience in the landscape industry. His background includes hands-on experience in tree care, landscape maintenance, construction, and irrigation management. His problem solving approach, make him an excellent choice as a technical consultant or expert witness on a wide variety of tree and landscape related issues. He provides detailed investigations, independent analysis and expert witness testimony in support of litigation for premises liability, MSJ, trespass, inverse condemnation, eminent domain, worker safety, and tree nuisance cases. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE He has served as an expert witness, technical consultant or forensic investigator for cases and claims in California, Idaho, and Hawaii. Mr. Green has testified at over 85 depositions, 80 mediations, three arbitrations, six bench and eight jury trials. He has performed over 3,000 tree appraisals, tree risk & hazard assessments, and over 500 urban and wildfire fire damage claims, tree protection reports for construction projects, tree root analysis, and personal injury and property damage cases. Percentage of designated expert witness case work since 2010 is approximately 50% for defense and 50% for plaintiff. EDUCATION M.S. Plant Science 2011, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. PARTIAL LISTING AS LITIGATION CONSULTANT OR EXPERT WITNESS Harrington, Fo o<, Dubrow & Canter, LLP Description: Jury trial 2014. Tree worker safety. Law Office of Martin Holly, LLP Description: Jury trial 2010. Utility pruning and property damage. The Ball Law Firm Description: Jury trial 2008. Tree and landscape appraisals. Los Angeles 818.986.0137 Law Office of Leviton, Diaz & Ginocchio Description: Bench trial worker injury. 2010. Law Office of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP Description: Bench trial 2009. View obstruction and slope stability. Law Office of Archer Norris Description: Trespass tree appraisals Orange County Palo Alto 949.837.7700 650.644.6115 0 PARTIAL LISTING AS LITIGATION CONSULTANT OR EXPERT WITNESS, cont'd Law Office of Callahan, McCune & Willis Description: Jury trial 2008. Tree appraisals due to chemical spill. Law Office of Brent C. Scott. Description: Jury trial 2008. View obstruction personal injury. Law Office of Watten, Discoe, Bassett & McMains. Description: Bench trial 2007. Trespass tree appraisals. Law Office of: Barton, Petrini & Conron, LLP. Description: Jury trial 2006. View and tree palm appraisals. Law Office of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP. Description: Arbitration 2010. View obstruction. Law Office of Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LIP. Description: Approximately 350 Wildfire tree, landscape, irrigation, and nursery evaluations. Law Office of Thorpe & Howell Description: Trespass tree appraisals, tree poisoning, and tree root damage. Law Office of Bremer, Whyte, Brown & O'Meara. Description: Landscape construction defect and tree roots Law Office of Richards, Watson & Gershon. Description: Eminent domain nursery evaluations. Law Office of P.K. Schrieffer, LLP. Description: Wildfire tree, landscape, irrigation evaluations and trespass tree appraisals. Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman. Description: Wildfire tree landscape, irrigation and cases. Los Angeles 818.986.0137 Law Office of Michael Hearn. Description: Landscape construction defect slope failures. Law Office of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Description: Personal injury, construction defect. Law Office of Nelson & Griffen, LLP. Description: Jury trial. Trespass tree appraisals. Law Office of Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Description: Tree removals, worker accident, tree roots, and landscape construction defect. Reed Smith LLP. Description: Trespass tree appraisals. Law Office of Wesierski & Zurek. Description: Worker injury and standard of care cases. Law Office of Prout & LeVangie Description: Tree root displacement and personal injury. Law Office of Coddington, Hicks & Danforth. Description: Trespass tree appraisal cases. Law Office of M. C. Hall & Associates Description: Tree risk assessment, view obstruction, trespass and nuisance. Law Office of Chong & Chong Description: Tree failure and wrongful death tort. RPM Law Group. Description: Tree failure and tree root cases Law Office of Williams and Associates Description: Construction defect. Orange County 949.837.7700 Palo Alto 650.644.6115 PARTIAL LISTING OF CLIENTS and PROJECTS Southern California Gas Company SDG&E AT&T Caltrans, Department of Transportation City of Los Angeles Six Flags Magic Mountain County of Los Angeles Los Angeles Department of Water and Power City of Mission Viejo Weisman Design Group Westmont College, Santa Barbara Parsons Engineering and Construction Jameson Products Puente Hills Habitat Preservation Tru Green America's Tire Company Kimley-Horn Carts, Jr. PARTIAL LISTING OF INSURANCE COMPANIES Travelers Insurance AAA Insurance USAA Insurance Kemper Insurance Fireman's Fund Farmers Insurance Nationwide Fidelity Insurance Universal Studios Park County of San Mateo • Huntington Library and Botanical Garden Santa Barbara Botanic Gardens Occidental Petroleum J. F. Shea Construction Davey Tree RAND Corporation David Maman Design RJM Design Group Atwell Group Nakae & Associates The Forum Alhambra Golf Course Valley Crest Bank of America UPS Studio Pali Fekete Architects Mercury Insurance Chubb Insurance Liberty Mutual Safeco Insurance Allstate 210 Century State Farm CERTIFICATIONS, LICENSES, and PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Certified Arborist, International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Registered Consulting Arborist No. 559, American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Certified Tree Risk Assessor, International Society of Arboriculture (TRAQ) California Licensed Pesticide Applicator, (QAL) Licensed California Landscape Contractor, (C-27) California ReLeaf, Board member Los Angeles 818.986.0137 Orange County 949.837.7700 Palo Alto 650.644.6115 LECTURES • Pesticide Applicators Professional Association, 2011 - 2015. • Turf and Landscape Institute, Topics: Assessing Damaged Trees from Wildfires, 2013. Why Some Trees Fail and Others Don't, 2012. Managing Trees for Wind, 2011. Effects of Below Grade Planting on Trees and Structural Tree Defects, 2009. • Guest lecturer, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. 2006 - 2011. • Canopy, Palo Alto. Tree Walk Lecturer, 2009-2014. • Western Turfgrass and Landscape Expo, Topics: Wind and Trees, 2010. Understanding Tree Roots in the Urban Environment, 2009. • UC Riverside, Extension, Instructor. Introduction to Arboriculture 10 week class, 2009. • Landscape Expo, Topic: Windthrow: Why Some Trees Fail & Others Don't. 2013. • International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist Prep Class Instructor, 2013, Topics: Tree Risk Assessment Tree Planting and Establishment • Desert Green Conference, Topics: Sustainability in Urban Trees through Tree Risk Assessment, 2013 Assessing Tree Roots, 2013 • Landscape Architecture Show, February 2014, Topic: Tree Selection Guidelines for the Urban Forest. NOTICE: attorney's designation of Evergreen Arborists Consultants, Inc. (EVG) or Ruben M. Green as expert constitutes acceptance of retainer and acknowledgment that specified retainer amount is owed. Attorney is prohibited from using EVG or Ruben M. Green and designating him as their expert or "possible expert" without first formally retaining him. He does not give permission to use his name in any manner connected to any case unless his non-refundable retainer fee is paid. Attorney is prohibited from using his name and designating him as their expert without first formally retaining him. Los Angeles 818.986.0137 Orange County Palo Alto 949.837.7700 650.644.6115 terf ai Rafea9 rqi .¢ INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 5A Mtg. Date: 01/25/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THROUGH: RAY CRUZ, CITY MANAGER 000 SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE NO. 346 OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING SECTION 17.12.220 AND CHAPTER 17.26 RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION OF TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. ATTACHMENTS: A. Comparison table of the existing ordinance and proposed amendments B. Draft Ordinance No. 346 C. Summary of view impairment cases filed with the City D. Correspondence received since January 11, 2016 City Council meeting 1. It is recommended that the City Council waive hill reading and introduce the proposed ordinance for first reading; continue the public hearing and take public testimony. Following public input and Council's discussion, it is recommended that the City Council direct staff to bring the ordinance, as amended, if necessary, for second reading and adoption. 2. The City Council held a public hearing in the matter of amendments to the View Preservation Ordinance at their January 11, 2016 meeting, and continued the hearing to tonight's meeting. 3. The City Council, following public input, suggested few amendments to the ordinance, which is reflected in the attached comparison table and includes: • 17.26.050 C and 17.26.040 D, add "without prejudice" • 17.26.060 B, add that implementation cannot be postponed more than a year • K CO -41 COIT -CA kr ;h CC Jihctt'cs be -k' e a c oLo n, 0 i Discussion on whether to include a provision to indemnify the City resulted in three of the Councilmembers wishing to exclude it, however no decision was made on this topic. In response to a resident inquiry, Councilmembers directed staff to prepare a summary of view impairment cases submitted to the City since the View Preservation Ordinance took effect (1988) and their resolve. 4. All of the documents and information provided to the City Council at the January 11, 2016 meeting continue to be relevant and are available at City Hall. Please refer to your January 11, 2016 packet. 5. During the hearing the residents testified as follows: • Not in favor of restoring/allowing more than one view • Prepare a brand new ordinance based on the one adopted by the City of Rolling Hills Estates • In favor of view corridors and not views from every window • Provide a better definition of view corridors, such as establish a threshold of restoration of 70-75% of the pre-existing view • Add a clause "without prejudice" in several places of the ordinance • Leave it to residents to handle the dispute • Require indemnification/don't require indemnification • Requiring Indemnification of the City causes a perception that the City is biased against one party and in favor of another. Perception in such cases is very important The City Council discussed the following: • No more than 2 views should be allowed and they should be well identified (north/south and east/west) • The City should have a View Preservation Ordinance • Indemnification of the City • Following the initial restorative action, the owners of the trees should be responsible for maintaining the trees at their cost The City Council agreed to review the proposed ordinance in detail at the January 25, 2016 meeting. Agenda Item No.: 5-A Mtg. Date: 01/25/16 ATTACHMENT "A" Chart of the existing ordinance and proposed amendments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ORDINANCE COMPARISON CHART (NEW UNDERLINED) DEFINITIONS AND CHAPTER 17.26 VIEW PRESERVATION CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS 17.12.220 "V" words, terms and phrases. "View" means a view from a principal residence and any immediately adjoining patio or deck area at the same elevation as the residence which consists of a visually impressive scene or vista not located in the immediate vicinity of the residence, such as a scene of the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, city lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills or Los Angeles Harbor. "View impairment" means a significant interference with and obstruction of a view by landscaping, trees or any other planted vegetation. "View" means a view from a principal residence, but not including from bathrooms, Add that bathrooms, closets, garages, & hallways are not considered viewing areas Measure B introduced language that one is not eligible to a "panoramic" view but to a view corridor. This section defines view corridor. hallways, garages or closets, and any immediately adjoining patio or deck area at the same elevation as the residence which consists of a visually impressive scene or vista not located in the immediate vicinity of the residence, such as a scene of the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, city lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills or Los Angeles Harbor. "View impairment" means a significant interference with and obstruction of a view by landscaping, trees or any other planted vegetation. "View corridor" means a view from a designated viewing area broken into segments by vegetation. 17.26.010 Intent and purpose. The City recognizes the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the City. Panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island, City lights and Los Angeles Harbor are a special quality of property ownership for many residential lots in the City. These views have the potential to be diminished or eliminated by maturing landscaping located on private property. The purpose of this chapter is to protect this important community asset by establishing procedures for the protection and abatement of The City recognizes the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the City. Views of the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island, City lights and Los Angeles Harbor are a special quality of property ownership for many residential lots in the City. These views have the potential to be diminished or eliminated by maturing landscaping located on private property. The purpose of this chapter is to protect this important community asset by establishing procedures for the protection of Delete the word "Panoramic" and add "of views" in the last sentence Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart -1- CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS view obstructions created by landscaping, while at the same time protecting natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal. views and abatement of view obstructions created by landscaping, while at the same time protecting natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal. 17.26.020 Committee on trees and views. A Committee on Trees and Views is established for the purpose of administering the provisions of this chapter. The Committee shall be composed of three members of the Planning Commission appointed by the Commission annually at the same time as the Commission selects its officers, or whenever a vacancy occurs. Committee meetings shall be scheduled as adjourned or special meetings of the Commission. The Committee is authorized to consult with City officials and with specialists such as landscape architects and arborists as required, but shall not incur any expense on behalf of the City without prior approval of the City Council. No change 17.26.030 Desirable and undesirable trees. A. The Committee is authorized and directed to prepare lists of types of desirable and undesirable trees for planting within the City. The list shall be based upon tree size and shape, rate of growth, depth of roots, fall rate of leaves or bark or fruit or branches, and other factors related to safety, maintenance and appearance. The purpose of this provision is to make information available to property owners which may serve to avoid future occasion for permits, complaints, and other proceedings authorized by this chapter. No change Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart -2- CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS 17.26.040 Abatement of view impairment — Procedure. Any person who owns or has lawful possession of a residence from which view is impaired by vegetation growing on property other than their own may seek abatement of the view impairment under the following procedure: A. Application Required. The complainant shall submit a complete application for abatement of view impairment on a form provided by the City. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as provided for in Section 17.30.030 of this title. The complainant shall describe in the application what efforts have been made by the complainant to resolve the view impairment prior to filing the complaint. A complaint shall not be accepted for filing unless the complainant can demonstrate that the owner of the view -impairing vegetation has been given notice of the impairment and a reasonable opportunity to abate it, but has refused to do so. . Any person who owns or has lawful possession of a residence from which a view is impaired, pursuant to the definition of "view Include reference to the definition of a view impairment. A. Clarify the process and submittal requirements for mediation and if the mediation fails; clarify the process to apply to the Committee on Trees and Views (CTV). B. Add new Paragraph "B": A person may file an application for a view impairment even if there are trees/foliage on his/her property that contribute to the view impairment. A person may file against multiple tree owners to seek abatement of the same view. A person may . impairment" in Section 17.12.220 of this title, by vegetation growing on property other than their own may seek abatement of the view impairment under the following procedure: A. Mediation Application. The complainant shall submit a complete application for abatement of view impairment by mediation on a form provided by the City. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as provided for in Section 17.30.030 of this title. The complainant shall describe in the application what efforts have been made by the complainant to resolve the view impairment prior to filing the mediation application. An application shall not be accepted for filing unless the complainant can demonstrate that the owner of the view -impairing vegetation has been given notice of the impairment and a reasonable opportunity to abate it, but has refused to do so. B. Eligibility. A person shall not be precluded from filing an application for abatement of a view impairment on grounds that vegetation located on the complainant's property contributes to impairment of the requested view. A person who has obtained an order abating impairment of a view against a property shall not be precluded from filing a subsequent application to abate impairment of Chapter 17.26 View Presentation Comparison Chart - 3 - CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS the same view by vegetation on another pursue remedies simultaneously or separately for view abatement of more than one view, but the views must be disjointed and be from separate viewing areas property. An application may be filed to abate impairment of one or more distinct views listed in Section 17.12.220 "View;" however, if multiple views are identified, each must be disjointed and observable from a separate viewing area. B. Mediation. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application as complete, the City Manager shall refer the matter to a mediator for conduct of a mediation session to abate the view impairment. The mediator shall be responsible for notifying the property owner of the view -impairing vegetation of the application and for scheduling and managing the mediation process. If agreement is reached through mediation, it shall be implemented in accordance with Section 17.26.060. C. Public Hearing. In the event mediation fails to achieve agreement, the matter shall be returned to the City Manager, who shall schedule the matter for a public hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views. C. Mediation. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application as complete, the City Manager shall refer the matter to a mediator for a conduct of a mediation session to abate the view impairment. The mediator shall be responsible for notifying the property owner of the view -impairing vegetation of the application and for scheduling and managing the mediation process. At the conclusion of C. Clarification of the mediator's role and that if an agreement is reached through mediation it shall be implemented per the terms of the agreement. • , - D. The current language uses the word "shall", as if it was mandatory that the complaining party apply to CTV after mediation fails. The City Council Ad Hoc Committee considered and the Planning Commission concurred that a time period should be established for when the complainant may apply to mediation, the mediator shall advise the City Manager as to whether the complaint has been resolved. Agreement reached through mediation shall be reflected in an executed contract and implemented in accordance with the terms of the agreement. D. Public Hearing Application. In the event mediation fails to achieve agreement, the complainant may submit an application and accompanying fee as provided for in Section 17.30.030 of this title for a public hearing. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application for a public hearing as complete, the City Manager shall schedule the matter for a public hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views. If a complete application for a public hearing is not received within 30 days of the mediator's notification set forth in Section Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart -4- • CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS 17.26.040(C), the City shall terminate, without the CTV after mediation fails. If one waits too long, the circumstances could change and trees could grow, which could change the scope of the application when it finally prejudice, all proceedings related to the application. reaches the CTV, without a time frame. 17.26.050 Hearing procedure and findings. A. Notice Required. Public notice of the hearing shall be given a minimum of fifteen days prior to the hearing. The hearing shall not proceed unless proof is shown that the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation received notice of the hearing as provided herein: 1. Notice shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation and to the complainant; 2. Notice shall be given by first class mail to all property owners within one thousand feet of the exterior boundary of the property on which the tree or other obstructing vegetation are located and to other persons who, in the Committee's judgment, might be affected. B. Content of Notice. The notice shall state the name of the complaining party, the name of the property owner against whom the complaint is filed, the location of the tree or other vegetation, and the time and place of hearing. The notice shall invite written comments to be submitted prior to or at the hearing. A. No Change B. No Change Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart - 5 - CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS C. Conduct of Hearing. The Committee shall adopt rules for the conduct of required hearings. At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written and oral testimony and evidence presented in connection with the application. In the event the Committee requires expert advice in consideration of the matter, the cost of obtaining such evidence shall be borne by the complainant, pursuant to written agreement with the City. I C. Conduct of Hearing. The Committee shall adopt rules for the conduct of required hearings. At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written and oral testimony and evidence presented in connection with the application. If during the course of the C. This item clarifies that additional information may be submitted by the applicant and that the CTV could request more information; or that an amended application could be submitted. The Planning Commission discussed and voted to add a provision that if an expert opinion/report is requested by the CTV, that the members of the Committee could require either the complaining party, or under certain circumstances both parties to pay for such an opinion/report. Also added to this provision is the method by which such an opinion should be obtained; and that an application would be deemed withdrawn under certain conditions. . proceedings it is discovered that information submitted in an application is inaccurate or incomplete such that it could be misleading, or a significant change has occurred impacting either the view or the obstruction, an applicant may be directed to amend the application or submit supplemental information. In the event the Committee requires expert advice in consideration of the matter, the cost of obtaining such evidence shall be borne by the complainant or both parties as determined by the Committee, pursuant to written agreement with the City. The City shall select such expert and enter into an agreement only upon receipt of a payment for the selected service from the party or parties. An application shall be deemed withdrawn and all proceedings shall be terminated with respect thereto, without prejudice, if the parties to a complaint notify the City that it has been voluntarily resolved or the complainant requests a delay of the proceedings for more than one hundred eighty (180) days unless good cause exists for the delay. D. Findings. Based on the evidence received and considered, the Committee may find any of the following: 1. That no view exists within the meaning of this D. No Change Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart -6- CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS chapter; 2. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter, but that the view is not significantly impaired; or 3. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter and that it is significantly impaired. The Committee shall make specific written findings in support of the foregoing determinations. E. Action. If the Committee makes finding subsection (D)(3) of this section, it shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment and to restore the complainant's view, including, but not limited to, removal, pruning, topping, thinning or similar alteration of the vegetation. Such order is not intended to create an unobstructed view for applicants. Instead it is intended to create view corridors and a view through trees. The Committee may impose conditions as are necessary to prevent future view impairments. In no event shall restorative action be required if such action would adversely affect the environment or would unreason -ably detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the property on which the objectionable vegetation is located. E. Action. If the Committee makes finding subsection (D)(3) of this section, it shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment, including, but not limited to, removal, pruning, topping, thinning or similar alteration of the vegetation. Such order is not intended to create an unobstructed view for applicants. Instead it is intended to create view corridors and a view through trees. The Committee may impose conditions as are necessary to prevent future view impairments. In no event shall restorative action be required if such action would adversely affect the environment or would unreason -ably detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the property on which the objectionable vegetation is located. If restorative action is precluded by the existence E. Deleted "and to restore the complainant's view" from first sentence. Language added that if restorative action is precluded due to environmental constraints, CTV shall make specific findings to that effect. of one or more such limiting factors, the Committee shall make specific written findings to that effect. F. Environmental Review. If the Committee F. Add new paragraph "F" specifying that environmental review pursuant to CEQA makes finding subsection (D)(3) of this section and orders restorative action, the proposed Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart -7- CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS F. Finality of Decision. The Committee's decision shall be final twenty days after adoption of its written findings, unless it is appealed to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.54. order shall be reviewed by City staff to requirements shall be conducted prior to adoption of a final decision by CTV and that if the project is deemed not to be exempt from CEQA, the complainant shall bear reasonable cost of the environmental review including consultant fee. G. This provision in the current ordinance is confusing, since pursuant to the zoning ordinance, a decision of the final reviewing body is final upon adoption of a Resolution and is effective 30 -days later, unless an appeal has been filed. View cases are not automatically reviewed by the City Council, unless appealed. This clarification is necessary to be consistent with other provisions. determine the appropriate level of environmental review. If the action is determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a resolution containing the Committee's written findings shall be presented for adoption at the Committee's next meeting. If the action is determined not to be exempt from CEQA, the complainant shall bear the City's reasonable costs of environmental review and CEQA compliance, including consultant fees. G. Finality of Decision. The Committee's decision shall be final on the date the Committee adopts a resolution setting forth its decision. The decision shall become effective thirty days after adoption of the resolution, unless an appeal has been filed to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.54. For purposes of such an appeal, references to the Planning Commission in Chapter 17.54 shall be interpreted as inclusive of the Committee on Trees and Views. 17.26.060 Implementation of restorative action. A. Within thirty days of a final decision ordering restorative action, the complainant shall obtain and present to the owner of the obstructing vegetation three bids from licensed and qualified contractors for performance of the work, as well as a cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. In order to qualify, the contractors must provide insurance A. The complainant shall bear the cost of the A. This is to clarify up front that the complainant is to pay for the initial restorative action. initial restorative action. Within thirty days of a final decision ordering restorative action, the complainant shall obtain and present to the owner of the obstructing vegetation three bids from licensed and qualified contractors for performance of the work, as well as a cash Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart -8- CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS which protects and indemnifies the City and the complainant from damages attributable to negligent or wrongful performance of the work. Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of the City. B. The owner of the obstructing vegetation may select any licensed and qualified contractor to perform the restorative action (as long as the insurance requirements of subsection A of this section are satisfied), but shall be responsible for any cost above the amount of the cash deposit. The work shall be completed no more than thirty days from receipt of the cash deposit. C. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be performed as prescribed by the Committee's final decision at the cost and expense of the owner of the property on which the vegetation is growing. The vegetation shall be maintained in accordance with the final decision so as not to allow for future view impairments. A notice of the decision shall be recorded against the title of the property and shall run with the land, thereby giving notice of this obligation to all future owners. deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. In order to qualify, the contractors must provide insurance which protects and indemnifies the City and the complainant from damages attributable to negligent or wrongful performance of the work. Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of the City. B. The owner of the obstructing vegetation may select any licensed and qualified contractor to perform the restorative action (as long as the insurance requirements of subsection A of this section are satisfied), but shall be responsible for any cost above the amount of the cash deposit. The work shall be completed no more than ninety days from receipt of the cash deposit or if additional time is necessary due to weather or unique conditions of the vegetation, at the earliest date recommended by the contractor, but no later than one year, and approved by the City Manager. C. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be performed at the cost and expense of the owner of the property on which the vegetation is growing, unless the Committee adopts a final decision providing an alternative cost allocation, which shall be accompanied by written findings justifying the alternative cost allocation. The vegetation shall be maintained in accordance with the final decision so as not to allow for future view impairments. Chapter 17.26 View Preservation - 9 - Comparison Chart B. Some species of trees cannot be remediated in certain months; therefore a 30 -day period is too restrictive. Both the Ad Hoc Committee and the PC reviewed this provision and agreed on this change. C. The City Council Ad Hoc Committee could not agree on who should pay for the maintenance of trees, following the initial restorative action; and deferred this item to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommends that the CTV have the ability to require the owner of the trees or both parties to maintain the trees, depending CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS on the circumstances. D. The implementation method provided for in D. To be deleted D. Paragraph D is deleted. this section may be modified by the parties or in Some of the provisions of this any final decision if grounds exist to justify such a paragraph are incorporated in modification. In particular, the Committee may the other paragraphs of Section allocate the cost of restorative action as follows: 17.26.060; and some of the 1. If the Committee finds that the tree or other language is very vague and does vegetation constitutes a safety hazard to the not belong or apply to the complainant or his property, and is being maintained by the owner in disregard of the safety of others, the owner may be required to pay one hundred percent of the cost of correction; or ordinance. 2. If the owner is maintaining a hedge fifteen feet or more in height, the Committee may allocate the cost of correction to the property owner, provided that the owner of the land on which the hedge exists shall not be required to pay more than twenty-five percent of the cost of such correction 17.26.070 Enforcement. A. No Change A. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter or to comply with any provision of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars or six months in County Jail, or both. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter shall further constitute a public nuisance which may be abated in accordance with the procedure contained in Chapter 8.24. B. A final decision rendered under this chapter may be enforced civilly by way of action for injunctive or other appropriate relief, in which event the prevailing party may be awarded Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart - 10 - CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS attorney's fees and costs as determined by the court. C. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the prosecution of any civil cause of action under the law by any person with respect to the matters covered herein. 17.26.080 Notification of subsequent owners. The owner on whose property the offending vegetation exists shall notify all successor owners of the final decision in any proceeding under this chapter, and such decision shall be binding upon all such successors in interest. Within thirty days of the final decision, an informational covenant shall be recorded against the title of the property on a form provided by the City. Within thirty days of the final decision of the Clarifies that the City will record an informational covenant for both properties that would run with the land. Currently the covenant is recorded against the property on which the vegetation exists. Committee, or the City Council on appeal, an informational covenant shall be recorded against the title of the property on which the offending vegetation exists and the complainant's property, on a form provided by the City, which shall run with the land and be binding upon all successors in interest. 17.26.090 Preservation of views defined. Notwithstanding any other provision of Chapter 17.26.010 to 17.26.080 inclusive, the following provision shall apply and supersede in priority any other provision. 1. A view is defined in Chapter [Section] 17.12.220 and only applies to that view existing from the date any current owner of a property in the City of Rolling actually acquired the property. 2. Chapter [Section] 17.26.010 provides that the intent of the Ordinance is to protect views from "maturing" vegetation. As such, in addition to the limitations otherwise set forth in Chapter 17.26, including but limited to this Section 17.26.090, any vegetation which is already mature at the time any party claiming a view impairment actually acquired the property shall be exempt from Chapter 17.26. "Mature" versus "Maturing" shall be ADDED BY MEASURE B. No Change. Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart - 11 - c� CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS defined by industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists. 3. The burden of proof to show that any view is impaired shall be upon the party claiming such impairment, and the standard shall be by "clear and convincing evidence". Evidence shall be weighted in the following order of priority: a. Photographs; b. Expert testimony; and lastly c. Other evidence. Editor's note— Ord. No. 333 (Measure B) which added the provisions set out herein, was adopted March 18, 2013, as a result of a vote of the electorate and thus cannot be changed except by another vote. Said ordinance states, "This Section 17.26.090 shall be effective retroactively to the date Chapter 17.26 was first made an Ordinance to the City of Rolling Hills." MEASURE B No Change. INDEMNIFICATION -Not currently in the Ordinance • 17.26.100 Indemnification New provision. The City Council Ad Hoc Committee couldn't agree whether a provision should be included in the ordinance regarding indemnification of the City, and deferred that decision to the Planning Commission. After lengthy discussion, public input and deliberation, the Planning Commission recommends that the complaining party indemnify the City. Complainants shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, attorneys and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, attorneys or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul a decision of the Committee or City Council on appeal restoring an impaired view or that otherwise challenges, or seeks damages resulting from, the issuance, defense, implementation, or enforcement of a view Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Comparison Chart - 12 - CURRENT PROPOSED COMMENTS restoration order (collectively "action"). At the .111/16 CC meeting three Nothing in this reimbursement obligation Councilmembers felt this shall provide to the complainant any provision should be excluded. control over decisions made by the City in connection with an action. Chapter 17.26 View Preservation - 13 - Coniparison Chart THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Agenda Item No.: 5-A Mtg. Date: 01/25/16 ATTACHMENT "B" Draft Ordinance No. 346 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK �J ORDINANCE NO. 346 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING SECTION 17.12.220 AND CHAPTER 17.26 RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION OF TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does ordain as follows: Section 1. Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC") Chapter 17.26 governs the process by which a property owner whose scenic view has become impaired by vegetation growing on another property may obtain abatement of the view impairment. Section 17.12.220 defines a view. Collectively, RHMC Chapter 17.26 and the definition of a view make up the City's "View Ordinance." The City has been engaged in a long-term effort to update the View Ordinance to clarify its provisions and address circumstances that have arisen in the Committee on Trees and. Views' application of the View Ordinance. Section 2. Chapter 17.50 of the RHMC sets forth procedures for amending the Zoning Ordinance. A public hearing before the Planning Commission is necessary before a recommendation for a Zoning Code amendment can be made to the City Council. After receiving presentations from staff at the February 17, 2015 and March 17, 2015 meetings, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on April 21, 2015, which was continued to May 19, 2015, June 16, 2015, July 21, 2015 and August 16, 2015. Public comment was received at each continuance of the public hearing, which the Planning Commission considered in concert with the recommendations of the City Council's Ad Hoc Committee created to recommend changes to the View Ordinance, and reports from City staff. Notice of the public hearings was provided as required by law. Section 3. After considering all of the evidence in the record on this matter, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Section 17.12.220 and Chapter 17.26 of Title 17 (Zoning) of the RHMC. Section 4. Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code Section 21000 to Section 21177, State CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, staff analyzed the proposed amendments to the View Ordinance and concluded that the amendments are exempt from CEQA because they consist only of minor revisions and clarifications to the RHMC and will not have the effect of deleting or substantially changing any regulatory standards or findings. The proposed Ordinance is an action that does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment, but rather will clarify the process by which persons may 3 apply for and obtain an order from the City to abate view impairments. Accordingly, the proposed Ordinance is exempt pursuant to the "common sense" exemption set forth in Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because there is no possibility that the Ordinance could have a significant effect on the environment. Furthermore, the proposed Ordinance does not constitute a "project" that requires environmental review (see specifically 14 CCR § 15378 (b)(2, 5)). Section 5. After considering the information presented during public hearings on this matter, the City Council finds that the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments comply with the requirements of the City of Rolling Hills General Plan and State Planning and Zoning Laws (Government section 65000 et seq.) and will preserve the public health, safety and general welfare, while balancing property rights. Notice of the public hearings was provided as required by law. Section 6. The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance amending Section 17.12.220 and Chapter 17.26 of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code as follows: A. Amend Section 17.12.220 of the RHMC to amend the definition of "View" and add the definition of "View corridor" in alphabetical order to read as follows: "View" means a view from a principal residence, but not including from bathrooms, hallways, garages or closets, and any immediately adjoining patio or deck area at the same elevation as the residence which consists of a visually impressive scene or vista not located in the immediate vicinity of the residence, such as a scene of the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, city lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills or Los Angeles Harbor. "View impairment" means a significant interference with and obstruction of a view by landscaping, trees or any other planted vegetation. "View corridor" means a view from a designated viewing area broken into segments by vegetation. B. Amend Section 17.26.010 of the RHMC to read as follows: 17.26.010 Intent and purpose The City recognizes the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the City. Views of the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island, City lights and Los Angeles Harbor are a special quality of property ownership for many residential lots in the City. These views have the potential to be diminished or eliminated by maturing landscaping located on private property. The purpose of this chapter is to protect this important community asset by establishing procedures for the protection of views and abatement of view obstructions created by landscaping, while at the same time protecting natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal. C. Amend Section 17.26.040 of the RHMC to read as follows: 17.26.040 Abatement of view impairment - Procedure. Any person who owns or has lawful possession of a residence from which a view is impaired, pursuant to the definition of "view impairment" in Section 17.12.220 of this title, by vegetation growing on property other than their own may seek abatement of the view impairment under the following procedure: A. Mediation Application. The complainant shall submit a complete application for abatement of view impairment by mediation on a form provided by the City. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as provided for in Section 17.30.030 of this title. The complainant shall describe in the application what efforts have been made by the complainant to resolve the view impairment prior to filing the mediation application. An application shall not be accepted for filing unless the complainant can demonstrate that the owner of the view - impairing vegetation has been given notice of the impairment and a reasonable opportunity to abate it, but has refused to do so. B. Eligibility. A person shall not be precluded from filing an application for abatement of view impairment on grounds that vegetation located on the complainant's property contributes to impairment of the requested view. A person who has obtained an order abating impairment of a view against a property shall not be precluded from filing a subsequent application to abate impairment of the same view by vegetation on another property. An application may be filed to abate impairment of one or more distinct views listed in Section 17.12.220 "View;" however, if multiple views are identified, each must be disjointed and observable from a separate viewing area. C. Mediation. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application as complete, the City Manager shall refer the matter to a mediator for conduct of a mediation session to abate the view impairment. The mediator shall be responsible for notifying the property owner of the 3 view -impairing vegetation of the application and for scheduling and managing the mediation process. At the conclusion of mediation, the mediator shall advise the City Manager as to whether the complaint has been resolved. Agreement reached through mediation shall be reflected in an executed contract and implemented in accordance with the terms of the agreement. D. Public Hearing Application. In the event mediation fails to achieve agreement, the complainant may submit an application and accompanying fee as provided for in Section 17.30.030 of this title for a public hearing. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application for a public hearing as complete, the City Manager shall schedule the matter for a public hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views. If a complete application for a public hearing is not received within 30 days of the mediator's notification set forth in Section 17.26.040(C), the City shall terminate, without prejudice, all proceedings related to the application. D. Amend Section 17.26.050 of the RHMC to read as follows: 17.26.050 Hearing procedure and findings. A. Notice Required. Public • notice of the hearing shall be given a minimum of fifteen days prior to the hearing. The hearing shall not proceed unless proof is shown that the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation received notice of the hearing as provided herein: 1. Notice shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation and to the complainant; 2. Notice shall be given by first class mail to all property owners within one thousand feet of the exterior boundary of the property on which the tree or other obstructing vegetation are located and to other persons who, in the Committee's judgment, might be affected. B. Content of Notice. The notice shall state the name of the complaining party, the name of the property owner against whom the complaint is filed, the location of the tree or other vegetation, and the time and place of hearing. The notice shall invite written comments to be submitted prior to or at the hearing. C. Conduct of Hearing. The Committee shall adopt rules for the conduct of required hearings. At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written and oral testimony and evidence presented in connection with the application. If during the course of the proceedings it is discovered that information submitted in an application is inaccurate or incomplete such that it could be misleading, or a significant change has occurred impacting either the view or the obstruction, an applicant may be directed to amend the application or submit supplemental information. In the event the Committee requires expert advice in consideration of the matter, the cost of obtaining such evidence shall be borne by the complainant or both parties as determined by the Committee, pursuant to written agreement with the City. The City shall select such expert and enter into an agreement only upon receipt of a payment for the selected service from the party or parties. An application shall be deemed withdrawn and all proceedings shall be terminated with respect thereto, without prejudice, if the parties to a complaint notify the City that it has been voluntarily resolved or the complainant requests a delay of the proceedings for more than one hundred eighty (180) days unless good cause exists for the delay. D. Findings. Based on the evidence received and considered, the Committee may find any of the following: 1. That no view exists within the meaning of this chapter; 2. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter, but that the view is not significantly impaired; or 3. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter and that it is significantly impaired. 4. The Committee shall make specific written findings in support of the foregoing determinations. E. Action. If the Committee makes finding of subsection (D)(3) of this section, it shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment, including, but not limited to, removal, pruning, topping, thinning or similar alteration of the vegetation. Such order is not intended to create an unobstructed view for applicants. Instead it is intended to create view corridors and a view through trees. The Committee may impose conditions as are necessary to prevent future view impairments. In no event shall restorative action be required if such action would adversely affect the environment or would unreason -ably detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the property on which the objectionable vegetation is located. If restorative action is precluded by the existence of one or more such limiting factors, the Committee shall make specific written findings to that effect. F. Environmental Review. If the Committee makes finding of subsection (D)(3) of this section and orders restorative action, the proposed order shall be reviewed by City staff to determine the appropriate level of environmental review. If the action is determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a resolution containing the Committee's written findings shall be presented for adoption at the Committee's next meeting. If the action is determined not to be exempt from CEQA, the complainant shall bear the City's reasonable costs of environmental review and CEQA compliance, including consultant fees. G. Finality of Decision. The Committee's decision shall be final on the date the Committee adopts a resolution setting forth its decision. The decision shall become effective thirty days after adoption of the resolution, unless an appeal has been filed to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.54. For purposes of such an appeal, references to the Planning Commission in Chapter 17.54 shall be interpreted as inclusive of the Committee on Trees and Views. E. Amend Section 17.26.060 of the RHMC to read as follows: 17.26.060 Implementation of restorative action. A. The complainant shall bear the cost of the initial restorative action. Within thirty days of a final decision ordering restorative action, the complainant shall obtain and present to the owner of the obstructing vegetation three bids from licensed and qualified contractors for performance of the work, as well as cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. In order to qualify, the contractors must provide insurance, which protects and indemnifies the City and the complainant from damages attributable to negligent or wrongful performance of the work. Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of the City. B. The owner of the obstructing vegetation may select any licensed and qualified contractor to perform the restorative act -ion (as long as the insurance requirements of subsection A of this section are satisfied), but shall be responsible for any cost above the amount of the cash deposit. The work shall be completed no more than ninety days from receipt of the cash deposit or if additional time is necessary due to weather or unique conditions of the vegetation, at the earliest date recommended by the contractor, but no later than one year, and approved by the City Manager. C. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be performed at the cost and expense of the owner of the property on 6 26 which the vegetation is growing, unless the Committee adopts a final decision providing an alternative cost allocation, which shall be accompanied by written findings justifying the alternative cost allocation. The vegetation shall be maintained in accordance with the final decision so as not to allow for future view impairments. F. Amend Section 17.26.080 of the RHMC to read as follows: 17.26.080 Notification of subsequent owners. Within thirty days of the final decision of the Committee, or the City Council on appeal, an informational covenant shall be recorded against the title of the property on which the offending vegetation exists and the complainant's property, on a form provided by the City, which shall run with the land and be binding upon all successors in interest. G. Add Section 17.26.100 of the RHMC to read as follows: 17.26.100 Indemnification. Complainants shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, attorneys and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, attorneys or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul a decision of the Committee or City Council on appeal restoring an impaired view or that otherwise challenges, or seeks damages resulting from, the issuance, defense, implementation, or enforcement of a view restoration order (collectively "action"). Nothing in this reimbursement obligation shall provide to the complainant any control over decisions made by the City in connection with an action. H. Add to list of Sections at the beginning of the Ordinance: 17. 26. 100 Indemnification PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK 2016. JEFF PIEPER, MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) I certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 346 entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING SECTION 17.12.220 AND CHAPTER 17.26 RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION OF TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. CITY CLERK 8 �� Agenda Item No.: 5-A Mtg. Date: 01/25/16 ATTACHMENT "C" Summary of view impairment cases filed with the City THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SUMMARY OF VIEW PRESERVATION CASES: 1988-2013 (PRE MEASURE "B") Out of 11 cases*: 5 (4 and a portion of one) were resolved by mediation 7 (6 and a portion of one) were not resolved in mediation 2 withdrawn/resolved privately 4 were appealed to the City Council after CTV decision 2 lawsuits filed SUMMARY OF VIEW PRESERVATION CASES: 2013-2016 (POST MEASURE "B") Out of 10 cases: Out of 21 cases: 0 currently in mediation 5 were resolved in mediation 5 were not resolved in mediation 2 were appealed to the City Council after CTV decision 0 lawsuits filed TOTAL CASES SINCE 1988 0 currently in mediation 10 were resolved in mediation (plus portion of one) 12 were not resolved in mediation (plus portion of one) 2 were withdrawn 6 were appealed to the City Council after CTV decision 2 lawsuits filed *some cases involved multiple parties with different outcomes THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Agenda Item No.: 5-A Mtg. Date: 01/25/16 ATTACHMENT "D" Correspondence received since January 11, 2016 City Council meeting 5)3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TI 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 January 18, 2016 City Council City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274 RESTORATIVE ACTIONS- REPLACE WITH ISA APPROVED PRUNING TECHNIQUES THAT ACCOMPLISH THE SAME REMEDIATION GOAL Dear Councilpersons: RECEIVED JAN 19 2016 City of Rolling Hills By There are view abatement actions specified in Section 1726.030 E. that are ambiguous and in some cases are actions not approved by arborists that may injure trees and make view obstructions worse. Other beneficial abatement actions are not listed. Fortunately, after the RH view ordinance was written nearly 30 years ago, pruning actions that are approved by arborists and give specific guidance about what the term means have been defined in arboriculture glossaries - Below, I propose that certain restorative actions be deleted and replaced with actions that are defined by ISA or other arborist associations and accomplish the same remediation goal. I show these deleted actions as lined -out, followed by an arborist approved actions. Other appropriate remediation actions are added. I have re -ordered the terms from least severe to most severe. Section 17.26.030 E. "The Committee.... shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment and to restore the complainant's view, including, but not limited to,-pfueing, tag lacing, topping, crown lifting, crown reduction, stand thinning, or removal or similar alteration of vegetation." Topping or heading back of a tree is expressly forbidden. • Pruning: The term "Pruning" is eliminated as it is a very general non-specific term. Dr. Gilman in An Illustrated Guide to Pruning requires almost 500 pages to define proper pruning techniques. Page 1 1 • "Thinning" replaced by Lacing. Lacing means a method of pruning that selectively removes excess (primarily interior) limbs and foliage to improve the structure of the tree and to provide a view through the tree. No more that 30 percent of the foliage should be removed. Before and After Lacing • Topping replaced by "Crown lifting" and "Crown reduction." Topping is the removal of the entire top of a tree's crown by cutting back large diameter branches to stubs and truncating the main stem/trunk. Topping damages and weakens trees, often results in explosive new growth, and topped trees appear disfigured and mutilated. Most cities have tree/view ordinances that forbid topping of trees (see attached "Don't Top Trees!"). 041000My Page 1 2 • Crown lifting. Means removing the lower branches of a tree so that a view can be experienced under the tree. • Crown reduction. Means a method of pruning that reduces a tree's height and or/spread. Crown reduction entails reduction of the top, sides or individual limbs by removal of leaders or the longest portions of limbs to a lateral limb large enough to assume the tree's growth. This arborist approved method of reducing the height and/or spread of a tree replaces "topping," which has many undesirable effects. Page 13 Dm • Stand thinning. Means the selective removal of specific trees from a grove of trees. • "Heading back." This severe method of reducing the mass of a tree by cutting back major limbs to stubs is forbidden in tree/view ordinances in most cities. It causes explosive new growth, similar to topping, that results in a dense ball of vegetation. Heading back makes a tree look ugly and makes view impairment worse. I recommend that "topping" and "heading back" should be expressly forbidden in the view ordinance. Sincerely, Lynn E. Gill Page 1 4 WHY NOT TO TOP: 8 GOOD REASONS 1. Starvation: Topping removes so much of the tree's leafy crown that it dangerously reduces the tree's food -making ability. 2. Shock: By removing the protective cover of the tree's canopy, bark tissue is exposed to the direct rays of the sun. The resultant scalding can cause the tree's death. 3. Insects and Disease: The exposed ends of topped limbs are highly vulnerable to insect invasion or fungi spores decay. 4. Weak Limbs: New branches that grow from a stubbed limb are weakly attached and more liable to break from snow or ice weight. 5. Rapid New Growth: Instead of controlling the height and spread of the tree, topping has the opposite effect. New branches are more numerous and often grow higher than before. 6. Tree Death: Some tree species can't tolerate major branch loss and still survive. At best, they remain weak and disease -prone. 7. Ugliness: A topped tree is a disfigured tree. Even with new growth, it never regains the grace and character of its species. 8. Cost: The true cost of topping is often hidden - lower property values, expense of removal, and replacement if the tree die 9 JAN 1 9 2016 from the TREE CITY USS City of Rolling Hills BULLETIN By TY he sight of topped trees is all too common in communities and along the roadways ofAnterica - trunks with stubby limbs standing naked in the landscape, trees stripped of all dignity and grace. Trees are often topped because they grow into utility wires, interfere with views or solar collectors, or simply grow so large that they warty the landounzer: But, as one arborist has said, "Topping is the absolute worst thing you can do for the health of your tree." PROPER PRUNING - THE ALTERNATIVE TO TOPPING TOPPING i YEAR 1 YEAR 3 YEAR 6 When a decision is made to reduce the size of an older tree, it can he topped, or it can be pruned properly. Although the speed and nature of re -growth will depend on species and local factors, any comparison between irresponsible topping and competent pruning will be dramatic. Qualified arborists use crown reduction to control height when necessary. Selected limbs are removed at their junction with the trunk or a limb at least one-third the diameter of the removed limb. YEAR t: The topped tree is an ugly stub and a remnant of a once -lovely tree. If pruned properly, the tree's size is reduced but form and beauty are retained. YEAR 3: Vigorous sprouts have sprung out of the topped tree in large numbers and are growing with abnormal rapidity. The pruned tree adds growth, but it does so more slowly and distributes it more normally. YEAR 6: In a relatively short time, the topped tree is as tall - and far bushier and more dangerous - than it was to begin with. The properly pruned tree is safer, more beautiful, and its size is better controlled. ®Arbor Day Foundations 100 Arbor Avenue • Nebraska City, NE 88410 RECEIVED 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 January 21, 2016 City Council City of Rolling Hills SHOULD THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SPEND TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO RESOLVE VIEW DISPUTES AMONG PROPERTY OWNERS? Dear City Councilpersons: JAN 2 1 2016 City of Rolling Hills By No, taxpayer dollars should not be used to resolve disputes between property owners in Rolling Hills. Resolution of property disputes is best left up to the view - seeker and tree/vegetation owner. If they can't reach an agreement, they can turn to arbitration or the courts —without Rolling Hills being dragged into the fray! Taxpayer dollars would be better used for such improvement projects as undergrounding of utilities, increased sheriff patrols, fire -fuel reduction, needs of seniors, city beautification and so forth. Factors to consider: 1) The City should remain scrupulously neutral in resolving view disputes. There is not a presumption that the view seeker is the wronged party. It is entirely possible that a view seeker could file a frivolous view resolution in an attempt to obtain a view that did not exist when they purchased their property. The tree/vegetation owner deserves equal protection under the law from an unscrupulous owner seeking to increase their property value at the expense of a neighbor's property value. • City attomey's only role should be solely to interpret the law and provide guidance to the view committee or city counsel • .View -seeker and/or tree owner should retain legal counsel, at their own expense, if they wish to be represented • View -seeker and/or tree owner should retain arborists or other experts if they desire, at their own expense • I suggest that the view committee go back to being a citizen committee separate from the Planning Commission. They have plenty of other things to dol 2) The view seeker is seldom financially less able to pursue a view dispute than is the tree/vegetation owners. That's the argument given for spending taxpayer dollars to help the view -seeker regain/create a view. In Rolling Hills, it would be rare for a property owner to be so destitute that they cannot afford legal and expert representation. In a recent view resolution case, Occhipinti and Fournier vs. Sherman, my supposition is that the view -seekers were financially much better able to prosecute the view resolution action than was Sherman. They don't need the help of Rolling Hills taxpayers! 3) The City should not become a party to a dispute between property owners and participate financially in expensive litigation. It is very rare for a city to shoulder the financial risk of becoming a party to a view dispute. Most cities provide view resolution guidelines and definitions in an ordinance, and provide a view committee that acts as a facilitator or ombudsman to assist the view -seeker and tree owner on an advisory basis in resolving a dispute. If the parties cannot agree, they can then turn to arbitration or litigation —without the City being dragged into expensive litigation! The RH Planning Director provided an analysis of view ordinances in benchmark cities. I have summarized the results below, combined with a similar study I conducted a few years ago (attached). CITY PARTY TO DISPUTE NOT PARTY TO DISPUTE LIABILITY INDEMINIFICATION Berkeley X X Beverly Hills X X Laguna Beach X X Malibu X X Oakland X X Palo Alto X Tree Protection Ord. only Palos Verdes Estates X X Rancho Palos Verdes X Rolling Hills X Rolling Hills Estates X X Sausalito X Tiburon X X 4) Reimbursement of City's view remediation action costs- loser pays all Prior to adoption of Measure B, the view seeker could get, with the City's help, a view that did not exist when they purchased their property in Rolling Hills. It was entirely fitting that the view -seeker should reimburse the City for its expenses, as obtaining a view they never had could significantly improve their property value. After passage of Measure B, not so much! Now, the wronged party is likely to be a property owner who had a view when they purchased their property, and now needs City help to restore the view. The tree -owner could well be the recalcitrant party unwilling to be neighborly and restore his neighbor's view. Page 1 2 Of course, there is also the possibility of a view -seeker attempting to obtain a view that they did not have when they purchased their property, by filing a frivolous view remediation action. Requiring the losing party to pay all of the City's costs closer pays all") would discourage such frivolous view applications, and would also encourage uncooperative property owners whose trees have grown to block a neighbor's view to work with their neighbor to restore a view, without getting the City involved. Sincerely, t 'tin < 4d41 Lynn E. Gill Page 13 COMPARISON OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES OF OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH SIMILAR TERRAIN SUMMARY OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES RECEIVED JAN 2 1 2016 City of Rolling Hilis FROM I-4 nil Gal ISSUE ROLLING HILLS VIEW ORDINANCE OTHER CITY TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES -- -. 1) View and/or tree • No comprehensive tree policy; only a View Policy • Of 8 other cities, all but Malibu have both comprehensive tree and view ordinances (view part of tree ordinance or policy? • Protects natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal policy) • Malibu regulates landscaping of new construction 2) What baseline date • Date the view -seeker purchased their property • 4 cities use the date when Complainant purchased his property is used to establish a • 1 city uses view at any time during ownership of Complainant view? • RPV, the most restrictive, uses dates when Complainant's and Tree -Owner's lots were established 3) How is a view • View corridor concept from one or more views points • RPV and Tiburon- the one best view form a primary viewing area defined? • The ordinance allows multiple viewing points • RHE- Defines vistas and scenic corridors • Others- defines view character as to example vistas 4) Who enforces the • The City becomes a party to the dispute, and by use of its • All except RPV provide only definitions and guidelines, the City facilitates but does not become a covenants/ police power compels view remediation as determined by party to disputes, which are settled between Complainant and Tree Owner ordinances? the Board • RPV uses its police power to compel view remediation determined by View Restoration Commission • The City thereby subjects itself to litigation (RPV has about $30Q000 per year litigation expenses) 5) View Remediation Process • Requires attempt to resolve dispute among Complainant view -seeker and Tree Owner • Most other cities define a process that includes informal efforts between parties to resolve dispute, mediation, arbitration, and litigation as a last resort. In some cases, the City facilitates the process as • Application and mandatory mediation ombudsman • Dispute to View Committee, then the City Council • RPV- required attempts to resolve dispute among the parties, View Restoration Committee makes • Litigation among parties and Rolling Hills as last resort. Rolling Hills pays for the view-seeker'slegal costs recommendation for view remediation subject to appeal by the City Council, litigation among parties including the City as last resort 6) Criteria for View • Defines vistas (ocean, mountains,city lights, harbor, etc.) • All except RPV consider a variety of factors related to trees, in addition to view: privacy, shade, quality Remediation • Determination of view corridor(s) of tree, impact on tree -owners property value, soil stability, wildlife habitat, wind screening, etc. • RPV establishes primary viewing area and one best view. Requires replacement plantings for privacy, shade, health of remaining landscaping, integrity of landscape design 7) Tree Topping • Allowed, among other remedies • Topping prohibited by most cities. 4 other cities allow crown raising or reductions, , but actions may not destroy visual proportions or aesthetic value, or negatively affect the health of the tree 8) Fees • Cost above the application fee borne by the City • In 5 other cities, costs are borne entirely by the private parties in the dispute (the City is not a party to the dispute) • RPV is reimbursed by Complainant for all costs incurred by City (but they still have to collect from parties - legal costs borne by the City run about $300,000 per year) Rev. January 20, 2016 COMPARISON OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES OF OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH SIMILAR TERRAIN 9) Replacement • Replacement plantings could be required • RPV requires that Complainant pay full cost of replacement plantings plantings and • View Committee decides apportionment, if any • Berkeley requires Complainant to reimburse Tree Owner for the hill value of the tree (typically Cost apportionment $15,000 and up) • In 5 other cities, costs are apportioned based on relative benefits and burdens of each, as agreed among the private parties, or as determined by mediation, arbitration, or litigation 10) Maintenance of • Tree owner pays for maintenance of cut -back trees or • 2 cities, Berkeley and Oakland, require Complainant to pay for maintenance of cut -back trees or cut -back trees and plantings plantings plantings • View Committee/City Council could allocate otherwise among the parties • 3 cities, RHE, Sausalito, and Tiburon apportion the costs between Complainant and Tree Owner based on burdens and benefits of each; or as determined by agreement, mediation, or litigation • Only RPV requires that the Tree Owner must pay for maintenance of cut -back trees and plantings 10) Public Utility Tree • No pruning guidelines. Utilities consistently severely cut- • All other cities require compliance with pruning guidelines, Tree City USA standards, supervision by Trimming back and top trees. an arborist, forester, or public works to preserve the integrity of the tree and to hide poles and wires Rev. January 20, 2016 - 2 - COMPARISON OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES OF OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH SIMILAR TERRAIN DETAIL OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES POLICY ISSUE RANCHO PALOS VERDES ROLLING HILLS ESTATES PALOS VERDES ESTATES BERKELEY OAKLAND SAUSALITO TIBURON MALIBU 1) View and/or tree ordinance or policy? - 1989 Ballot Measure on View - "Public and Private Vegetation - Parklands Committee advises - Urban Forest Management - Tree Ordinance, Title 12, Chapter - Tree and View Preservation Tree Ordinance includes Chapter - Regulates landscaping for new Restoration Guidelines" - (I A) "Suggestions residents on designated trees, tree Program 12.36. Ordinance- Section 11.12 of 15 on restoration of views or construction - Guidelines and to Resolve a View management - Chapter 12.45 - Permits required Municipal Code sunlight - No general Procedures for Problem" procedures, right -of "Solar Access to remove ordinance related to Restoration of Views - New Planting way trees, trimming or removal of City trees. and Views" protected trees views- recommends working out disputes Note: Guidelines for - Public Works Guidelines - Tree Management Policy related to City - View Ordinance, Title 15, Chapter among neighbors Developing and Evaluating Tree manages - Recommended trees recognizing 15.52 - Code Enforcement Ordinances (which maintenance of street and parks Tree List importance of both trees and views Officer may become involved if Zoning include view ordinances) are provided by American Planning Association and International City trees, issues permits for street trees planting and trimming - Pruning Guidelines - PVE has no view ordinance as such, except for Neighborhood Code and landscapirg plan is violated Management Compatibility Association Ordinance on new construction. Neighbors look at plans, including landscaping - Views are considered by the Art Jury when approving plans, however, "The Art Jury is NOT charged with the responsibility of maintaining the view from any site." 2) What baseline date Date when Date when the Documentation -View that existed View that existed View that existed Date of approved is used to establish a complainant's lot property was showing when complainant when complainant when complainant landscaping plan of view? and the tree acquired by the view absence of view _purchased their purchased their purchased their offending lot Rev. January 20, 2016 -3- COMPARISON OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES OF OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH SIMILAR TERRAIN POLICY ISSUE RANCHO PALOS VERDES ROLLING HILLS ESTATES PALOS VERDES ESTATES BERKELEY OAKLAND SAUSALITO TIBURON MALIBU owner's lot were established obstructed neighbor, and the state of the view at that time obstruction at any time during tenure of current owner property property property 3) How is a view defined? Viewing area is where the one best and most important view is taken. Once established, the viewing area and view may not be changed for any subsequent application of applicant Vistas and scenic condors: LA Basin, mountains, ocean, bays, harbors, coastlines, canyon and other landforms. Existence and extent of view obstruction assessed. More than 10% of total view panorama must be obscured by vegetation to be considered impairment. It is recognized that both the abundance of mature trees and beautiful views contribute to the City's special character? Distant vista of skylines, bridges, distant cities, geologic features, hillside terrains and wooded canyons or ridges. Distant vista or panorama of bridges, distant cities, canyons, etc. that exsisted when the Claimant acquired his or her property Defines example vistas such as San Francisco Bay, bridges, geologic features, canyons, and ridges. Does not mean an unobstructed panorama Viewing area at primary living area (where view is observed most often) or active use area (most frequently occupied portion) View defined as to character Not defined 4) Who enforces the covenants/ ordinances? The City of RPV, through Its View Restoration Commission Enforcement of the Guidelines is by the private parties involved Guidelines set forth a procedure for resolution of disputes Palos Verdes Homes Association and Art Jury work to mediate view disputes. There is not a view ordinance as such Enforcement of the Chapter is by the private parties involved Chapter sets forth a procedure for resolution of disputes Enforcement of the Chapter is by the private parties involved Chapter sets forth a procedure for resolution of disputes - Ordinance establishes rights and provides complaining owner with a process, and enables them to resolve through informal, mediation, arbitration, or litigation - Tree and View Committee acts as board of arbitration - Ordinance establishes rights and provides complaining owner with a process, and enables them to resolve through informal, mediation, arbitration, or litigation - Minimal support of Zoning Officer, owners resolve among themselves Rev. January 20, 2016 -4- COMPARISON OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES OF OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH SIMILAR TERRAIN POLICY ISSUE RANCHO PALOS VERDES ROLLING HILLS ESTATES PALOS VERDES ESTATES BERKELEY OAKLAND SAUSALITO TIBURON MALIBU 5) View Remediation - Complaining Neighbors discuss - Complainant and - Initial attempts Claim procedure - Complaining - Informal Among parties, Process owner notifies tree view obstruction to tree owner attempt to at reconciliation in chapter 15.52 owner notifies tree remediation process not defined owner, attempts to attempt to find a resolve the view issue among the for private owner, attempts•to among owners resolve disputes mutually agreeable - If view issue is not parties resolution of resolve - Mediation if - Complainant solution. resolved, it Is referred - Mediation if disputes : - Claimant obtains accepted by tree applies to City to the Homes acceptable to report of a feasible owner - View Restoration Suggested Association. tree owner - Informal solution from an - Binding Committee consultation with - Homes Association - Tree claim - Arbitration Arborist arbitration if reviews and makes recommendation landscape architect, horticulturist, landscape contractor Ombudsman attempts to broker a resolution with the parties. preparation - Binding arbitration if - Litigation • - Mediation, if accepted by tree owner accepted by tree owner - Litigation among - Appealtothe - If agreement is not acceptable to ' - Binding the owners City Council City Hall staff can received, Homes tree owner arbitration by if - Town protected • Litigation among assist if invited in the Association - Litigation accepted by both from civil or complainant, tree assessment of view determines view among the parties. Trees and criminal liabilities 1 owner and RPV obstruction and remediation remediation requirements - If tree owner does not comply with Association requirements, they cannot receive permits or receive other approvals from the private parries Views Committee is the board of arbitration - Litigation among the owners City or Association -The Association requirements must be complied with before the tree owner can sell their property 6) Criteria for View - Establishment of View when Depends upon - Existence of - Native trees - Character of the - Extent of view Remediation a primary viewing area complainant's property was circumstances of each situation landmarks, vistas, or unique exempt from ordinance view - Extent to which obstruction - Aesthetic quality - Establishment of acquired features which - Existence of a view is diminished of tree (s) one best view The Art Jury is NOT cannot be seen view - Benefits of the - Location with from primary Impact of proposed charged with the since acquisition - Extent view is plantings in respect to Rev. January 20, 2016 -5- COMPARISON OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES OF OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH SIMILAR TERRAIN C() POLICY ISSUE RANCHO PALOS VERDES ROLLING HILLS ESTATES PALOS VERDES ESTATES BERKELEY OAKLAND SAUSALITO TIBURON MALIBU viewing area remediation on: - responsibility of of the property diminished by question (visual landscape design - Establishment of view when lot was created or view when ordinance was passed in 1989 Aesthetic impairment - Increased erosion • Decreased privacy - Slope instability - Decreased wind screening maintaining the view from any site - Effect of the tree on sunlight, hazards posed - Visual quality of tree - Location re tree: balanced against Benefits of the tree: - visual screening quality, landscaping purpose, privacy, wind screening, auditory, economic value - Soil stability - Privacy (visual and auditory) - Energy conservation and climate control ) Impact on privacy of tree owner - Property owner' may take dated pictures of their view and file them with the City for proof of future view remediation actions - Replacement for: o Privacy o Shade o Energy- efficiency of structure o Health or viability of remaining landscaping o Integrity of landscape design landscaping • Soil stability - Visual, auditory and wind screening - Energy conservation/ climate control - Wildlife habitat - Economic value of tree - Economic value of property as a result of the tree Native, rare or specimen tree - economic value - wildlife habitat - soil stability - energy conservation - visual quality Replacement planting paid by Complainant and enjoyment - Wildlife habitat - Undesirable tree definitions - Protected trees 7) Tree Topping Allowed, if thinning Topping not Allowed, topping Allowed, may not Allowed, but or crown raising are not effective. Topping may not kill the tree or destroy its aesthetic value recommended by the City but allowed if trimming or thinning not effective may not destroy the visual proportions of the tree or adversely affect growth pattern or health destroy visual proportions, or affect health or growth pattern (arborist's advice is required) discouraged Rev. January 20, 2016 -6- COMPARISON OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES OF OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH SIMILAR TERRAIN POLICY ISSUE RANCHO PALOS VERDES ROLLING HILLS ESTATES PALOS VERDES ESTATES BERKELEY OAKLAND SAUSALITO TIBURON MALIBU or other detriment 8) Fees Actual costs associated with the remediation effort including consultants collected by the City, reported to be about $2000. However, in 1998 RPV incurred costs 5300,000 greater than fees None to City (private resolution of disputes) None to City (private resolution of disputes) None to City (private resolution of disputes) None to City (private resolution of disputes) Actual costs incurred by complainant and tree owner for mediation, arbitration, litigation Actual costs incurred by complainant and tree owner for mediation, arbitration, litigation Actual costs incurred by complainant and tree owner for mediation, arbitration, litigation 9) Cost apportionment I - Commission determines and requires Complainant to pay for replacement trees or plantings to provide privacy, shade, integrity of landscaping - Complainant pays costs of initial remedlation - Cost may be distributed based on the relative benefits the parties may derive - Complainant pays all costs of mediation - Both parties pay 50% of arbitration - Complainant pays 100% of both parties reasonable attorney fees if they lose - Complaining party pays for all restorative actions - Tree owner compensated for tree: fair market value, replacement value, or "trunk formula," per - Complainant pays 100% of costs of restorative actions and replacement plantings - Tree owner bears all costs of removal it they receive an adverse judicial decision. As determined by agreement, mediation, arbitration, or litigation Future maintenance determined by agreement, mediation, arbitration, or litigation As determined by agreement, mediation, arbitration, or litigation Future maintenance determined by agreement, mediation, arbitration, or litigation Not defined Rev. January 20, 2016 COMPARISON OF TREE AND VIEW ORDINANCES .OF OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH SIMILAR TERRAIN POLICY ISSUE RANCHO PALOS VERDES ROLLING HILLS ESTATES PALOS VERDES ESTATES BERKELEY OAKLAND SAUSALITO . TIBURON MALIBU Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, Guide for Plant Appraisal - The Complainant is responsible for future maintenance of trees 8 plantings 10) Maintenance of cut -back trees and plantings Tree Owner pays for future maintenance of cut -back tree or planting Vegetation owner pays for future maintenance Complainant (view -seeker) pays for future maintenance of cut -back tree or plantings Complainant (view seeker).pays for future maintenance of cut -back tree or plantings Cost apportioned between Complainant and Tree Owner based on burdens and benefits enjoyed by each Cost apportioned between Complainant and Tree Owner based on burdens and benefits enjoyed by each As determined by agreement, mediation, arbitration, or litigation 11) Tree Trimming by Public Utility and on City Owned land 8000 trees regularly maintained by Public Works. Permits and supervision of utility easement trimming by Public works Must comply with Standard Pruning Practices Tree Trimming Standards for City Trees included in Tree Ordinance PVE maintains all street and park trees on a 3 year cycle • Controlled by Urban Forest Management Program, and "Tree Pruning Guidelines, International Association of Arbiculture. Covered under Tree Ordinance. Permits required to remove a City tree or a protected tree All trimming must be done by a certified Arborist - Pruning methods are defined by City in Tree and View Preservation Ordinance - Topping of trees not permitted - Work performed under daily supervision of an Arborist - Work performed by an Arborist or Certified Tree Worker Tree Ordinance covers Trimming Standards for City Trees in parklands and easements Rev. January 20, 2016 -8- at al Reset gee6 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 6-B Mtg. Date: 02,/08/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THROUGH: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1182 TO ADOPT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION ATTACHMENTS: A. Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Ordinance, including Measure B language (underlined/ bold/ italics) B. Resolution No. 1182 of the City Council adopting administrative regulations interpreting Measure B, as recommended by the Planning Commission C. Correspondence received since January 11, 2016 BACKGROUND 1. It is recommended that the City Council continue deliberations on the proposed Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B. 2. The City Council held a public hearing in the matter of administrative regulations interpreting Measure B at its January 11, 2016 meeting, and continued deliberation on the matter to the January 25, 2016 meeting. Due to time constraints, the matter was not discussed at the January 25th meeting and was continued to this meeting. 3. All of the documents and information provided to the City Council for the January 11, 2016 meeting continue to be relevant and are available at City Hall. Please refer to your January 11, 2016 packet. 4. Included with this staff report is correspondence received since the Council's meeting on January 11, 2016. 0 A+ta ch m tnfis aro -Ih , Same as QS packd Plus anti c ufr{sprnda ce 'anti ell• • The Mayhack family is in support of the Ordinance and interpretation of Measure B as proposed by the Planning Commission. • Mr. Lynn Gill acknowledges Dr. Gilman authority on trees and states that after discussing the issue with him, he (Mr. Gill) suggests that given that different trees in the City grow under different environmental conditions, the maturity of a tree be defined as 75% of the average height of a tree (the lowest and highest height taken from the Sunset Western Garden Book). • Mr. Norm Miller submitted a copy of the "Argument in favor of Measure B" when Measure B was first being proposed by the residents. • Mr. Howard Weinberg, representing the Nuccions, recommends that transfer of property should include a simpler interpretation, one being: "when property is placed into revocable trust or irrevocable trust...." He also suggests that mature tree should be defined as one reaching 80% of the maximum height for the species and other minor changes to the language of Chapter 2 of Resolution 1182. • Mr. Kirt Behera, suggests that since due to Measure B one is not eligible to the view they purchased, that the City define "corridors" as 75% of the view one had when he/she acquired the property. He also suggests that views should be allowed as many "as needed to see the views from different parts of the house, at least 5" and that the tree owners should be responsible for the cost of both, the initial restorative action and for maintenance. • Mr. Hal Light, representing the Hassoldts, submitted a declaration from a registered consulting arborist, Ruben M. Green, which relates to an appeal case before the City Council. However, he requests that the declaration be considered by the City Council as it describes why the proposed language by the Planning Commission of "mature" and "maturing" trees is flawed. • Councilmember Dieringer submitted a report on the legal ramifications should the City adopt the Planning Commission's recommendations and provides examples of the cases that would apply. She examines the Planning Commission's recommendations and suggests that if the Council feels there must be a definition of "mature", Dr. Gilman's definition is probably the closest to being considered acceptable as "defined by industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists". She further opines that the Sunset Western Garden Book is not an authoritative resource or "industry standard" and that the Planning Commission recommendation that previously trimmed trees are not to be considered mature is flawed. As to the interpretation of the "date of acquisition of property", she opines that it is inappropriate and inconsistent with the language of Measure B to use the LA County rules for assessment of property taxes to define when one acquired the property for view preservation purposes. Councilmember Dieringer's suggestion is outlined on the last page of her report. 5. During the January 11, 2016 meeting, generally, the residents testified as follows: • The City Council should adopt Planning Commission's recommendations as a starting point. The Interpretations could be amended at any time if it is determined that they are not working • The Planning Commissions recommendation regarding maturity of trees is flawed and illegal • No industry evidence that when a tree is cut or pruned that it is not mature • Maturity should be defined as the maximum height that the plant can likely reach per the Sunset Western Garden Book • Maturity should be defined as 75% of the average of the trees lowest and highest range of growth per the Sunset Western Garden Book • Maturity should be defined as the average of the trees lowest and highest range of growth per the Sunset Western Garden Book • Maturity should be defined as the lowest height in the range per the Sunset Western Garden Book or the age of tree • Don't define/interpret minuscule provisions • The interpretation must be reasonable • Date of acquisition of property could be determined using information from a title company • Restudy the concept of ownership change when a revocable trust becomes irrevocable The City Council discussed the following issues: • City should hire an arborist certified by the American Society of Consulting Arborists, who can be expert witness to advise the City on what constitutes maturity of trees • Change of ownership - the definition of change in ownership set forth in the California Revenue & Taxation Code (R&T Code) may not be the best application for the interpretation of the measure 6. At the January 11, 2016 meeting, no decisions were made on any of the above issues and the City Council agreed to continue the discussion. -3- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Agenda Item No.: 6-B Mtg. Date: 02/08/16 ATTACHMENT "A" Chapter 17.26 View Preservation Ordinance, including Measure B language (underlined/bold/italics). THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 17.26 VIEW PRESERVATION (WITH MEASURE B LANGUAGE IN BOLD, ITALICS AND UNDERLINED) Sections: 17.26.010 Intent and purpose. 17.26.020 Committee on trees and views. 17.26.030 Desirable and undesirable trees. 17.26.040 Abatement of view impairment —Procedure. 17.26.050 Hearing procedure and findings. 17.26.060 Implementation of restorative action. 17.26.070 Enforcement. 17.26.080 Notification of subsequent owners. 17.26.090 Preservation of views defined. 17.26.010 Intent and purpose. The City recognizes the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the City. Panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island, City lights and Los Angeles Harbor are a special quality of property ownership for many residential lots in the City. These views have the potential to be diminished or eliminated by maturing landscaping located on private property. The purpose of this chapter is to protect this important community asset by establishing procedures for the protection and abatement of view obstructions created by landscaping, while at the same time protecting natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 17.26.020 Committee on trees and views. A Committee on Trees and Views is established for the purpose of administering the provisions of this chapter. The Committee shall be composed of three members of the Planning Commission appointed by the Commission annually at the same time as the Commission selects its officers, or whenever a vacancy occurs. Committee meetings shall be scheduled as adjourned or special meetings of the Commission. The Committee is authorized to consult with City officials and with specialists such as landscape architects and arborists as required, but shall not incur any expense on behalf of the City without prior approval of the City Council. (Ord. 292 §4, 2003: Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 17.26.030 Desirable and undesirable trees. The Committee is authorized and directed to prepare lists of types of desirable and undesirable trees for planting within the City. The list shall be based upon tree size and shape, rate of growth, depth of roots, fall rate of leaves or bark or fruit or branches, and other factors related to safety, maintenance and appearance. The purpose of this provision is to make information available to property owners which may serve to avoid future occasion for permits, complaints, and other proceedings authorized by this chapter. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 17.26.040 Abatement of view impairment —Procedure. Any person who owns or has lawful possession of a residence from which view is impaired by vegetation growing on property other than their own may seek abatement of the view impairment under the following procedure: A. Application Required. The complainant shall submit a complete application for abatement of view impairment on a form provided by the City. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as provided for in Section 17.30.030 of this title. The complainant shall describe in the application what efforts have been made by the complainant to resolve the view impairment prior to filing the complaint. A complaint shall not be accepted for filing unless the complainant can demonstrate that the owner of the view - impairing vegetation has been given notice of the impairment and a reasonable opportunity to abate it, but has refused to do so. B. Mediation. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application as complete, the City Manager shall refer the matter to a mediator for conduct of a mediation session to abate the view impairment. The mediator shall be responsible for notifying the property owner of the view -impairing vegetation of the application and for scheduling and managing the mediation process. If agreement is reached through mediation, it shall be implemented in accordance with Section 17.26.060. C. Public Hearing. In the event mediation fails to achieve agreement, the matter shall be returned to the City Manager, who shall schedule the matter for a public hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views. (Ord. 292 §5, 2003; Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 17.26.050 Hearing procedure and findings. A. Notice Required. Public notice of the hearing shall be given a minimum of fifteen days prior to the hearing. The hearing shall not proceed unless proof is shown that the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation received notice of the hearing as provided herein: 1. Notice shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation and to the complainant; 2. Notice shall be given by first class mail to all property owners within one thousand feet of the exterior boundary of the property on which the tree or other obstructing vegetation are located and to other persons who, in the Committee's judgment, might be affected: B. Content of Notice. The notice shall state the name of the complaining party, the name of the property owner against whom the complaint is filed, the location of the tree or other vegetation, and the time and place of hearing. The notice shall invite written comments to be submitted prior to or at the hearing. C. Conduct of Hearing. The Committee shall adopt rules for the conduct of required hearings. At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written and oral testimony and evidence presented in connection with the application. In the event the Committee requires expert advice in consideration of the matter, the cost of obtaining such evidence shall be borne by the complainant, pursuant to written agreement with the City. D. Findings. Based on the evidence received and considered, the Committee may find any of the following: 1. That no view exists within the meaning of this chapter; 2. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter, but that the view is not significantly impaired; or 3. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter and that it is significantly impaired. The Committee shall make specific written findings in support of the foregoing determinations. E. Action. If the Committee makes finding subsection (D)(3) of this section, it shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment and to restore the complainant's view, including, but not limited to, removal, pruning, topping, thinning or similar alteration of the vegetation. Such order is not intended to create an unobstructed view for applicants. Instead it is intended to create view corridors and a view through trees. The Committee may impose conditions as are necessary to prevent future view impairments. In no event shall restorative action be required if such action would adversely affect the environment or would unreason -ably detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the property on which the objectionable vegetation is located. F. Finality of Decision. The Committee's decision shall be final twenty days after adoption of its written findings, unless it is appealed to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.54. (Ord. 295 §7 (Exh. B (part)), 2004; Ord. 239 §I 1(part), 1993) (Ord. No. 333 (Measure B), 3-18-2013) 17.26.060 Implementation of restorative action. A. Within thirty days of a final decision ordering restorative action, the complainant shall obtain and present to the owner of the obstructing vegetation three bids from licensed and qualified contractors for performance of the work, as well as a cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. In order to qualify, the contractors must provide insurance which protects and indemnifies the City and the complainant from damages attributable to negligent or wrongful performance of the work. Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of the City. B. The owner of the obstructing vegetation may select any licensed and qualified contractor to perform the restorative action (as long as the insurance requirements of subsection A of this section are satisfied), but shall be responsible for any cost above the amount of the cash deposit. The work shall be completed no more than thirty days from receipt of the cash deposit. C. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be performed as prescribed by the Committee's final decision at the cost and expense of the owner of the property on which the vegetation is growing. The vegetation shall be maintained in accordance with the final decision so as not to allow for future view impairments. A notice of the decision shall be recorded against the title of the property and shall run with the land, thereby giving notice of this obligation to all future owners. D. The implementation method provided for in this section may be modified by the parties or in any final decision if grounds exist to justify such a modification. In particular, the Committee may allocate the cost of restorative action as follows: 1. If the Committee finds that the tree or other vegetation constitutes a safety hazard to the complainant or his property, and is being maintained by the owner in disregard of the safety of others, the owner may be required to pay one hundred percent of the cost of correction; or 2. If the owner is maintaining a hedge fifteen feet or more in height, the Committee may allocate the cost of correction to the property owner, provided that the owner of the land on which the hedge exists shall not be required to pay more than twenty-five percent of the cost of such correction. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 17.26.070 Enforcement. A. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter or to comply with any provision of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars or six months in County Jail, or both. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter shall further constitute a public nuisance which may be abated in accordance with the procedure contained in Chapter 8.24. B. A final decision rendered under this chapter may be enforced civilly by way of action for injunctive or other appropriate relief, in which event the prevailing party may be awarded attorney's fees and costs as determined by the court. C. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the prosecution of any civil cause of action under the law by any person with respect to the matters covered herein. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 17.26.080 Notification of subsequent owners. The owner on whose property the offending vegetation exists shall notify all successor owners of the final decision in any proceeding under this chapter, and such decision shall be binding upon all such successors in interest. Within thirty days of the final decision, an informational covenant shall be recorded against the title of the property on a form provided by the City. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 17.26.090 Preservation of views defined. Notwithstanding any other provision of Chapter 17.26.010 to 17.26.080 inclusive, the following provision shall apply and supersede in priority any other provision. 1. A view is defined in Chapter /Section] 17.12.220 and only applies to that view existing from the date any current owner of a property in the City of Rolling actually acquired the property. 2. Chapter (Section) 17.26.010 provides that the intent of the Ordinance is to protect views from "maturing" vegetation. As such, in addition to the limitations otherwise set forth in Chapter 17.26, including but limited to this Section 17.26.090, any vegetation which is already mature at the time any party claiming a view impairment actually acquired the property shall be exempt from Chapter 17.26. "Mature" versus "Maturing" shall be defined by industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists. 3. The burden of proof to show that any view is impaired shall be upon the party claiming such impairment, and the standard shall be by "clear and convincing evidence". Evidence shall be weighted in the following order of priority: a. Photographs; b. Expert testimony; and lastly c. Other evidence. (Ord. No. 333 (Measure B), 3-18-2013) Editor's note— Ord. No. 333 (Measure B) which added the provisions set out herein, was adopted March 18, 2013, as a result of a vote of the electorate and thus cannot be changed except by another vote. Said ordinance states, "This Section 17.26.090 shall be effective retroactively to the date Chapter 17.26 was first made an Ordinance to the City of Rolling Hills." THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Agenda Item No.: 6-B Mtg. Date: 02/08/16 ATTACHMENT "B" Resolution No. 1182 of the City Council adopting administrative regulations interpreting Measure B, as recommended by the Planning Commission THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RESOLUTION NO. 1182 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING ADMINIS 11(ATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. In June 1988, the City adopted a View Preservation Ordinance. The ordinance established preservation of views as a primary value of the community and created a process by which a property owner could seek to abate an obstructed view. In November 2003, the ordinance was modified relative to the composition of the Committee on Views and Trees, the body designated to consider view applications. Section 2. In March 2013, the residents of Rolling Hills passed Measure 13 to amend the View Preservation Ordinance. The principal effect of Measure B was to shift the protection of the ordinance from views that are capable of being enjoyed from a property to views that were actually enjoyed from a property when the property owner acquired the property. In particular, the initiative amended the ordinance as follows: • Only a view that existed when the current property owner "actually acquired" the property may be restored; • Abatement of view impairment is limited to obstructions caused by trees that were "maturing" at the date of acquisition and trees that were "mature" at the time of property acquisition are excluded from consideration; • Measure B specified that abatement of view impairment is intended to create "view corridors" and views through trees, and not unobstructed views; • Measure 13 specified that its provisions are to be applied retroactively. Section 3. Measure B contains various ambiguities that have resulted in uncertainty in its application in view obstruction cases submitted to the City's Committee on Trees and View for consideration. Measure 13 can only be amended by the voters; however, the City may adopt administrative regulations providing guidance and interpreting ambiguities in voter initiatives. Based on this authority and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the City Council reviewed, discussed and developed a policy interpreting Measure 13. Section 4. The City Council finds that Attachment A titled City of Rolling Hills Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation clarify the initiative and is hereby adopted: Resolution No.1 182 Measure B Interpretation PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS _ DAY OF 2016. JEFF PIEPER, MAYOR ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Resolution No.1182 Measure B Interpretation Attachment A City of Rolling Hills Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Date of Property Acquisition "Mature" versus "Maturing" Trees Retroactivity of Measure B Chapter 1 DATE OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION Section 1001. Interpretation of the Date of Acquisition of Property. Measure B provides that a person may only apply to restore the view existing from the date that the current owner of the property actually acquired the property. In determining whether a transfer of property has resulted in an acquisition affecting the view that a person may apply to have restored, the City shall generally apply the rules applicable to reassessment of property taxes in the County of Los Angeles. The impacts of common transfers of property are illustrated below: A. The acquisition date of property acquired through inheritance shall be the date that the previous owner acquired the property, not the date of the transfer by inheritance. B. The acquisition date of property acquired from a third party through an arms - length purchase and sale shall be the date of the sale as evidenced by a deed. C. When property is placed into a revocable trust, the acquisition date of property shall not change. When property is placed into an irrevocable trust, or a revocable trust becomes irrevocable, the acquisition date shall be the date that the property was placed into the irrevocable trust or the revocable trust became irrevocable. Resolution No.1 182 Measure B Interpretation Chapter 2 "MATURE" VERSUS "MATURING" TREES Section 2001. Definition of "Mature" Trees The International Society of Arboriculture defines maturity by "mature height," which means the "maximum height that a plant is likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site are favorable." The Sunset Western Garden Book is a trusted reference guide on trees, plants and other vegetation present in the region and defines a plant species' "maturity" as the time at which a plant achieves a certain height range and displays other characteristics. The Sunset Western Garden Book provides maximum height ranges for species of plants typically involved in View Preservation cases in the City. For purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and Measure B, a plant is "mature" when it reaches the maximum height for the species specified in the Sunset Western Garden Book. However, arborists agree that plants that have been regularly cut may never reach their maximum potential height, and several alternative methodologies are recognized to determine the age of such trees. However, the alternative methodologies are complex and require reliance on a professional arborist. Further, the proponents of Measure B testified before the Planning Commission that the intent of Measure B was to exempt trees that have reached their full species height prior to acquisition of a complainant's property. Thcrefore, trees that show evidence of regular cutting and are therefore unlikely to reach their maximum potential height shall not be considered "mature" for purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and shall not be exempt from restorative action. Section 2002. Definition of "Maturing" Trees Trees and other vegetation that are not "mature" as specified in these regulations are "maturing." Section 2003. Presumption that Trees were not "Mature" If evidence is presented, such as historical aerial photographs, showing that none of the offending trees or vegetation subject to a complaint was planted at or around the time that the complainant acquired the property from which a view is claimed, the complainant shall be entitled to a presumption that the offending trees and vegetation were not "mature" at the date of acquisition and are therefore subject to restorative action. Resolution No.1 182 Measure B Interpretation vTi Chapter 3 RETROACTIVITY OF MEASURE B Section 3001. Retroactive Application. Any resolution of the City of Rolling Hills adjudicating any complaint regarding view impairments adopted by the Committee on Trees and Views, or the City Council on appeal, prior to March 18, 2013, is hereby considered void and will not be enforced by the City. Resolution No.I 182 Measure B interpretation STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1182 entitled: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. CITY CLERK Resolution No.I I 82 Measure B Interpretation Agenda Item No.: 6-B Mtg. Date: 02/08/16 ATTACHMENT "C" Correspondence received since January 11, 2016 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RECEIVED Tuesday. January 12, 2016 3:47 PM Subject: View Ordinance Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 1:48 PM From: Paul Mayhack <paul.mayhack@yahoo.com> Reply -To: Paul Mayhack <paul.mayhack@yahoo.com> To: "hluce@cityofrh.net" chluce@cityofrh.net> Dear Rolling Hills City Council, JAN t 2 2016 City of Rolling Hills By Our family supports the proposed changes to the View Ordinance as well as the Planning Commission's interpretation of Measure B. We feel that it is a balanced and reasonable approach to the issue of tree preservation and homeowner's right to a view. Thank You, The Mayhack Family 52 Eastfield Drive Page 1 of 1 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 January 18, 2016 City Council City of Rolling Hills, CA 90274 DEFINITION OF "MATURE TREE" Dear Councilpersons: RECEIVED JAW 19 2016 City of Rolling Hills By Kudos to Councilperson Bea Dieringer for identifying the primary source of the definition of "mature tree" predominately accepted by arborists! I have found it cited many times by cities and other government agencies and arborist associations, but did not know the original source. It can be found in An Illustrated Guide to Pruning, Third Edition, by Edward F. Gilman (Glossary, page 457.) "Mature tree: A tree that has reached at least 75% of its final height and spread at a particular site, but is not declining due to old age; contrast with overmature tree." I corresponded with Dr. Gilman, who told me that the definition was in widespread use by arborists in the 1980's when he began his career in arboriculture, and he first committed it to writing and included the definition in his many published works, including the I//ustrated Guide which was first published in 2002. 75% is used because a mature tree will continue to grow when it reaches maturity. That fact, and the fact that heights of mature trees of a species at a site will vary due to microclimates, weather cycles, soil conditions, water availability (next to lawn, bottom of a slope), shade of other trees, etc. means that heights of mature trees of a species at a particular site will be normally distributed. I have proposed that to determine what is a "mature tree" in a view remediation case, the most likely (mean or average) height be calculated from the range of mature tree heights (lowest mature tree height to highest mature tree height) for a species as listed in Sunset Western Garden Book (Planning Commission also recommended using this source). Lowest mature height + highest mature height x 0.75 = calculated mature 2 tree height Page 1 1 I believe that the gist of the Council discussion at the January 11, 2015 public hearing was NOTto simply use the extreme top end of the mature tree height range to determine what a mature tree is. I wrote a longish letter. dated 12-26-2015 explaining why that calculation would be statistically invalid. Continuing council discussion was whether to multiply the highest extreme of the height range by 75%, or to use the average height as I have proposed. Since using the average height results in the most likely determination of mature height, it would be perceived by most people as fair and reasonable. One councilperson suggested that the council adopt the former definition, which is to multiply the highest extreme of the height range of mature trees by 75%, and then wait to have the matter judicially determined. In my opinion, that's exactly what would happen, as the definition would not be viewed by most people as a fair determination. However, since all trees within the range of lowest mature height to highest mature height for a species are, by definition, "mature," odds are that the court would find that the lowest height of a mature tree in the height range should be used to determine what is a "mature tree" for view remediation purposes. I encourage the council to use the average height of a mature tree times 75% to determine what is a "mature tree"=in view-remediation,case.=lt's a fair compromise. Sincerely, Lynn E. Gill Page 1 2 �vi ABOUT THE AUTHOR Dr. Gilman received his Ph.D. from Rutgers University in 1980 in forest plant pathology and is on the faculty as professor in the Environmental Horticulture Department at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Ile has assembled a unique urban tree teaching program for helping municipalities, contractors, arborists, educators, growers, landscapers, and others design and implement programs for promoting better tree health in cities. He conducts educational programs in tree selection, nurs- ery production, and urban tree management nationwide for a large variety of audiences. Since 1990, he has received the Gunslogson Award in 2001 for his extension education programs and books from the American Society for horticultural Science, one from the Florida Nursery and Growers Association for his contribution to the growers, one from the Florida Urban Forestry Council for his educational efforts in urban forestry and arboriculture, the Authors Citation Award in 1999 from the international Society of Arboriculture (ISA), the ISA Educators Award in 2003, and the ISA research award in 2007 for sustained excellence in research, publishing, and teaching timely information on tree care. Dr. Gilman is a Florida chapter ISA past -president. Ile has published more than 96 scientific, peer -reviewed journal articles in his 30 years in academia and industry. His research emphasizes tree pruning, nursery production, tree anchorage, and establishment techniques. He has published more than 150 technical articles in newsletters and trade magazines and annually presents research results to colleagues at professional meetings across the United States and in many other countries. He is the author of six books and maintains a complete website on urban trees. Dr. Gilman enjoys life in Gainesville, Florida, where he and his wife Betsy have raised two daughters, Samantha and Megan. large -maturing tree A tree that grows to a height or spread greater than about 40 or 50 feet. large wound A wound that can least to defects and/or wood dysfunction in the parent stem. latent bud A suppressed or dormant bud that grows enough each year to remain in the bark, and that is capable of fanning a shoot; also known as an epicormic bud. lateral branch A stem arising from an older and larger stem. lateral pruning (cut) See reduction (reduce). leader r\ stem that dominates a portion of the crown by virtue of suppressed lateral branches. leader -training process The pruning technique that leads to development of one leader. lowest permanent limb The lowest scaffold limb that will remain on the tree for a long time. lumen The cavity in the center of a cell defined by the cell wall. main branch One of the several largest limbs on the tree. See also scaffold branch (limb). major limb Sce scaffold branch (limb). mallet Handheld hammcrlike tool with a cylindrical head used to drive a chisel into wood. matching trees A set of trees of the same species or cultivar with like sizes and shapes. mature tree A tree that has reached at least 75% of its final height and spread at a particular site, but is not declining due to old age; contrast with overmature tree. RECEIVED JAN 2 5 2016 Argument in favor of Measure "B" C:ty of oll'ng Hills The View Ordinance does not define when the "view" in question existed. Measure - NO surgically defines "view", and preserves the remainder of the 6 -page Ordinance which works well, i.e., requiring that neighbors first try to work things out, establishing a View Committee, and so forth. The current Ordinance has been interpreted to allow someone to buy a house with no view, priced accordingly, and then force neighbors to cut their trees in order to give the desired view. This is grossly unfair. It adds value to the complainant's property while reducing the value of the neighbor's property. Also, the City pays for most of the legal fees related to the complaint, and other costs such as surveys, expert witnesses, and photographs while the neighbor is responsible for their own legal fees and other expenses. Measure B will change the current ordinance to state that a resident is only entitled to the view that existed when that resident bought the house. Because the Ordinance now encourages an inherently unfair transfer of property values, it triggers expensive and unnecessary litigation that we all must pay for with our property taxes. There are currently four view -related lawsuits filed against the City, and more pending. Before circulating the petition, the proponents of the measure urged the City Council on several occasions to start a revision process. The process only began after more than 250 Rolling Hills voters signed the petition to qualify Measure B for the election ballot Let's pin down this small change that fairly defines a view as what an owner bought and paid for when they purchased their property. Please vote "YES" on Measure B �'Rifti£rdto * 1 Norpt3n LaCaat; Ly►fi E. Gill Marcia Schoettle Marion Scharffenberger RECEIVED IlL€1 NOV 0 5 2012 City of Rolling Hills $y tv�rm ml Fier ila$At 'RECEIVED The Weinberg Law Group Via Hand Delivery Heidi Luce City Clerk City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 _ JAN 2 5 2016 Ci1v pf Rolling Hills BY Re: Resolution 1182 re Administrative Regulations Dear Ms. Luce: January 25, 2016 Tonight, January 25, 2016, at the City Council hearing, the Council will consider the adoption of Resolution 1182 regarding Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B for the City's View Ordinance. Attached to this letter are my suggested modifications to the resolution text to be considered by the City Council. C: City Council Yolanta Schwartz : Michael Jenkins, City Attomey Sincerely, &a aam/ /i/ei(6ewf The Weinberg Law Group 2550 Via Tejon 1 Suite 213 1 Palos Verdes 1 CA 1 90274 1 310.363.7775 1 howard@weinbcrglaw.la 1 Attachment A City of Rolling Hills Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation Chapter 1 Date of; Property Acquisition Chapter 2 "Mature" versus "Maturing" Trees Chapter 3 Retroactivity of Measure B Chapter 1 DATE OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION Section 1001. Interpretation of the Date of Acquisition of Property. Measure B provides that a person may only apply to restore the view existing from the date that the current owner of the property actually acquired the property. In determining whether a transfer ofj property has resulted in an acquisition affecting the view that a person may apply to have restored, the City shall generally apply the rules applicable to reassessment of property taxes in the County of Los Angeles es ap} ti S /h OGP : P ed �7 ,s Resol�ft0,,l. The impacts of common transfers of property are illustrated below: A. The acquisition date of property acquired through inheritance shall be the date that the previous owner acquired the property, not the date of the transfer by inheritance. B. The acquisition date of property acquired from a third party through an arms - length purchase and sale shall be the date of the sale as evidenced by a deed. C. When property is placed into a revocable trusjthe acquisition date of property shall not change. Resolution No.1182 ; I 3 Measure B Interpretation 1 Chapter 2 "MATURE" VERSUS "MATURING" TREES Section 2001. Definition of "Mature" Trees The International Society of Arboriculture defines maturity by "mature height," which means the "maximum height that a plant is likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site are favorable." The Sunset Western Garden Book is a trusted reference guide on trees, plants and other vegetation present in the region and defines a plant species' "maturity" as the time at which a plant achieves a certain height range and displays other characteristics. The Sunset Western Garden Book provides maximum height ranges for species of plants typically involved in View Preservation cases in the City. --crhe4kf +is$D%c For purposes of the ViewPreservation Ordinance and Measure B, a plant is "mature" when it reachessthis maximum height for the species specified in the Sunset Western Garden Book. _Iowever, arborists agree that plants that have been regularly cut may never reach their maximum potential height, and several alternative methodologies are recognized to determine the age of such trees. However, the alternative methodologies are complex and require reliance on a professional arborist. Further, the proponents of Measure B testified before the Planning Commission that the intent of Measure B was to exempt trees that have reached their full species height prior to acquisition of a complainant's property. Therefore, trees that show evidence of regniar cutting and are therefore unlikely to reach their maximum potential height shall not be considered "mature" for purposes of the View Preservation Ordinance and shall not exempt from restorative action. Section 2002. Definition of "Maturing" Trees Trees and other vegetation that are not "mature" as specified in these regulations are "maturing." Section 2003. Presumption that Trees were not "Mature" one or (hone_ If evidence is presented, such as historical aerial photographs, showing that ne of the offending trees or vegetation subject to a complaint was -prat or around the time that the complainant acquired the property from which a view is claimed, the complainant shall be entitled to a presumption that the offending trees and vegetation were not "mature" at the date of acquisition and are therefore subject to restorative action Resolution No.1182 Measure B Interpretation 3o I -H,af were no} r A n'i-ec-Q Subject: Measure B - Measurable definition of View Corridors/laced trees and Initial Costs to be borne by Owner obstructing view paid for. Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 4:16 PM From: Kirt Behera <Kbehera@aol.com> To: "hluce@cityofrh.net" <hluce@cityofrh.net> 02/02/1 01 6 Re: Measure B - Measurable definition of View Corridors/laced trees and Initial Costs to be borne by Owner obstructing view paid for. From Kirt and Mamata Behera 12 Ringbit Rd East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 To City Council City of Rolling Hills Rolling Hills, CA 90274 ktCti Y ED FEB 0 2 2016 City of Rolling Hills By Dear Honorable City Council: We bought our house in Rolling Hills in 2007 primarily for the 270 degree panoramic view and Measure B may take that away substantially unless view corridors/laced trees are defined very carefully. I had to pay substantial amount (more than a Million $) for the view. With due considerations for the voters who have passed it (with a very marginal vote!) I would like to propose the following for your objective considerations in order to be fair to the both sides of the voters: 1. Measurable definition of View corridors/laced trees within the scope of Measure B: Measure B is intended to create view corridors and view through trees. It does not say how big or how much removal etc. In order to be fair to the owners of view which was the primary reason to buy in this city and who paid substantial amount for it, should be given as much panoramic concept view as possible within the scope of the measure. This can be done by a number of corridors and only laced trees in between where all laced trees form 1/3rd of the space taken by the corridors. Number of corridors and laced tree coverage will depend on the total view length. For every laced tree space there will be 3x the space available for a corridor. It is very simple and does not require any tools to implement this. Simply stand at the viewing point at the primary residence. Stretch out your arm and turn the pointing finger parallel and close enough to you to cover one tree and estimate how many sections ( there are only 3 sections on a finger) of your finger are covered by a particular laced tree. The corridor opening next to it should be 3 times from the same level. This will guide how much to be removed or laced etc. Do the same for the entire view in 5-10 minutes. This approach will give a panoramic concept view with corridors space 3 times of the laced tree space. Basically view owner is still loosing about 25% of his views. He still will have the panoramic concept through the open corridors and openings through the laced trees. Page 1 of 2 This will satisfy Measure B and provide the view owner about 75% of his view that he paid for - a reasonable balance! 2.The view points from the principal residence and patio should be as many as needed to see the views from the different parts of the house, at least 5. 3. The initial costs should be borne by the Owner who let his trees grow and blocked the view of the view owner who had paid for the view when he bought the house with the view. It is not fair to penalize him to pay for it again. For the same reason the view maintenance cost should be borne by the owner whose trees are blocking the view. 4. If new trees are planted and they obstruct the view, it should be cut by the owner of the tree at his costs. If panoramic views are allowed to be replaced by very few corridors and too many intervening trees, Rolling Hills will soon loose its most critical assets - the GREAT VIEWS we have due to our natural elevations and hence loose Billions of Dollars of property values! It is in your hands! Thank you Sincerely Kirt and Mamata Behera Page 2 of 2 LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD J. LIGHT 11355 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD. SUITE 300 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90064-1614 TELEPHONE 13101 479-2233 FAX 13101 473-0077 February 2, 2016 Via Overnight Delivery City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 RECEDED FEB 032016 City of Rolling Hills By Our File No: 2122.05 Re: Appeal of Resolution No. 2015-03-CTV of the Committee on Trees and Views to the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills Filed By William and Judith Hassoldt Number 15 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills Consideration of Ordinance No. 346 Amending Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code Relating to View Preservation In Zoning Case No. 881 and Zoning Code Amendment No. 2015-03 Dear City Staff: As you know, this office represents the owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road in the City of Rolling Hills ("No. 15 PBR"), William and Judith Hassoldt (the "Hassoldts") in connection with the referenced appeal from the decision of the City's Committee on Trees and Views. In connection with that appeal and the appeal by Steve and Diana Nuccion from that same decision (the "Appeals"), enclosed please find a declaration of Registered Consulting Arborist, Ruben Green ("Mr. Green"). At the November 23, 2015 meeting, Council Member Black inquired whether there was any impediment to the Hassoldts' trimming trees on No. 15 PBR during the pendency of this process and the City Attorney responded that there was not. Accordingly, as they have always made clear they intended to do, the Hassoldts have caused restorative trimming to be performed on trees located at No. 15 PBR. In an effort to make certain that such trimming would be done in a way that was best for the health and safe growth of the trees, the Hassoldts retained Mr. Green to oversee the trimming on their property. In the enclosed declaration, Mr. Green discusses the trimming of the Hassoldts' trees and also addresses the issue(s) surrounding the determination of whether any City of Rolling Hills February 2, 2016 Page 2 particular tree on No. 15 PBR (and/or within the City) should be considered "mature". While Mr. Green's analysis, stated under oath, is relevant to the Appeals, it also has direct application to the City's evaluation of proposed changes to the View Ordinance. For that reason, the Hassoldts respectfully request that the City Council also receive and consider Mr. Green's declaration in connection with its analysis of the issues surrounding the proposed amendment(s) to the City's View Ordinance. In order to facilitate the City Council's consideration of Mr. Green's declaration in connection with both of the above referenced matters, I am enclosing sixteen (16) copies of Mr. Green's declaration. Eight (8) of the copies have a face page which reads "Declaration of Arborist Ruben Green Re: Appeals from Resolution No. 2015-03-CTV of the Committee on Trees and Views to the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills". The other eight (8) copies have have a face page which reads "Declaration of Arborist Ruben Green Re: The Rolling Hills City Council's Consideration of Ordinance No. 346 Amending Title 17 of the Rolling Hills . Municipal Code Relating to View Preservation in Zoning Case No. 881 and Zoning Code Amendment No. 2015-03". If anyone from the City has anyquestions about Mr. Green's declaration; or anything else, they should not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD J. LIGHT HJL:akb Enclosures DECLARATION OF ARBORIST RUBEN GREEN RE• THE ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 346 AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION IN ZONING CASE NO. 881 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-03 RECEIVED FEB 032016 City of Rolling Hills By 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 DECLARATION OF RUBEN M. GREEN I, Ruben M. Green, declare as follows: 1. I know the facts set forth in this declaration of my own personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to such facts under oath. 2. I am an arborist and the president of Evergreen Arborists Consultants, Inc. An arborist is a tree specialist who uses his or her education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees through pruning. I have been retained to oversee the pruning services in connection with trees and palms located on property owned by William and Judith Hassoldt (the "Hassoldts") located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road in the City of Rolling Hills (the "Hassoldt Property"). I have also been asked to opine on the issue of how arborists define "mature" trees. My Education, Training and Experience 3. I have over 30 years of experience in the landscape industry. My background includes hands-on experience in tree care, landscape maintenance, construction, and irrigation management. I have a Master's Degree in plant science from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. I provide detailed investigations, independent analysis, and, since 2003, expert witness testimony. I am a Registered Consulting Arborist with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, a certified arborist and a certified tree risk assessor with the International Society of Arboriculture ("ISA"), licensed pesticide applicator with the state of California, and a C-27 licensed California contractor. A true and correct copy of my curriculum vitae is attached to this declaration as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as if set forth here in full. 4. I have examined thousands of trees and performed hundreds of forensic examinations on trees. I am knowledgeable and have experience in tree pruning. I have 3,C Declaration of Ruben M. Green 1 lectured at ISA sponsored events and taught classes on tree pruning at tree industry 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 events. My Site Visits to the Hassoldt Property 5. On December 9, 2015, December 29, 2015, and again on January 27, 2016, I conducted site inspections of trees on the Hassoldt Property. I understand that the adjacent, uphill property is owned by Diana Nuccion and Steve Nuccion (the "Nuccions") and is located at 18 Portuguese Bend Road in the City of Rolling Hills (the "Nuccion Property"). The Pruning of the Hassoldts' Trees 6. 1 supervised tree and palm pruning at the Hassoldt Property on January 27, 2016. The objective of this pruning was to maximize the stability of the trees' structures by preventing (or minimizing) the creation of internal and external defects. The pruning method used on the Hassoldts' trees is referred to as "cleaning", which involves the selective removal of dead, diseased, detached, and crossing/rubbing and broken branches. This is the preferred pruning method for mature trees because it does not remove live branches unnecessarily and does not remove branches indiscriminately. This method of pruning was chosen to reduce the risk of branch failure, promote safety, provide clearance, increase light exposure, maintain tree health, and to adequately support the weight of the branches, leaves, and fruit, and reduce the effects of wind, as much as possible. 7. Because the trees which were trimmed at the Hassoldt Property (other than the Palms) had previously been topped, in order to improve the health and structural stability of the trees it is very important that great care be exercised in pruning. For this reason, in overseeing the pruning I made certain that standard arboricultural pruning guidelines -- such as the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) Z1 33.1 Standard, 3 Declaration of Ruben M. Green 2 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 the National Arborist Association pruning standards, and the Western Chapter ISA Pruning Standards -- were followed in order to maximize the structural stability (and otherwise seek to preserve the health) of the trees. The Definition Of "Mature" Trees 8. In the course of my retention to oversee the trimming of trees on the Hassoldt Property, it came to my attention that the Nuccions' had retained an arborist, Kevin Eckert ("Mr. Eckert"), to opine that the trees are not mature. At the outset, there is no basis for the suggestion that Mr. Eckert's claimed expertise in connection with the ISA "Glossary of Arboricultural Terms" gives him special insight into the definition of the words "mature" and "maturing". In this regard, it is important to note that the ISA does NOT provide a 'definition of a mature tree. That is, neither "mature" nor "maturing" is defined in the 2015 ISA "Glossary of Arboricultural Terms". 9. Mr. Eckert has apparently suggested that the determination of whether or not a tree is "mature" is based on the "maximum height that a plant is likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site are favorable". In adopting this position, Mr. Eckert seems to be suggesting that the definition of "mature height" determines the definition of what is a "mature tree." This is simply not accurate. The issue of assessing a tree's mature height is for the purpose of determining how tall a tree is likely to grow, and it involves an evaluation of the range of heights a particular species of tree may achieve depending on conditions. A tree's mature height does not, in and of itself, define the maturity of a tree and is not consistent with industry standard or predominantly accepted by arborists in determining whether any particular tree is "mature." 10. Moreover, it is neither logical nor accurate to say that maturity should be only when a tree reaches the maximum of "mature height." As an example of the impropriety of Mr. Eckert's suggestion that we should tie the definition to such a narrow finding, we need look no further than the Cal Po&site which Mr. Eckert references. This 38 Declaration of Ruben M. Green 3 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 site is also the Official Registry of California Big Trees. By Mr. Eckert's definition, only 353 trees in California would qualify as mature trees. 11. I was also surprised to see Mr. Eckert comparing tree heights referencing Wikipedia. I do not consider Wikipedia to be a particularly reliable source. Indeed, the Wikipedia "Terms of Use" state that citation to Wikipedia in research may be considered unacceptable. That is because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source. 12. Finally, Mr. Eckert neither visited the site nor conducted any examination of the surrounding trees, but only "reviewed all of the photographs dated 2010 and 2011" and "reviewed the live video feed from the Nuccion property to consider the status of all 11 of the subject trees." Although I do not have access to these photographs or the video, in my experience, attempting to assess living trees from photographs or video without actually seeing those trees in person is extremely difficult and should be avoided. 13. In contrast to Mr. Eckert, I visited the Hassoldt property on three occasions. Height alone is an inadequate and insufficient criteria for assessing whether a tree is mature. If height were the only consideration, a "mature" tree that breaks from wind loads would be shorter and because of the reduction in height would no longer be "mature". Such an analysis of maturity would be nonsensical. Likewise, the suggestion that an otherwise mature tree which has had its crown reduced is no longer "mature" on account of the crown reduction makes no sense whatsoever. Other factors such as a tree trunk's diameter and the age of the tree must be considered in determining whether a tree in a particular area is mature. In this regard, several studies and analyses have been done which evaluate whether trees are mature taking into account other than the maximum height a tree is expected to grow.' In addition, trees must be compared with 1 For example, an analysis of trunk diameter was included in Management Guidelines for Mature Trees, (2014), Greening, Landscape and Tree Management Section, The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: Development Bureau. See also, Gupta, P.K., and Durzan, D.J., (1985), "Shoot multiplication from mature trees of Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana)," Plant Cell Reports, University of California, Davis, CA, for an analysis of maturity based on the age of the tree. Declaration of Ruben M. Green �� 4 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 similar species within the specific area with similar conditions (i.e., in the community of Rolling Hills). 14. In order to assist in my evaluation of the Hassoldts' trees, on December 29, 2015, I surveyed Red Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) trees within Rolling Hills. The results of my survey, when combined with my experience, made clear to me that the Eucalyptus trees which were trimmed with my oversight are unquestionably mature. Likewise, viewing the Olive and Palm trees and researching historical photographs also clearly demonstrates that those species on the Hassoldt Property which were pruned are also mature trees. For example, it is clear that two of the Olive trees on the Hassoldt Property are at least 75 years old and any suggestion that trees of that age are not mature is not supportable under any analysis. 15. I have been informed that the City of Rolling Hills has been asked to pass an ordinance declaring that a tree cannot be considered "mature" if it has been previously trimmed, and therefore would not be subject to certain protections already contained in the municipal code. However, regular pruning and clearing of trees is a part of good tree maintenance and has absolutely no bearing on whether those trees are mature. In this regard, it is important to note that failure properly to maintain trees can result in very significant property damage, personal injuries, and even deaths. Accordingly, in my opinion it would be imprudent to pass an ordinance that discourages proper tree maintenance. Interference With Pruning by Neighbor at the Nuccion Property 16. At the time of the trimming on January 27, 2016, I was informed by the tree trimming crew that a woman, who stated that she was the owner of the Nuccion Property, stopped the crew shortly after they began pruning the Eucalyptus tree on the southwest corner of the Hassoldt Property, claiming that they were crossing onto the neighbor's • property to pick up cut branches, and she refused to allow them to do so. This prevented Declaration of Ruben M. Green 40 5 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 the crew from properly pruning the tree and additional work ceased on that tree. In my opinion, to maintain the best health of this tree, both sides of the tree should be pruned and it is not good for only half of the tree to be trimmed. Accordingly, it was my recommendation that unless we could trim the entire tree, the tree trimmers should stop trimming the tree altogether and that is what happened. Of all the trees on the Hassoldt Property, in my opinion the one that the neighbor would not allow us to trim is the one that needs the most pruning. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on February 2, 2016, at Mission Viejo, California. Ruben M. Green Declaration of Ruben M. Green 4 6 EXHIBIT A CURRICULUM VITAE 2015 Ruben M. Green, M.S. President, Evergreen Arborists Consultants, Inc. Forensic & Consulting Arborist rgreen©greenarborists.com www.greenarborists.com Ruben Green, president of Evergreen Arborists Consultants, Inc. has over 30 years of experience in the landscape industry. His background includes hands-on experience in tree care, landscape maintenance, construction, and irrigation management. His problem solving approach, make him an excellent choice as a technical consultant or expert witness on a wide variety of tree and landscape related issues. He provides detailed investigations, independent analysis and expert witness testimony in support of litigation for premises liability, MSJ, trespass, inverse condemnation, eminent domain, worker safety, and tree nuisance cases. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE He has served as an expert witness, technical consultant or forensic investigator for cases and claims in California, Idaho, and Hawaii. Mr. Green has testified at over 85 depositions, 80 mediations, three arbitrations, six bench and eight jury trials. He has performed over 3,000 tree appraisals, tree risk & hazard assessments, and over 500 urban and wildfire fire damage claims, tree protection reports for construction projects, tree root analysis, and personal injury and property damage cases. Percentage of designated expert witness case work since 2010 is approximately 50% for defense and 50% for plaintiff. EDUCATION M.S. Plant Science 2011, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. PARTIAL LISTING AS LITIGATION CONSULTANT OR EXPERT WITNESS Harrington, Foxx, Dubrow & Canter, LLP Description: Jury trial 2014. Tree worker safety. Law Office of Martin Holly, LLP Description: Jury trial 2010. Utility pruning and property damage. The Ball Law Firm Description: Jury trial 2008. Tree and landscape appraisals. Los Angeles 818.986.0137 Law Office of Leviton, Diaz & Ginocchio Description: Bench trial worker injury. 2010. Law Office of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP Description: Bench trial 2009. View obstruction and slope stability. Law Office of Archer Norris Description: Trespass tree appraisals Orange County 949.837.7700 Palo Alto 650.644.6115 PARTIAL LISTING AS LITIGATION CONSULTANT OR EXPERT WITNESS, cont'd Law Office of Callahan, McCune & Willis Description: Jury trial 2008. Tree appraisals due to chemical spill. Law Office of Brent C. Scott. Description: Jury trial 2008. View obstruction personal injury. Law Office of Watten, Discoe, Bassett & McMains. Description: Bench trial 2007. Trespass tree appraisals. Law Office of: Barton, Petrini & Conron, LLP. Description: Jury trial 2006. View and tree palm appraisals. Law Office of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP. Description: Arbitration 2010. View obstruction. Law Office of Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. Description: Approximately 350 Wildfire tree, landscape, irrigation, and nursery evaluations. Law Office of Tharpe & Howell Description: Trespass tree appraisals, tree poisoning, and tree root damage. Law Office of Bremer, Whyte, Brown & O'Meara. Description: Landscape construction defect and tree roots Law Office of Richards, Watson & Gershon. Description: Eminent domain nursery evaluations. Law Office of P.K. Schrieffer, LLP. Description: Wildfire tree, landscape, irrigation evaluations and trespass tree appraisals. Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman. Description: Wildfire tree landscape, irrigation and cases. Los Angeles 818.986.0137 Law Office of Michael Hearn. Description: Landscape construction defect slope failures. Law Office of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Description: Personal injury, construction defect. Law Office of Nelson & Griffen, LLP. Description: Jury trial. Trespass tree appraisals. Law Office of Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Description: Tree removals, worker accident, tree roots, and landscape construction defect. Reed Smith LLP. Description: Trespass tree appraisals. Law Office of Wesierski & Zurek. Description: Worker injury and standard of care cases. Law Office of Prout & LeVangie Description: Tree root displacement and personal injury. Law Office of Coddington, Hicks & Danforth. Description: Trespass tree appraisal cases. Law Office of M. C. Hall & Associates Description: Tree risk assessment, view obstruction, trespass and nuisance. Law Office of Chong & Chong Description: Tree failure and wrongful death tort. RPM Law Group. Description: Tree failure and tree root cases Law Office of Williams and Associates Description: Construction defect. Orange County 949.837.7700 Palo Alto 650.644.6115 PARTIAL LISTING OF CLIENTS and PROJECTS Southem California Gas Company SDG&E AT&T Caltrans, Department of Transportation City of Los Angeles Six Flags Magic Mountain County of Los Angeles Los Angeles Department of Water and Power City of Mission Viejo Weisman Design Group Westmont College, Santa Barbara Parsons Engineering and Construction Jameson Products Puente Hills Habitat Preservation Tru Green America's Tire Company Kimley-Horn Carts, Jr. PARTIAL LISTING OF INSURANCE COMPANIES Travelers Insurance AAA Insurance USAA Insurance Kemper Insurance Fireman's Fund Farmers Insurance Nationwide Fidelity Insurance Universal Studios Park County of San Mateo Huntington Library and Botanical Garden Santa Barbara Botanic Gardens Occidental Petroleum J. F. Shea Construction Davey Tree RAND Corporation David Maman Design RJM Design Group Atwell Group Nakae & Associates The Forum Alhambra Golf Course Volley Crest Bank of America UPS Studio Pali Fekete Architects Mercury Insurance Chubb Insurance Liberty Mutual Safeco Insurance Allstate 210 Century State Farm CERTIFICATIONS, LICENSES, and PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Certified Arborist, International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Registered Consulting Arborist No. 559, American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Certified Tree Risk Assessor, International Society of Arboriculture (TRAQ) California Licensed Pesticide Applicator, (QAL) Licensed California Landscape Contractor, (C-27) California ReLeaf, Board member Los Angeles 818.986.0137 Orange County 949.837.7700 Palo Alto 650.644.6115 LECTURES • Pesticide Applicators Professional Association, 2011 - 2015. • Turf and Landscape Institute, Topics: Assessing Damaged Trees from Wildfires, 2013. Why Some Trees Fail and Others Don't, 2012. Managing Trees for Wind, 201 1. Effects of Below Grade Planting on Trees and Structural Tree Defects, 2009. • Guest lecturer, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. 2006 - 2011. • Canopy, Palo Alto. Tree Walk Lecturer, 2009 — 2014. • Western Turfgrass and Landscape Expo, Topics: Wind and Trees, 2010. Understanding Tree Roots in the Urban Environment, 2009. • UC Riverside, Extension, Instructor. Introduction to Arboriculture 10 week class, 2009. • Landscape Expo, Topic: Windthrow: Why Some Trees Fail & Others Don't. 2013. • International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist Prep Class Instructor, 2013, Topics: Tree Risk Assessment Tree Planting and Establishment • Desert Green Conference, Topics: Sustainability in Urban Trees through Tree Risk Assessment, 2013 Assessing Tree Roots, 2013 • Landscape Architecture Show, February 2014, Topic: Tree Selection Guidelines for the Urban Forest. NOTICE: attorney's designation of Evergreen Arborists Consultants. Inc. (EVG) or Ruben M. Green as expert constitutes acceptance of retainer and acknowledgment that specified retainer amount is owed. Attorney is prohibited from using EVG or Ruben M. Green and designating him as their expert or "possible expert" without first formally retaining him. He does not give permission to use his name in any manner connected to any case unless his non-refundable retainer fee is paid. Attorney is prohibited from using his name and designating him as their expert without first formally retaining him. Los Angeles 818.986.0137 Orange County 949.837.7700 Palo Alto 650.644.6115 TO: Mayor Jeff Pieper Councilmember Jim Black Councilmember Leah Mirsch Councilmember Pat Wilson FROM: Mayor Pro Tem Bea Dieringer RE: PROPOSED MEASURE B REGULATIONS RECEIVED FEB 0 5 2015 City of Rolling Hills By Since I may not have much time after public comment at our Council meeting on 2/8/16, to explain my concerns regarding the legality of the proposed regulations interpreting Measure B, I am addressing them in writing and providing some legal authority for these concerns. We have all been informed that, because Measure B was enacted as an initiative and did not permit the City Council to amend its provisions, we are legally only able to draft regulations that are consistent with the language and probable intent of Measure B. This rule is based on Article IV, section 1 of the California Constitution, which provided for voter initiative powers to be reserved to the people and the California Election Code § 9125 that states: "No ordinance proposed by initiative petition... adopted by the voters shall be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original ordinance." The legal rules that would be applied by a court to our regulations interpreting Measure B not only require our regulations to be consistent with Measure B, but also require them to not add to or take away from the initiative. The courts have been very protective of "the people's initiative power" and have liberally interpreted a prohibited "amendment" of an initiative to include "some action other than by the subsequent enactment of a statute [that]...adds to or takes away from the initiative." Proposition 103 Enforcement Project v. Quackenbush (1998) 64 Cal. App. 4th 1473, 1485. The Second District Court of Appeal in Quackenbush declared: "In determining whether a particular action constitutes an amendment, we keep in mind that "[i]t is' "the duty of the courts to jealously guard [the people's initiative and referendum power]" . . . . "[I]t has long been our judicial policy to apply a liberal construction to this power wherever it is challenged in order that the right [to local initiative or referendum] be not improperly annulled." ' [Citation.]" ( DeVita v. County of Napa, supra, 9 Cal. 4th at p. 776, quoting Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 582, 591 [135 Cal. Rptr. 41, 557 P.2d 473, 92 A.L.R.3d 1038].) Any doubts should be resolved in favor of the initiative and referendum power, and amendments which may conflict with the subject matter of initiative measures must be accomplished by popular vote, as opposed to legislatively enacted ordinances, where the original initiative does not provide otherwise. (DeVita v. County of Napa, supra, 9 Cal. 4th at p. 792; Mobilepark West Homeowners Assn. v. Escondido Mobilepark West, supra, 35 Cal. App. 4th at p. 41.) Id. at 1485-1486. The Quackenbush court invalidated a statute enacted by a 2/3 vote of the California legislature, because the statute did not further the purposes of an initiative, Proposition 103, in that it "took away" from the provisions of Prop 103 and "changed its scope and effect." Id. at 1486. The court in Franchise Tax Board v. Cory (1978) 80 Cal. App. 3d 772, invalidated "control language" within a budget appropriation that funded an initiative requiring the Franchise Tax Board to do financial audits of political candidates' financial reports. This "control language" specified that the audits required by the initiative had to be conducted according to audit standards promulgated by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and required audits of only a sampling of the total number of campaign transactions to be audited, unless fraud was discovered. In declaring the "control language" invalid, the Cory court stated: The Legislature correctly asserts that the audit provisions of the Act [initiative] do not by their terms conflict with the control language of item 106. The Act [initiative] does not prescribe the standards under which audits are to be conducted, nor does it prohibit the use of the sampling techniques of the control language. Nevertheless, conflict with existing law is neither an essential, nor even a normal attribute of an amendment. An amendment is ". . . any change of the scope or effect of an existing statute, whether by addition, omission, or substitution of provisions, which does not wholly terminate its existence, whether by an act purporting to amend, repeal, revise, or supplement, or by an act independent and original in form, . . ." (Sutherland, Statutory Construction. (4th ed. 1972) § 22.01, p. 105.) A statute which adds to or takes away from an existing Log statute is considered an amendment. (Robbins v. O. R. R. Company (1867) 32 Cal. 472.) Id. at 821-822. In evaluating any regulations that we decide to adopt interpreting Measure B, a court would first look to the language of Measure B and the voters' intent before determining whether the regulations furthered the purposes of Measure B or instead, impermissibly added to or took away from this initiative. This process of statutory interpretation was described by the court in Citizens to Save California v. California Fair Political Practices Com. (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 736: "Whether we are interpreting a voter initiative such as Proposition 34 or a statute enacted by the Legislature, the same principles of construction apply. (Robert L. v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 894, 900-901 [135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 30, 69 P.3d 951]; Norwich v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 272, 276 [87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 222, 980 P.2d 927].) We begin by examining the statutory language, giving the words their usual and ordinary meaning, viewed in the context of the statute as a whole and the overall statutory scheme. (People v. Rizo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 681, 685 [94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 375, 996 P.2d 27] (Rizo).) If the terms of the statute are unambiguous, we presume the lawmakers meant what they said, and the plain meaning of the language governs. (Day v. City of Fontana (2001) 25 Cal.4th 268, 272 [105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 457, 19 P.3d 1196].) This is so because "it is the language of the statute itself that has successfully braved the legislative gauntlet." (Halbert's Lumber, Inc.v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1238 [8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 298]; accord, California School Employees Assn. v. Governing Board (1994) 8 Cal.4th 333, 338 [33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 109, 878 P.2d 1321].) "When the language is ambiguous, 'we refer to other indicia of the voters' intent, particularly the analyses and arguments contained in the official ballot pamphlet.' [Citation.]" (Rizo, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 685.) However, a court cannot insert or omit words to cause the meaning of a statute to conform to a presumed intent that is not expressed. (California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified School Dist. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 627, 633 [59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 671, 927 P.2d 1175]; Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 3. Cal.4th 816, 826-827 [4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 615, 823 P.2d 1216]; Code Civ. Proc., § 1858.) "As a judicial body, it is our role to interpret the laws as they are written." (San Diego Police Officers Assn. v. City of San Diego Civil Service Com. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 275, 287 [128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 248].) "[W]e may not properly interpret the measure in a way that the electorate did not contemplate: the voters should get what they enacted, not more and not less." (Hodges v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 109, 114 [86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 884, 980 P.2d 433].) In reviewing the language of Measure B regarding "mature vegetation," a court would probably determine that this language was unambiguous even though no specific definition of "mature" and "maturing" was provided in the Measure other than the sentence: 'Mature' versus 'Maturing' shall be defined by industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists." It appears reasonable that it was envisioned that arborists would provide their expert opinions regarding the maturity of trees that are the subject of a view complaint and that these arborists would be expected to provide the basis of their opinions, citing "industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists." If the Council, nevertheless, believes that there must be a definition for "mature" to effectuate the purpose of this Measure, then any such definition, must, by the terms of Measure B, be a definition based on "industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists." Any other definition would be invalidated by the courts as "adding to" or "taking away" from the language of Measure B. We have received two proposed definitions of "mature" as used in Measure B: one is a definition of "mature height" found on the International Society of Arboriculture website ("the maximum height that a plant is likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site are favorable") and the second is the definition of "mature tree" from Dr. Edward Gilman's book "An Illustrated Guide to Pruning:" "A tree that has reached at least 75% of its final height and spread at a particular site" or "those that have reached 75% of their attainable size for that site." Unfortunately, we do not have the required substantial evidence (or any evidence) that we can assert to establish that either or both of these two definitions are based on "industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists." Dr. Gilman's definition is probably the closest to being considered a "standard" since his definition is published in an established botanical reference book. However, Dr. Gilman has admitted that even his definition for "mature tree" is not one that is uniformly accepted: "People had used the term in early part of my career when I began writing about trees and 1 had not seen a good definition- so, I made one up. When I use the term I typically define it like that for the audience. It's tough putting words to biological concepts- it's definitely a moving target and my definition can be criticized as well." I agree that it would be helpful for future view cases to have some definition and guidelines to incorporate into Measure B that would provide some consistency in the determinations made on the issue of "maturity." On the other hand, the courts have been clear that the issue is not whether a statute or a regulation interpreting an initiative "'furthers the public good, but rather whether [it] furthers the purpose of [the initiative]" Gardner v. Schwarzenegger (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 1366, 1374. Based on the case law in this area, I don't think it would be legally advisable to do anything more than incorporate Dr. Gilman's definition of "mature tree" into a regulation interpreting Measure B's reference to "mature." The incorporation of all or part of the height ranges mentioned in the Sunset Guide's book into the Measure B regulation definitely would be inconsistent with Measure B and also would impermissibly "add to" this measure based on several reasons. One, there is no evidence that the Sunset Garden Book is an "industry standard predominantly accepted by arborists." If anything, the evidence is contrary; this is a book that consumer gardeners use as a guidebook for basic information. Second, there is no evidence within the Sunset Book or other sources to show what these height ranges in the Sunset Book mean. We know that a tree continues to grow higher after it reaches maturity. Are the ranges in this book meant to be the range of maximum total heights or do they represent the range of maximum heights at maturity? Third, there is no evidence to explain 1) the methods used by the Sunset Book to determine these height ranges, 2) the geographical areas from which the Sunset Book gathered this height range information and 3) the difference and/or similarity of the planting conditions in these geographical areas to the planting conditions found in Rolling Hills. Lastly and more importantly, the height ranges in the Sunset Book cannot and do not address the central issue in the definition of a "mature tree": the attainable size of a particular tree in its own planting site. Both the "mature tree" definition and the "mature height" definition focus on the planting site. Such a focus makes perfect sense since it is the specific growing conditions at the planting site of each tree that will determine how tall (or how short) that tree will be and how big a spread or canopy the tree will have. In a regulation interpreting Measure B's definition of "mature," the Council should not include any provision that provides that trees "showing evidence of regular cutting" should never be considered "mature." Such a provision would be struck down by a court as being one that would eviscerate Measure B and would be clearly inconsistent with the language and intent of the measure. Moreover, such a provision cannot satisfy Measure B's requirement that the definition of "mature" be based on "industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists." Arborists generally recommend proper pruning to maintain good tree health and there is zero arboricultural support for the principle that any pruned tree can never be a mature tree. Regarding the issue of regulations to interpret the "date of acquisition" reference in Measure B, I do not believe it would be legally appropriate to incorporate all the rules that the County of Los Angeles applies to the assessment of property taxes. First of all, such a regulation would be inconsistent with the language and intent of Measure B. This portion of Measure B states: "A view is defined in Chapter [Section] 17.12.220 and only applies to that view existing from the date any current owner of a property in the City of Rolling actually acquired the property." (emphasis added). It is clear from the example given in the proposed regulation as to inheritance, that the property tax laws would cause the will beneficiary's "date of acquisition" to be the date that the testator acquired the property instead of the date that the property was transferred to the beneficiary, i.e. "current owner," via inheritance. Again, the issue for a court reviewing this regulation is not going to be whether this regulation is easier for us, makes sense or "'furthers the public good, but rather whether [it] furthers the purpose of [the initiative]" Gardner v. Schwarzenegger (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 1366, 1374. The voters were never told expressly or implicitly that the date of acquisition would be evaluated based on the property tax laws. I don't think that any voter would have even conceived of such an interpretation. To add all the tax laws interpreting the date of acquisition for property tax purposes into Measure B is definitely a case of impermissibly "adding to" an initiative. Moreover, such a regulation requires our residents to obtain a legal opinion to assure themselves that the current law interpreting the property tax laws is still the same as our "illustrations" in the regulation. I believe that the only legal way to clarify "date of acquisition" consistent with the language and intent of Measure B, is to define that date in terms of when the "current owner," who is also the party filing the view complaint, acquired the property. If that owner acquired the property via a sale, the date of acquisition should be the date of the signed deed transferring the property to that owner at close of escrow. If the "current owner" acquired the property via inheritance, the date of acquisition should be the date that the property officially transferred to that owner. If the "current owner" acquired the property via a trust, the date of acquisition should be the date that the trust became irrevocable. Thanks for reading and considering this legal memo. I will bring the cases to the Council meeting and address any questions you may have. Bea Agenda Item No: 10-A Mtg. Date: 02/08/16 Subject: Urgent Request for a Letter of Support for the Los Angeles County Pharmaceuticals and Sharps Collection and Disposal Stewardship Ordinance Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 4:25 PM From: Taskforce <taskforce@dpw.lacounty.gov> Cc: Dan Lafferty <DLAFF@dpw.lacounty.gov>, Carlos Ruiz <CARUIZ@dpw.lacounty.gov>, Bahman Hajialiakbar <BHAJI@dpw.lacounty.gov>, "mikemohajer@yahoo.com" <mikemohajer@yahoo.com> Priority: Highest LOS ANGELES COUNTY SOLI L) WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE/ INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE • TO: All City Mayors, City Council Members, and City Managers, in Los Angeles County Please see the attached correspondence dated February 2, 2016, from the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force regarding the Urgent Request for a letter of Support for the Los Angeles County Pharmaceuticals and Sharps Collection and Disposal Stewardship Ordinance. Please disregard the previous email and letter on this subject which inadvertently included an incorrect attachment. We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion this may have caused. If you have any questions regarding the subject matter, please contact Mr. Mike Mohajer of the Task Force at MikeMohajer@yahoo.com <mailto:MikeMohajer@yahoo.com> or at (909) 592-1147. For questions regarding the Task Force, please contact Ms. Kristin Keating at (626) 458-2505 or kkeating@dpw.lacounty.gov <mailto:kkeating@dpw.lacounty.gov> . THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK GAIL FARBER, CHAIR MARGARET CLARK, VICE - CHAIR February 2, 2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE/ INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE, ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331 P.O. BOX 1460, ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460 www.lacountyiswmff.org TO: All City Mayors, City Council Members, and City Managers, in Los Angeles County URGENT REQUEST FOR A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY PHARMACEUTICALS AND SHARPS COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL STEWARDSHIP ORDINANCE The Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force strongly urges your City's support for the Los Angeles County Pharmaceuticals and Sharps Collection and Disposal Stewardship Ordinance (Ordinance). The Ordinance was drafted at the direction of the County Board of Supervisors following an investigation of its feasibility, in light of the 2014 decision by the United States Supreme Court not to hear an appeal from the Pharmaceutical industry to oppose a similar ordinance adopted by Alameda County. Several other counties and jurisdictions in the State have followed Alameda's example in adopting similar ordinances. If enacted, the Ordinance would require the development of stewardship plans to address the pressing need for the safe collection and disposal of unwanted/unused pharmaceuticals and sharps waste generated by residents. The Ordinance would also provide for participation by your City by adopting the requirements of the Ordinance into your City's municipal code (through a resolution). The Ordinance would establish a sustainably financed program designed to accommodate the needs of residents to safely dispose of discarded/unwanted sharps and pharmaceuticals in a manner that protects the environment as well as the health and safety of the public. It would also serve to effectively prevent these items from being abused/misused while reducing unnecessary injuries resulting from contact with improperly disposed. sharps, as well as the contraction and spread of harmful diseases. The Ordinance would also ensure that producers and manufacturers assume a reasonably shared responsibility, in cost and otherwise, for safe and proper disposal at end of their products' useful life. The County has conducted multiple stakeholder meetings which included representatives from the manufacturers of these products, retailers, pharmacies, environmental organizations, consumer advocacy groups, waste hauling industry, and others in order to develop the most effective Ordinance. The Task Force has forwarded a letter in support of the Ordinance to the Board of Supervisors. Enclosed for your use is a sample letter your City may wish to use to express your City's voice in support of this urgent and imperative policy change. February 2, 2016 Page 2 Pursuant to Chapter 3.67 of the Los Angeles County Code and the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Assembly Bill 939), the Task Force is responsible for coordinating the development of all major solid waste planning documents prepared for the County of Los Angeles and the 88 cities in Los Angeles County with a combined population in excess of ten million. Consistent with these responsibilities and to ensure a coordinated and cost-effective and environmentally sound solid waste management system in Los Angeles County, the Task Force also addresses issues impacting the system on a countywide basis. The Task Force membership includes representatives of the League of California Cities -Los Angeles County Division, County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, City of Los Angeles, waste management industry, environmental groups, the public, and a number of other governmental agencies. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Mike Mohajer of the Task Force at MikeMohaier(@yahoo.com or at (909) 592-1147. Sincerely, »e a,r4f Margaret Clark, Vice -Chair Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/ Integrated Waste Management Task Force and Mayor, City of Rosemead PH:kk P:\eppub\EA\EA\TF\TF\Letters\2016\February\CountyEPROrdinance-RequestSupportCities.doc cc: League of California Cities, Los Angeles Division California Product Stewardship Council San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments South Bay Cities Council of Governments Gateway Cities Council of Governments Westside Cities Council of Governments Each City Mayor, City Council Member, and City Manager in the County of Los Angeles Each City Recycling Cordinator in Los Angeles County Each Member of the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Each Member of the Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Task Force Los Angeles County Pharmaceuticals and Sharps Collection and Disposal Stewardship Ordinance Draft Letter of Support to be put on City Letterhead Date The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street, Room 383 Los Angeles, CA 90012 SUBJECT: LOS ANGELES COUNTY PHARMACEUTICALS AND SHARPS COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL STEWARDSHIP ORDINANCE — SUPPORT Dear Supervisors: The City of is in support of Los Angeles County's efforts to adopt a product stewardship ordinance that would provide for the proper collection and disposal of unwanted/unused pharmaceuticals and sharps waste generated by residents. Adoption of this Ordinance is important because it would establish a sustainably financed program that will provide residents with a convenient means to safely dispose of unwanted sharps and pharmaceuticals. It would also help prevent these products from entering the environment, reduce their availability for drug abuse and misuse, and reduce injuries associated with sharps being improperly disposed. With access to safe and convenient disposal options, as well as a robust outreach and education program, residents will be empowered to properly dispose their materials. The passage of this Ordinance would ensure that manufacturers and producers of prescription and nonprescription drugs and sharps share in the responsibility of proper disposal of their products. Our City supports this shared responsibility approach and do not want the cost of managing these materials at the end of their useful life solely borne by local jurisdictions. We understand the County has conducted multiple stakeholder meetings which included representatives from the manufacturers and producers of these materials, retailers, pharmacies, consumer advocacy groups, environmental organizations, waste hauling industry, and others in order to develop the most effective Ordinance. Following adoption of the Ordinance by the Board, the City of is very interested in passing a resolution to adopt this Ordinance so that our City's residents also have access to safe, convenient, and sustainably financed collection and disposal methods of pharmaceuticals and sharps. Should you have any questions, please contact Sincerely, XXX, Title Organization cc: Sachi A. Hamai, Los Angeles County Chief Executive Officer Patrick Ogawa, Los Angeles County Acting Executive Officer Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (Angelo Bellomo) Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Task Force GAIL FARBER, CHAIR MARGARET CLARK, VICE - CHAIR February 2, 2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE/ INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE, ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331 P.O. BOX 1460, ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460 www.l a c o u n ty i swm tf. o rg The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles 383 Kenneth Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Supervisors: LOS ANGELES COUNTY PHARMACEUTICALS AND SHARPS COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL STEWARDSHIP ORDINANCE — SUPPORT The Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force (Task Force) strongly supports the Board's adoption of the Los Angeles County Pharmaceuticals and Sharps Collection and Disposal Stewardship Ordinance (Ordinance). As currently drafted, the Ordinance would require manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and sharps to develop stewardship plans to address the collection and disposal of unwanted/unused pharmaceuticals and sharps waste generated by residents. The adoption of such an ordinance is critically needed, because it establishes a sustainably financed program to provide residents with a convenient means to safely dispose of unwanted sharps and pharmaceuticals. It would help to prevent such products from entering the environment, reduce their availability for drug abuse and misuse, and reduce injuries associated with sharps being improperly disposed. With access to safe and convenient disposal options, as well as a robust outreach and education program, residents will be empowered to properly dispose of these products and prevent them from causing additional harm. The adoption of this Ordinance would also ensure that manufacturers and producers of prescription and nonprescription drugs and sharps share in the responsibility of proper disposal of their products. The Task Force fully supports this shared responsibility approach and strongly opposes other policy measures that would place the financial burden of managing these materials at the end of their useful life solely upon local jurisdictions. We understand the County has conducted multiple stakeholder meetings which included representatives from the manufacturers of these products, retailers, pharmacies, environmental organizations, consumer advocacy groups, waste hauling industry, and others in order to develop the most effective Ordinance. Pursuant to the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Assembly Bill 939) and Chapter 3.67 of the Los Angeles County Code, the Task Force is County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors February 2, 2016 Page 2 responsible for coordinating the development of all major solid waste planning documents prepared for the County of Los Angeles and the 88 cities in Los Angeles County. Consistent with these responsibilities and to ensure a coordinated and cost- effective and environmentally sound solid waste management system in Los Angeles County, the Task Force also addresses issues impacting the system on a countywide basis. The Task Force membership includes representatives of the League of California Cities -Los Angeles County Division, the County Board of Supervisors, City of Los Angeles, waste management industry, environmental groups, the public, and a number of other governmental agencies. For the reasons described above, the Task Force strongly urges the Board's adoption of the Ordinance. The Task Force commends the County for the transparent process in which the Ordinance was developed. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Mike Mohajer of the Task Force at MikeMohaiera.vahoo.com or (909) 592-1147. Sincerely, 71ta rut C1, Margaret Clark, Vice -Chair Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/ Integrated Waste Management Task Force and Mayor, City of Rosemead PH:kk P:\eppub\EA\EA\TF\TF\Letters\2016\February\CountyEPROrdinance-RequestAdoptionBOS.doc cc: Sachi A. Hamai, Chief Executive Officer Patrick Ogawa, Acting Executive Officer Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (Cynthia Harding, Jeffery Gunzenhauser and Angelo Bellomo) Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (Gail Farber, Shari Afshari and Dan Lafferty) San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments South Bay Cities Council of Governments Gateway Cities Council of Governments Westside Cities Council of Governments Each City Mayor, City Council Member, and City Manager in the County of Los Angeles Each Member of the Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Task Force Los Angeles county rnarmaceuticais ana snarps Collection and Disposal Stewardship Ordinance Frequently Asked Questions What is Los Angeles County doing to address pharmaceutical and sharps waste? • On August 11, 2015, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted a motion directing the CEO to work with key County Departments to draft an Ordinance addressing unused/unwanted pharmaceutical and sharps waste. Specifically, the Ordinance would require manufacturers and producers of prescription and nonprescription drugs and sharps to develop product stewardship take -back programs to collect and dispose of unused/unwanted pharmaceutical and sharps waste from County residents. The Board of Supervisors requested the Ordinance to be drafted within 6 months, therefore it is expected that the Ordinance could be considered by the Board at their February 16, 2016 meeting. What Is Product Stewardship? • Product Stewardship, also known as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), is a policy framework that strives for a shared responsibility for end -of -life costs of products, rather than defaulting to local governments to address these costs. In this way, the costs for disposal of hard to manage products are incorporated into the cost of a product, and producers have an incentive to improve the design of those products to make them easier to collect and recycle, less toxic, and more environmentally friendly. Why is this Ordinance needed? • The County recognizes that pharmaceuticals play a critical role in treating diseases and saving lives. However, consumers of pharmaceutical products have limited options for disposal of excess or expired pharmaceutical supplies. The safe disposal of pharmaceutical and sharps waste is a public safety and environmental need that calls for safe, convenient, and sustainable disposal options for residents in Los Angeles County. What has the County done so tar to develop the Ordinance? • As part of the process to develop the most successful and effective Ordinance, the County conducted several stakeholder meetings which included representatives from manufacturers and producers of prescription and nonprescription drugs and sharps, retail associations, pharmacies, hospitals, consumer advocacy groups, environmental organizations, and others. • The County has also reviewed policies from around the world as well as local ordinances developed by Counties in California to identify best practices and incorporate lessons leamed from those programs. Page 1 of 2 Los Angeles county rnarmaceuticals ana snarps Collection and Disposal Stewardship Ordinance Frequently Asked Questions Where else have such policies been implemented? • EPR is gaining ground for many products, and EPR programs for pharmaceuticals have been in operation in Europe, Canada and Mexico for many years. More recently, ordinances have been adopted by several jurisdictions in California, including Alameda, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties as well as King County in the State of Washington. How will this Ordinance be administered? Will it be expensive? • The program would be overseen by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, however manufacturers of the pharmaceuticals and sharps would be responsible for designing, implementing and financing the stewardship program. The County believes there should be shared responsibility for the management of pharmaceutical and sharps waste at the end of their life, rather than relying on local jurisdictions to take sole responsibility to administer and fund collection programs. • Producers are typically able to develop programs to collect their products that are more cost-effective than govemment-funded programs. In areas where such programs have been implemented, the cost of the programs were minimal and not expected to increase the costs for pharmaceuticals. For example, King County, Washington's program is estimated to cost just over $600,000 for the first year (which includes one-time start-up costs), which amounts to 0.054 percent of total pharmaceutical sales in King County. What can Cities do If they want to develop a similar program? Would each City need to develop an Ordinance and complete a separate process to adopt It? • The Ordinance will initially cover the County Unincorporated Communities, however, Los Angeles County serves as the Health Officer for 85 of the 88 cities within the County (with the exception of the Cities of Long Beach, Pasadena, and Vemon). Therefore, those 85 Cities could choose to adopt the County's Ordinance simply by passing a resolution. This would ensure the same safe, convenient, and sustainably financed collection and disposal options are made available to City residents. • Cities could also consider sending letters to Board of Supervisors, adopting resolutions in support of EPR, and/or attending the February 16, 2016 Board meeting at which the County's Ordinance will be considered, in order to express support for the passage of the Ordinance. Page 2 of 2 i lI n December 15, 2015 Hilda L. Solis, Chair Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street, Room 383 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Ll Los Angeles Cc)unt\• Division I cagui •'I-(; ahfurnia CDi1 >e fln Via Fax: (213) 613-1739 RE: Los Angeles County Pharmaceuticals and Sharps Collection and Disposal Stewardship Ordinance — NOTICE OF SUPPORT Dear Supervisor Solis: The Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities(Division) supports the drafting and adoption of Los Angeles County's Pharmaceuticals and Sharps Collection and Disposal Stewardship Ordinance. The proposed ordinance would require the development of Stewardship Plans to address the collection and disposal of unwanted/unused pharmaceuticals and sharps waste generated by residents. The ordinance establishes a sustainably-financed program that will provide residents with a convenient means to safely dispose of unwanted sharps and pharmaceuticals and help to prevent them from entering the environment, reduce their availability for drug abuse and misuse, and reduce injuries associated with sharps being improperly disposed. With access to safe and convenient disposal options, as well as a robust outreach and education program residents will be more informed of the appropriate collection and disposal methods. We understand the County has conducted multiple stakeholder meetings which included representatives from the manufacturers and producers of these materials, retailers, pharmacies, consumer advocacy groups, environmental organizations, waste hauling industry, and others in order to develop the most effective ordinance. The passage of this ordinance would ensure that manufacturers and producers of prescription and nonprescription drugs and sharps share in the responsibility of proper disposal of their products. The Division supports this shared responsibility approach as the costs of managing these materials at the end of their life should not solely come from local jurisdictions. 2015-16 OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS ('RESIDENT CAROL CHEN CERRITOS VICE PRESIDENT MICHEAL O'LEARY CULVER CITY SECRETARY JESS TALAMANTES BURBANK TREASURER MICUEL CANALES ARTESIA STATE LEAGUE. DIRECTOR OWEN NEWCOMER \VHITTIER IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT STEVEN LY ROSEMEAD REGIONAL DIRECTORS ARROYO VERDUGO CITIES LAURA FRIEDN1AN GLENDALE CITY OF LOS ANGELES JOHN WICKHAM LOS ANGELES GATEWAY CITIES COO LARRY FORESTER SIGNAL HILL LAS VIRGENES-MALIBU COQ BRAD HALPERN \VESTLAKE VILLAGE SAN GABRIEI. VALLEY COG SAM PEDROZA CLAREMONT SAN FERNANDO VALLEY COG EMILY GADEL-LUDDY BURBANK SOUTH RAY CITIES COG BEA DIERINCER ROLLING HILLS W ESTSIDE CITIES COG DR. WILLIE BRIEN BEVERLY HILLS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JENNIFER QUAN Again, the Los Angeles County Division supports the adoption of this ordinance so that our residents have access to safe, convenient, and sustainably-financed collection and disposal methods of pharmaceuticals and sharps. Thank you for your consideration. Should you have any further questions, please contact Kristine Guerrero at kguerrero@cacities.org. Sincerely, Carol Chen President, Los Angeles County Division, League of California Cities Mayor, City of Cerritos cc: Supervisor Mark Ridley -Thomas, Fax (213) 680-3283 Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, Fax (213) 625-7360 Supervisor Don Knabe, Fax (213) 626-6941 Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, Fax (213) 974-1010 Sachi A. Hamai, Chief Executive Officer, shamai@ceo.lacounty.gov Angelo J. Bellomo, EPR Working Group, abellomo@ph.lacounty.gov Kristine Guerrero, Los Angeles County Division, LOCC, kguerrero@cacities.org