City Council Agenda 07-11-2016CITY 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 S`h day of July, 2016, I serve the within
City Council Meeting - 07/11/2016
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
City Attorney
CouncilMembers
Dieringer, Pieper,
Black, Mirsch and Wilson
DELIVERED
City Manager
City Council
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 gih day of July, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California.
Ewa Nikodem
Administrative Assistant
MINUTES OF
A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, JULY 11, 2016
CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Dieringer
at 7:04 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembcrs Present:
Councilmembers Absent:
Others Present:
Black , Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Dieringer. Arrived at 7:27p.m.
None.
Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager.
Mike Jenkins, City Attorney.
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director.
Terry Shea, Finance Director.
Heidi Luce, City Clerk.
Jill Smith, Former Planning Commissioner.
Hal Light, Attorney (Hassoldt).
Gary Wynn, Wynn Engineering.
Howard Weinberg, Attorney (Nuccion).
Sid Croft, Attorney (RHCA).
Captain Dan Beringer, LASD, Lomita Station.
Sgt. Tony Blanchard, LASD, Lomita Station.
OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
None
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.
B.
Minutes - Regular Meeting of June 27, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
Payment of Bills.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as
presented. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
Special Presentation to Jill Smith in recognition of her service
to the community as Member of Planning Commission from 2007-2016
Mayor Dieringer presented a plaque to Jill Smith in appreciation of her service as a member of the
Planning Commission for nearly 10 years and thanked her for her dedication and service to the
Community.
Ms. Smith thanked the City Council for the recognition and stated that she enjoyed serving on the
Planning Commission. She urged the City Council to continue to preserve this special community.
COMMISSION ITEMS
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-15 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT,
DETACHED GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, STABLE, SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA,
RETAINING WALLS AND NEW DRIVEWAY; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE, DETACHED GARAGES, AND STABLE WITH LOFT;
AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED MAXIMUM PERMITTED AVERAGE HEIGHT OF
RETAINING WALLS AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT
DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5 PINE TREE LANE, (LOT 94-RH),
(SHARNG) AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRAFFIC
COMMISSION TO APPROVE A NEW DRIVEWAY APRON
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz
reviewed the applicant's request to construct a new residence and other amenities at 5 Pine Tree Lane. She
stated that after review and several changes to the original proposal, the Planning Commission approved
the request, which includes a new driveway off of Pine Tree Lane and further to the north than the existing
driveway. She stated that the Traffic Commission reviewed the originally proposed driveway apron as for
sight visibility and traffic safety and recommended approval but the applicant has since revised the
driveway approach in response to comments from a neighbor and in order to retain some existing Pine
trees; but the revisions have not yet been reviewed by the Traffic Commission. She stated that the Traffic
Commission will review the revised driveway apron at its next meeting and its recommendation will be
forwarded to the City Council. She further stated that the existing driveway apron will be retained because
it also serves the property at 3 Pine Tree Lane, but access to the house at 5 Pine Tree from the existing
apron will be eliminated.
She stated that during the proceedings, the Planning Commission heard general objections from the
previous property owner of 3 Pine Tree Lane who was primarily concerned about the impact the
development would have on the common driveway; but that concern was alleviated when it was realized
that access to 3 Pine Tree Lane would remain. There were no further concerns raised by that individual.
She further stated that following the sale of 3 Pine Tree Lane, the new property owner sent an c -mail to
staff, which is included with this staff report, objecting in general to the project and subsequently came to
City Hall to review the plans. She stated that the property owner at 10 Pine Tree Lane also expressed
concern that the silhouette could be seen from their property and submitted photographs, which are also
included with the staff report. She stated that also included with the staff report is a letter from the
property owner regarding the project and her correspondence and contact with the new property owner at
3 Pine Tree Lane.
She further reviewed the project including the grading and development standards which are all within the
Code requirements with the exception of the walls, which require a variance because they exceed the 2.5
ft. average and the disturbance, which also requires a variance.
In response to Councilmember Mirsch regarding the correspondence from the new property owner at 3
Pine Tree Lane, Planning Director Schwartz stated that is it her understanding that he acquired the
property before the Planning Commission approved the project but did not attend any Planning
Commission meetings. In response to Mayor Dieringer, City Attorney Jenkins stated that the City Council
may not extend its opportunity to take this case under jurisdiction; but if the City Council chooses not to
take this case under jurisdiction, the case may still be appealed.
General discussion ensued concerning the disturbance, the set aside area for the stable and corral and the
driveway access to 3 Pine Tree Lane. Mayor Pro Tem Black arrived and took his place at the dais.
Following discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council receive and file Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2016-15 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 901
at 5 Pine Tree Lane and accept the Traffic Commission's recommendation to approve the new driveway
approach. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
07-11-16
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZONING CASE NO. 880 -REVISED. REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
VARIANCES FOR A 300 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION OF WHICH 61 SQUARE FEET
ENCROACHES UP TO 5.2' INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND THE ROOF
OVERHANG ENCROACHES 3.8' INTO THE SIDE SETBACK BEYOND THE MAXIMUM
OF 5' ENCROACHMENT ALLOWED; TO PROVIDE LESS THAN THE MINIMUM
REQUIRED 4' -WIDE WALKWAY ALONG A PORTION OF THE PERIMETER OF THE
RESIDENCE ADDITION AND TO CONSTRUCT A 6' HIGH RETAINING WALL IN SIDE
SETBACK. PREVIOUS PROPOSAL WAS PUBLICLY REVIEWED AT THE CITY COUNCIL
FIELD TRIP MEETING TO THE SITE ON OCTOBER 26, 2015 AND AT THE REGULAR
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON OCTOBER 26, 2015 AND NOVEMBER 9, 2015. THE
PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD, (LOT 78-RH), ROLLING
HILLS, CA IN THE RAS-I ZONING DISTRICT, (HASSOLDT). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT
FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO
SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 EXEMPTION GUIDELINES.
Councilmember Pieper recused himself from consideration of this case due to the proximity of his
property to the subject property and left the dais. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for
staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the background on this case stating that this case
was taken under jurisdiction by the City Council following the Planning Commission's approval in
September 2015. She stated that the Planning Commission approved the applicant's request for a 300 sq.
ft. addition of which 61 sq. ft. encroaches into the side yard setback and a variance for a 2 ft. acccss way
with a ramp around the addition. She further reviewed the applicant's request stating that during previous
meeting, the City Council expressed concern regarding the 2 ft. access way and suggested that applicant
address this concem. She stated that since the City Council last heard this matter, several versions of this
project were submitted to staff with submittal of this latest version, the applicant is requesting that the City
Council reconsider its decision to not allow the 2 ft. access way around the addition. She reviewed the
current proposal, which includes a flat 2 ft. walkway around the corner of the addition with a 6 ft. wall,
which is located outside the Association easement but in the setback requires a variance. She stated that
based on the City Council's previous suggestion to create a 4 ft. walkway around the addition, which
would require construction of a wall in the Association easement, the applicant presented the proposal to
the Rolling Hills Community Association. She stated that the proposal was approved by the Association
with conditions, which are unacceptable to the applicant so the applicant is requesting that the City
Council reconsider the mater, and approve the 2 ft. walkway. Planning Director Schwartz noted
corrections to the staff report with regard to the total square footage - addition 342 sq. ft. (not 322); total
residence 3,971 sq. ft (not 3,951); total lot coverage 10,413 sq. ft. (not 10,273) at 28.5% (not 28.2%). Shc
further reviewed the applicant's request stating that all of the other development standards are within the
Zoning Code requirements.
In response to Councilmember Mirsch regarding the assertion in the letter from the applicant that there is
another property that has a less than 4 ft. walkway around the property, Planning Director Schwartz stated
that staff is unaware of such a condition. Mayor Pro Tem Black commented that since he has been on the
City Council, a less than 4 ft. walkway has never been approved.
Mayor Dieringer called for public comment.
Hal Light, Attorney addressed the City Council on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Light distributed copies of
a photograph of the property at 13 Portuguese Bend Road in support of the assertion that there is another
property where a less than 4 ft. walkway exists. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Black, Mr. Light
commented that he does not know when the wall depicted in the photograph was built. With regard to the
applicant's request for a variance to allow the less than 4 ft. walkway, Mr. Light commented that the City
received an e-mail from a Captain at Fire Station 56 indicating that they were okay with the proposed
access. Mr. Light further expressed concern regarding the amount of time this project has taken and urged
the City Council to approve the current proposal given that the area where acccss is only 2 ft. in width is
so small and is now flat instead of the ramped configuration.
Gary Wynn, Wynn Engineering addressed the City Council on behalf of the applicant to further explain
the applicant's revised request stating that he believes this is the best solution for this situation. In
response to Mayor Dieringer, Mr. Wynn commented that in his estimation, 5 ft. of the area would have a 2
ft. walkway. In response to Councilmember Wilson and Mayor Dieringer, Mr. Wynn stated that he
surveyed the property in 2012 for consideration of the purchase of the property and explained the type of
Minutes
City Council Meeting
07-11-16
survey that was completed at that time.
Howard Weinberg, Attorney addressed the City Council on behalf of the property owner at 18 Portuguese
Bend Road and distributed a letter to the City Council. In response to Mayor Dieringer, Mr. Weinberg
explained that the letter included documents relating to the granting of a license agreement from the
RHCA that were just obtained from the Association at 2pm today. Mr. Weinberg commented that the
correspondence shows that applicant could comply with the previous direction to create a 4ft. walkway if
they were willing to accept the conditions outlined by thc Association, but rather they arc coming back
and requesting that the City Council approve a variance to allow a 2 ft. walkway. Mr. Weinberg
commented that he does not believe the City Council can make the findings to grant the variance to allow
the 2 ft. walkway. He further commented that he believes that if the variance is to be considered then the
project would be subject to CEQA review. In response to Mayor Dieringcr, Mr. Weinberg commented that
it would not be appropriate for the Nuccions to contribute monetarily to the condition imposed on the
Hassoldts by the Association.
Mr. Light addressed the City Council in response to the correspondence submitted by Mr. Weinberg to
further explain the Hassoldt's position.
Sid Croft, Attorney addressed the City Council on behalf of the Rolling Hills Community Association to
explain the granting of the license agreement and the conditions that were imposed. In response to Mayor
Dieringcr, Mr. Croft further explained the reasoning behind the conditions.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Dicringer closed the public hearing.
In response to Mr. Light's comment regarding the Station 56 Captain's comments regarding the proposed
2 ft. access Planning Director explained that although the scope of this project did not trigger Fire Dept.
review for Fire Code requirements, the comments by a local Fire Captain are just an opinion and should
not be construed as acceptable or safe. She further commented that were this project of such a scope that it
would trigger Fire Dept. review, the Fire Dept. would require a 5 ft. walkway.
With regard to the CEQA review issue raised by Mr. Weinberg, City Attorney Jenkins stated that staff has
determined this project is categorically exempt and the Supreme Court recently issued an opinion on the
subject of exceptional circumstances concluding that it is very difficult to overcome a categorical
exemption and the objector must prove factually that there is an unusual circumstance warranting further
environmental review. City Attorney Jenkins further commented, with regard to the subject of hardship,
the applicant cannot demonstrate hardship by showing economic hardship and further reviewed the criteria
for granting a variance. Discussion ensued concerning thc applicant's reliance on an old survey and the
original suggestion that the Pine tree be removed. Mayor Dieringer commented that she would not be
supportive of including a condition that the Pine tree be removed. Councilmember Mirsch commented that
she believes the City Council has been very reasonable and has attempted to come to a fair and reasonable
solution but there appears to be inflexibility on the part of he applicant. She further commented that she
still docs not believe the findings can be made to support granting the variance to allow a 2ft. walkway.
Following brief discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council direct staff to prepare a
Resolution approving the variance to encroach into the side yard setback with a portion of the 300 sq. ft.
addition; and denying the request for a variance to provide less than the minimum required 4 If. wide
walkway along a portion of the perimeter of the addition with the findings of fact as discussed and with a
condition that the Pine tree located near the southern property line be removed if the retaining wall is built
in the RHCA easement. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried with Mayor
Dieringer opposed. The public hearing was closed. Councilmember Pieper returned to the dais.
OLD BUSINESS
CONSIDERATION OF AN INCREASE IN THE FY 16/17 BUDGET FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT.
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. City Manager Cruz presented the
staff report and provided an overview of the background on this issue. He stated that thc traffic citation
statistics are included in the staff report and Captain Beringer is present to answer any questions.
Discussion ensued concerning the number of enforcement hours the City currently receives and the cost of
the supplemental traffic enforcement.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
07-11-16
Captain Beringer explained that in addition to traffic enforcement, a benefit of having additional patrol
vehicles in the City is that they also serve as deterrence to crime. Sgt. Blanchard explained the difference
between general patrol hours and supplemental traffic enforcement hours stating that general patrol cars
are in and out of the City at random times and can be called away; whereas, supplemental traffic
enforcement cars are in the City for a fixed amount of time and can be directed to provide whatever type
of patrol the City needs. Discussion ensued concerning enforcement strategies and deployment options.
Further discussion ensued concerning the number of general patrol hours the City has historically received
as compared to the number of supplemental traffic enforcement hours the City has contracted for.
Following further discussion, Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council add 100 hours to the
City's agreement with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. for supplemental traffic enforcement for a
total of 275 hours. Mayor Dieringer seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
NEW BUSINESS
DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE RATE FOR
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS BUILDING PERMIT RELATED FEES.
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Finance Director Shea presented the
staff report and explained the background on this matter stating that this issue has been discussed by the
Finance Committee during the budget preparation process over the last couple of years and is being
brought before the City Council for further discussion. Mr. Shea reviewed the revenue generated from
permit related fees compared to the cost associated with providing those services stating that the expenses
were greater than the revenue generated. He then reviewed a table showing the impact that decreasing the
multiplier would have on revenue stating that decreasing the multiplier by .25% would decrease the
revenue by approximately $50,000. Discussion ensued concerning property tax revenue and the impact
increased property values have on property tax revenue.
Following discussion, Mayor Dieringcr moved that the City Council leave the multiplier rate for building
permit related fees as it currently exists at 2.5%. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which
can-ied with Councilmember Pieper and Mayor Pro Tem Black opposed.
MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
Mayor Pro Tem Black expressed concern that hikers attempt to access the City through the adjacent trail
system and suggested that signs be installed to let hikers know it is private property. City Attorney
Jenkins commented that because it is private property, it would not be a proper public purpose or expense
for the City to install signage.
Councilmember Wilson suggested that when the Sheriff's Dept. is present to address a particular agenda
item that the item be moved earlier on the agenda. He also expressed concern that when Edison replaces
utility poles, they are leaving the other poles in place and the poles contain unsightly markings.
Councilmember Pieper suggested that a SnapChat filter be created for the City of Rolling Hills and stated
that his company could create the filter at no cost to the City. City Attorney Jenkins suggested that
Councilmember Pieper agendize this matter for further discussion if he would like to pursue it.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
City Manager Cruz reminded the City Council that this Thursday, July 14'h, the City is hosting the first
Community Wildfire Protection Plan community meeting at City Hall. Staff was directed to place signs at
the gates to remind residents about the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None.
CLOSED SESSION
None.
M inutes
City Council Meeting
07-11-16
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Dieringer adjourned the meeting at 9:56 p.m.
to the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, July 25, 2016 beginning
at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall. 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
Respectfully submitted,
aitOtattai
Heidi Luce
City Clerk
Approved,
ea Dieringer
Mayor
Minutes
City Council Meeting
07-I1-16
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, JULY 11, 2016 7:00 P.M.
Next Resolution No. 1187 Next Ordnance No. 347
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding the items on the
consent calendar or items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take
place on any items not on the agenda.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may
request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council
Actions.
A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of June 27, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
B. Payment of Bills.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
Special Presentation to Jill Smith in recognition of her service
to the community as Member of Planning Commission from 2007-2016
5. COMMISSION ITEMS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-15 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH A
BASEMENT, DETACHED GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, STABLE,
SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA, RETAINING WALLS AND NEW DRIVEWAY; A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE, DETACHED
GARAGES, AND STABLE WITH LOFT; AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED
MAXIMUM PERMITTED AVERAGE HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS AND TO
EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE
NO. 901 AT 5 PINE TREE LANE, (LOT 94-RH), (SHARNG) AND
Page 1 of 3
CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRAFFIC
COMMISSION TO APPROVE A NEW DRIVEWAY APRON
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ZONING CASE NO. 880 -REVISED. REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
VARIANCES FOR A 300 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION OF WHICH 61 SQUARE
FEET ENCROACHES UP TO 5.2' INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND THE
ROOF OVERHANG ENCROACHES 3.8' INTO THE SIDE SETBACK BEYOND THE
MAXIMUM OF 5' ENCROACHMENT ALLOWED; TO PROVIDE LESS THAN THE
MINIMUM REQUIRED 4' -WIDE WALKWAY ALONG A PORTION OF THE
PERIMETER OF THE RESIDENCE ADDITION AND TO CONSTRUCT A 6' HIGH
RETAINING WALL IN SIDE SETBACK. PREVIOUS PROPOSAL WAS PUBLICLY
REVIEWED AT THE CITY COUNCIL FIELD TRIP MEETING TO THE SITE ON
OCTOBER 26, 2015 AND AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
OCTOBER 26, 2015 AND NOVEMBER 9, 2015. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 15
PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD, (LOT 78-RH), ROLLING HILLS, CA IN THE RAS-1
ZONING DISTRICT, (HASSOLDT). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO
SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 EXEMPTION GUIDELINES.
7. OLD BUSINESS
A. CONSIDERATION OF AN INCREASE IN THE FY 16/17 BUDGET FOR
SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT.
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE RATE
FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS BUILDING PERMIT RELATED FEES.
9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
NONE.
10. MATTERS FROM STAFF
NONE.
11. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
NONE.
12. CLOSED SESSION
NONE.
City Council Agenda
07/11/16 Page 2 of 3
13. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
NONE.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: Monday, July 25, 2016 at 7:00 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
07/11/16 Page 3 of
CHECK CHECK
CO DATE
7/11/2016 - CHECK RUN
Agenda Item No: 4-B
Mtg. Date: 07/11/16
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
PAYEE
24377 07/112016 BLACKBOARD INC.
24378 07/112016 CALPERS-
24379 07/11/2016 CIVICPLUS
24380 07/11/2016 EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC.
24381 07/11/2016 FIRSTBANKCARD
24382 07/11/2016 FOUNTAINHEAD CONSULTING INC.
24383 07/11/2016 GWMA
24384 07/11/2016 LOU'S FLOOR COVERING INC.
24385 07/11/2016 PACIFIC COAST LANDSCAPE
24386 07/112016 ROGERS, ANDERSON, MALODY
24387 07/11/2016 ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
24388 07/11/2016 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
24389 07/11/2016 USCM
24390 07/11/2016 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS -
24391 07/11/2016 WILLDAN INC.
• WIRE 5/192016 WIRE TRANSFER
• WIRE 6/27/2016 WIRE TRANSFER
• TRANS 6/9/2016 TRANSFER
• TRANS 6/21/2016 TRANSFER
• PR LINK 6242016 PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING
• PR LINK 6/24/2016 PR LINK - PAYROLL 13 & PR TAXES
Total
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 3771521
FAX: (310) 377.7288
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
CONNECT GOV STND FY16/17 S 600.00
RETIREMENT JUNE 2016 5,285.83
QUARTERLY FEE FOR HOSTING 3RD 1,382.41
JANITORIAL SR VS JUNE 2016 380.00
OFFICE SUPPLIES TRAINING TIMER 1,056.60
IT CONSULTING JULY 2016 516.00
COST SHARING REG WATER QUALITY 16,042.00
CUSTOM SHUTTERS FINAL PYMT 4,892.50
REPLACE TORO LEAKING VALVE 1,215.00
ACCOUNTING SERVICES MAY 2016 6,855.00
TRAFFIC OFFICER JAN -MARCH 2016 1,684.09
BILLING PERIOD 5/24 - 6/23 1,520.27
457 - PAY PERIOD 7/8/2016 1,530.00
457 - PAY PERIOD 7/8/16 364.00
PROFESSIONAL SRVS THROUGH 5/27 1,395.00
OPUS MONEY MARKET TO LAIF 1,250,000.00
OPUS MONEY MARKET TO PREFERRED BANK 250,000.00
OPUS MONEY MARKET TO CHECKING ACCOUNT 47,000.00
OPUS MONEY MARKET TO CHECKING ACCOUNT 68,000.00
Processing Fee 59.95
Pay Period - June 8, 2016 Through June 21, 2016 18,993.27
S 1,678,771.92
I, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, California ceniry that the above demands
are accurate and there is available in the General Fund a)alance of $1,678,771.92 for the
pa of above items
Raymonjfc. Cruz, City Manager
• Previously Disbursed
44.71830
Printed on Recycled Paper
DRAFT
Agenda Item No. 4-A
Meeting Date: 07/11/16
MINUTES OF
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, JUNE 27, 2016
CALL TO ORDER
An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by
Mayor Dieringer at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling
Hills, California.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Black, Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Dieringer.
Councilmembers Absent: None.
Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager.
Mike Jenkins, City Attorney.
Heidi Luce, City Clerk.
Terry Shea, Finance Director.
Bryan Gruber, LSL CPA's.
Laura Walters, Los Angeles County Fire Dept.
OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
None
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 June 13, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
B. Payment of Bills.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
C. Financial Statement for the Month of May, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
D. Allied Recycling Tonnage Report for May, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
E. RESOLUTION NO. 1186 - A RESOLUTION OF THE'CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS FIXING THE DAY, HOUR AND LOCATION OF REGULAR
CITY COUNCIL METTINGS, ESTABLISHING AN ALTERNATE LOCATION FOR
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS NO. 22 AND 465.
O
DRAFT
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt as presented.
Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as
presented. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
COMMISSION ITEMS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
CONSIDERATION OF A THREE-YEAR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
LANCE, SOLL & LUNGHARD, LLC FOR ANNUAL AUDIT SERVICES.
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Finance Director Shea presented
the staff report recommending that the City Council award a three-year professional services agreement
for annual audit services to Lance, Soll, Lunghard, LLC (LSL). He reviewed the RFP process stating that
a total of six proposals were received. He stated that staff reviewed the proposals and three firms were
selected for interviews with the Finance, Budget, Audit Committee based on their qualifications and price.
He stated that all three firms interviewed well and staff selected LSL based on the fact that their proposal
was for the lowest cost. He reviewed LSL's qualifications stating that the firm currently audits over 60
cites and several special districts; and they have provided good service over the last six years that they
have conducted the City's annual audit.
In response to Councilmember Wilson, Finance Director Shea explained the single audit process.
Councilmember Wilson also asked about the embezzlement situation that arose in the City of Placentia,
which is one of the cities for which LSL provides audit services.
Bryan Gruber, Lance, Soll, Lunghard addressed the City Council in response to Councilmember Wilson's
question regarding the City of Placentia. He explained that LSL began its contract with the City of
Placentia this past year and stated that the City had an accounting manager that began embezzling funds
from the City. He stated that from an audit perspective LSL met its obligations and further explained the
financial statement audit process. He stated that the individual in Placentia embezzled funds from City via
wire transfers through multiple tiers of hiding and altering information; and there was clear intent to cover
those transactions up.
Councilmember Wilson expressed concern that a similar situation could happen in Rolling Hills.
Discussion ensued concerning the policies and procedures that are in place to prevent such an occurrence
Minutes
City Council Meeting
06-27-16
DRAFT
in Rolling Hills. Further discussion ensued concerning the City's process for wire transfers and ACH
transfers. City Manager Cruz stated that to help maintain transparency, the Finance, Budget, Audit
Committee will be involved in the audit process. Mayor Pro Tem Black commented that during the
interviews, he asked these same questions and he feels comfortable that LSL performed the audit correctly
and this fraud was not identified because of the way the records were falsified.
Following discussion, Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council approve and authorize the City
Manager to execute a three-year professional services agreement with Lance, Soil, Lunghard, LLC for
annual audit services. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
With regard to the concern raised regarding potential fraud against the City, staff was further directed to
add wire transfers to the list of checks presented to the City Council at each City Council meeting; and to
schedule a meeting with the Finance/Budget/Audit Committee and the audit firm prior to beginning the
next audit to discuss areas of concern or areas that should be considered in the next audit.
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE FY 2016-17 BUDGET CONCERNING CITY
COUNCIL TRAVEL AND SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT.
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz stated that the
FY 16-17 budget was adopted in June and at that time, staff was directed to return with additional
information regarding two potential budget adjustments relating to City Council conference/travel and
supplemental traffic enforcement. He stated that if the City Council wishes to increase funding for either
item, such an adjustment could be accomplished by using funds from the contingency account or through
a reduction in another budget line item.
Discussion ensued concerning the item related to increasing the budget for City Council conference/travel
expenses and whether or not there is value in expending funds in that area. Councilmember Mirsch
commented that in some instances there is value in the conferences, specifically for new Councilmembers,
but conferences should be evaluated based on the relevancy of the topics being presented. Councilmember
Wilson concurred. Mayor Dieringer commented that she finds great value in attending these conferences
to learn about potential issues that may impact the City and takes her own personal vacation time to
attend. Further discussion ensued concerning historical spending for City Council conference/travel
expenses. Councilmember Mirsch suggested that the conference/travel amount be left as budgeted and if a
conference arises that would be beneficial, then it could be adjusted later on an individual basis if
necessary. Following further discussion, the City Council decided to leave the item as originally budgeted
with the understanding that it may be amended if a conference arises that would be beneficial based on the
relevance of the agenda topics.
Discussion then ensued concerning the item related to increasing the budget for supplemental traffic
enforcement. City Manager Cruz stated that this item is before the City Council as a recommendation
from the Traffic Commission that the hours for supplemental traffic enforcement be increased back to 350
hours. Councilmember Wilson commented that in addition to the goal of increasing traffic safety,
additional patrol cars in the City can also serve as a deterrent to crime as well as address other issues that
arise. He further commented that the Traffic Commission regularly hears complaints from residents
regarding speeding on Crest Road and Portuguese Bend Road as well as other traffic safety concerns. He
stated that he believes that having additional dedicated hours from the Sheriff's Dept. is valuable in
Minutes
City Council Meeting
06-27-16
DRAFT
addressing public safety. Discussion ensued concerning the hours of patrol that the City receives from the
Sheriff's Dept. as part of the regular contract and whether or not there is value in adding additional hours
for supplemental traffic enforcement. Further discussion ensued concerning options for ways that
supplemental traffic enforcement hours can be deployed and the best ways to increase traffic safety.
Mayor Pro Tem Black commented that he is not opposed to increasing the hours, but there should be a
way to correlate the increased expense for supplemental traffic enforcement with increased traffic safety.
Further discussion ensued concerning other ways for increasing traffic safety including mobile speed
boards and decoy cars.
Following discussion, no action was taken on either budget adjustment. Staff was directed to schedule
further consideration of the budget amendment for supplemental traffic enforcement and to provide
additional information to quantify the benefit of additional enforcement, as well ask the Sheriff's Dept. to
be present at the meeting.
MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE PROGRESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TREES AND
VIEWS AD HOC COMMITTEE. (ORAL REPORT)
Councilmember Pieper reported that the ad hoc committee met again with Richard Colyear and Lynn Gill
on June 23`d and they reached an impasse. The Committee provided a brief overview of the discussion
and stated that the ad hoc committee would like to continue to meet to discuss the matter and further
report back to the City Council.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Dieringer provided an update on the issue regarding water budgets and stated they she and City
Manager Cruz are still working to get the issues addressed.
At the request of several residents, Mayor Pro Tem Black provided a brief summary of pending legislation
that would eliminate anesthesiologists from the VA System and replace them with Nurse Anesthetists and
stated that the residents requested that the City submit a letter in opposition to this change. The City
Council asked Mayor Pro Tem Black to have the concerned residents provide a sample letter regarding
this matter for further consideration.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
City Clerk Luce reported that the proposed dates in July and August don't work for everyone for the joint
meeting between the City Council and Planning Commission so staff will be looking at proposed dates in
September and October.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None.
CLOSED SESSION
Minutes
City Council Meeting
06-27-16
si DRAFT
None.
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Dieringer adjourned the meeting at 8:58 p.m.
to the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, July 11, 2016 beginning
at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Luce
City Clerk
Approved,
Bea Dieringer
Mayor
Minutes
City Council Meeting
06-27-16
seek
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: 07/11/16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR VJ�✓
THROUGH: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER g (J
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2016-15. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE
WITH A BASEMENT, DETACHED GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, STABLE,
SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA, RETAINING WALLS AND NEW DRIVEWAY; A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE, DETACHED
GARAGES, AND STABLE WITH LOFT; AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED MAXIMUM
PERMITTED AVERAGE HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS AND TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5 PINE
TREE LANE, (LOT 94-RH), (SHARNG).
AND
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO APPROVE A NEW
DRIVEWAY APRON
REQUEST, PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AND BACKGROUND
1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide
other direction to staff.
2. The applicant, Ms. Lauren Sharng requested a Site Plan Review for the
construction of a new 5,250 square foot residence, with a 5,250 square foot basement,
1,115 square feet of detached garages (714 and 441 square feet each), 1,445 square feet
covered porches including 520 square feet at the stable, 964 square foot swimming pool
and spa, 50 square foot pool equipment, 300 square foot service yard, 275 square foot
entryway, retaining walls, new driveway, 350 square foot outdoor kitchen, and grading
for a total of 48,150 cubic yards of dirt (11,775 c.y. cut and 11,775 c.y. fill; 12,300 c.y. over -
excavation and 12,300 c.y. re -compaction). The applicant also requests a Conditional
Use Permit to construct an 800 square foot guesthouse, the detached garages, and 1,810
square foot stable with 611 square foot loft; and Variances to exceed the maximum
permitted average height of retaining walls and to exceed the maximum permitted
disturbed area of the lot, at 5 Pine Tree Lane. The existing residence is proposed to be
demolished.
3. Currently the existing driveway apron serves two properties, 3 and 5 Pine Tree
Lane, and at its starting point off of Pine Tree Lane is located in its entirety on 5 Pine
Tree Lane; and it then widens out towards each property. With the new project the
access past the apron to 5 Pine Tree Lane will be abandoned, however, it is a
requirement of the approval that the apron leading to 3 Pine Tree Lane remains intact. A
new driveway will serve 5 Pine Tree Lane. The Traffic Commission recommended
approval of the new apron.
4. The Planning Commission by a vote 4-0 approved the project being satisfied with
the modifications made by the applicant to the project. (Commissioner Kirkpatrick was
absent - however, at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission he voted to
direct staff to bring a Resolution of approval).
The Commissioners found that the project is compatible with the neighborhood, that the
changes made by the applicant were satisfactory and addressed their concern, that the
project promotes equestrian uses in the City, that the project is not crowded or obtrusive
to neighbors, that it corrects access to the property and adjacent property, that the
project to maximum extent practicable utilizes the existing building pad, leaving the
most steeper areas intact and that in general it is an improvement over the existing
conditions on the property.
Together with standard findings of facts and conditions of approval, conditions specific
to this project have been included in the Resolution, such as:
• Ensure that vehicular access to 3 Pine Tree Lane is not impacted by construction
activities.
• Demolish the driveway on 5 Pine Tree Ln, but retain the access (apron) to 3 Pine
Tree Ln over 5 Pine Tree Ln property.
• A new driveway apron off of Pine Tree Lane to be reviewed and approved by the
Traffic Commission.
• Provide photographic evidence of the condition of the common apron and restore
it after construction, if damaged.
• Ensure Best Management Practices for maintenance of the stable and manure
control.
• All utility lines to be placed underground.
• Provide landscaping plan prior to obtaining a grading permit.
• The project is subject to the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Low
Impact Development Ordinance.
5. During the review process concerns were expressed by the Commissioners
regarding the location of the originally proposed tennis court, grading and variances
requested for the tennis court. The applicant withdrew the request for the tennis court
ZC NO. 901 l L�
and has revised the project by decreasing the size of the residence and out of grade
porches. In addition, some of the hardscape and stairs were eliminated to provide more
landscaped areas and a less crowded condition on the building pad.
Several neighbors expressed concerns with the project as well. At the onset of the
proceedings, the neighbor at 3 Pine Tree Lane was concerned with the project in general,
but more specifically with what effect the project will have on their common driveway.
Since that time he sold the property and the new property owner, Mr. Keith Murphy,
submitted two emails, one before he took possession of the property and one afterwards,
also expressing concerns. Following Planning Commission approval, Mr. Murphy
visited City Hall and reviewed the files for this project. Mr. Murphy has corresponded
with staff by email regarding appeal procedures, but as of the writing of this report no
correspondence was received to that effect. In addition, during the field trip the property
owner at 10 Pine Tree Lane expressed concerns that the project will be visible from his
property and that many Pine Trees and other vegetation will be removed. The
correspondence is attached.
Also enclosed is a letter to the City Council from Lauren Shrang, the property owner of 5
Pine Tree Lane, received on July 6, 2016. In her letter, Ms. Shrang summarizes the
approval process that she went through and Mr. Murphy's objections. She states that
she offered to meet with him but is unable to arrange a date. She expresses that if Mr.
Murphy appeals the decision of the Planning Commission, it will substantially delay her
project and states that Mr. Murphy did not submit a specific objection, but a general one
to the entire project.
6. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 5.15 acres. The net lot area
is 4.3 acres or 187,196 square feet. The existing property is currently developed with a
single -family residence, garage, and swimming pool, which will be demolished. Access
to the property is taken from a joint driveway approach with 3 Pine Tree Lane.
7. A previous property owner was granted an approval to subdivide the property
into a two -lots. The approval expired on January 12, 2013. In 2004 approval was granted
to separate the driveway access to 3 and 5 Pine Tree Lane and construct two new
driveways, one on each property, however the driveways were not constructed.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
8. The new residence is proposed at 5,250 square feet and the floor level will be
about 10' lower than the existing residence on the lot removing potential view issues
from neighbors. The proposed residence will have a maximum ridge height of 17'6"
above the finished floor, plus 3' high chimneys. Most of the residence has an out of
grade condition. The maximum ridge height of the residence with the out of grade
condition is 19'6" which will be softened by a 2'6" high planter wall on the northwest
corner where the out of grade condition is the most significant. Most of the north face of
the residence except for the front entrance is proposed to have an out -of -grade condition.
ZC NO. 901
The remainder of the residence varies in height above the finished grade between 2.5 to 4
feet.
The garages are proposed to have a maximum ridge height of 14'. The guest house will
have a maximum ridge height of 15'6" above finished floor plus a 3' high chimney. The
stable ridge will be 25' from the finished floor. Viewing from the driveway, the stable
would be below the driveway but the loft is proposed to be 11'4" in height and accessed
from the driveway. As a condition of approval all access areas for the stable including by
the loft will be required to be decomposed granite or other pervious material.
The basement is proposed to be 5,250 square feet and be contained entirely within the
footprint of the new residence with 4 light wells proposed. The residence is proposed on
the shallowest sloped area with a basement being added to increase the residence size
while reducing the footprint. None of the proposed structures are in setbacks or
easements.
9. The lot drains to the north of the property and the run-off from the proposed
structures is proposed to be collected in underground pipes that will flow into a 360
square foot bio-filtration unit with maximum 3' high walls, which will filter the water
and disperse into a dissipater, located just below it with maximum 4' high walls.
10. The applicant is proposing a new driveway off of Pine Tree Lane. Per the Fire
Department requirement, the driveway will be 20' wide and include a turn -around area
to accommodate fire truck access. The proposed driveway is 10,400 square feet of which
8.1% is in the front setback and complies with Section 17.16.150B that states that
driveways shall not cover more than 20% of the area of the setback in which they are
located and the Traffic Commission reviewed the driveway access at their May 26th
meeting and recommended approval. Since that time the applicant proposes to move the
driveway further north, approximately 20 feet, in order to retain one or two Pine Trees.
The Traffic Commission will review this access at their July 23rd meeting and staff will
report their recommendations to the City Council afterwards. Meanwhile, the originally
approved driveway apron stays. An 850 square foot guest parking pad is proposed in
front, but below the residence, and adjacent to the circular driveway. The front of the
house will be accessed by stairs from the guest parking.
11. The applicant is proposing a 3' to 5' high maximum retaining walls along the
entire perimeter of the building pad. A 3' high max retaining wall along the northern
portion of the driveway is proposed and a 4' high maximum wall is proposed along the
guest parking area. A 3'-5' high retaining wall is proposed along the southern perimeter
of the building pad. The walls will not average out to 2.5' in height, and the applicants
requests a variance.
12. An 800 square foot guest house is proposed. Section 17.16.210 (A) (5) of the Zoning
Ordinance contains conditions for a guest house, subject to approval of a conditional use
permit. These conditions, listed below, are intended to ensure that such structures are
ZC NO. 901
ancillary uses, do not eliminate an existing or future development for a stable and are
not converted to other than permitted uses.
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Shall not exceed eight hundred square feet
Art 800 square foot guest house is
proposed.
Shall not be located in the front yard or any
setback.
The guest house is not in the
front yard or any setback.
A kitchenette and sanitary facility consisting of
a shower, sink and toilet shall be permitted.
Applicantof p 1poses to meetdltion the
requirement
No vehicular access or paved parking area
shall be developed within fifty feet of the guest
house.
The driveway is more than fifty
feet away.
Occupancy of the guest house shall be limited
to persons employed on the premises, the
immediate family of the occupants of the main
This is a standard condition of
approval.
residence or by the temporary guests of the
occupants of the main residence. No
temporary guest may remain in occupancy for
more than thirty days in any six-month period.
Renting of a guest house is prohibited.
This is a standard condition of
approval.
13. Two detached garages are proposed (714 square feet and 441 square feet). Section
17.16.210 (A)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a detached garage(s),
subject to approval of a conditional use permit. These conditions, listed below, are
intended to ensure that such structures are ancillary uses, do not eliminate an existing or
future development for a stable and are not converted to other than permitted uses.
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Shall not be located in the front yard or
any setback
Not located in front yard or setback
A sink and toilet are permitted
Not proposed
A kitchen or kitchenette shall not be
permitted
Not proposed
No sleeping quarters or renting of the
structure shall be permitted
Standard condition
The Planning Commission shall have the
ability to limit the size of the detached
garage in relationship to the size of the
residence, topography, size of the lot and
other conditions
Planning Commission did not require
smaller size.
ZC NO. 901
14. A 1,810 square foot stable is proposed with a 611 square foot loft above that will
be accessed directly from the main driveway. Two 260 square foot attached porches on
either end of the stable are also proposed (total porches 520 square feet). Pedestrian
access to the lower stable area will be provided via stairway south of the stable, and for
horses from the lower corral area north of the stable, via a 10' wide path extending
directly from the driveway and which will have decomposed granite surface. The corral
is proposed at 3,900 square feet. A 100 square foot open horse wash rack is also
proposed in the south-eastern most portion of the corral area. A 5' high maximum
retaining wall runs the perimeter of the corral.
Pursuant to the zoning code requirements the following is applicable to this request:
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Minimum 6' wide access with roughened
surface '
10 'wide access -way joining existing
driveway with roughened surface (not
paved)
Stable, corral not to be located on slopes
greater than 4:1
Grading with 5' retaining wall; 1,450
cubic yards (550 cy cut; 900 cy. fill)
Not in front yard or side or front setback.
May be located up to 25' in rear setback.
Not proposed in any setback
Stable min. 35' from any residential structure
Proposed stable more than 35' from
any residential structure.
Stable building to be designed for rural and
agricultural uses only, but may include storage
for vehicles, household items
Stable is proposed with 5 stalls, tack
space that is 15.5% of the structure, an(
a 611 square foot feed/ loft area, all
designed for rural and agricultural
uses.
Size to include the entire footprint including
loft, if any
Ground floor (1,810 sf.):
1,010 sf. stalls; 425 sf center aisle; 375 sf
tack room
Loft (611 sf.) - feed/hay storage area
Minimum of 60% shall be maintained for
agricultural uses
Agricultural uses 84.5%
Maximum of 40% not to exceed 800 s.f. may be
maintained for a tack room use
Tack use area comprises 375 sf. or
15.5%
Includes tack room/storage &
bathroom
Tack area may have sanitary and kitchen
amenities
Bathroom proposed; no kitchen
Tack area may have glazed openings
Will install
Agricultural space entry doors to be min. 4'wide
& 7.5' high; appearance of a stable door
Shall be a condition of approval.
Loft is permitted
Loft; proposed for feed/hay storage
Loft plate height may not exceed 7'
The total height of the structure at its
ZC NO. 901
highest peak is proposed to be 25' with
a 7' plate height shown for the loft.
(Plate heights per condition of
approval.)
Exterior area of stables may not to be paved
Dirt or D.G. (condition of approval)
Corral minimum 550 sf.; fenced and contiguous
to stable. (Planning Commission may determine
the size of a corral)
Proposed 3,900 sq. ft. corral enclosed
with 5' high maximum retaining walls
Access slope not to exceed 25%
From main driveway at 16% maxim=
slope
Commercial uses or sleeping is not allowed
Applicant is not proposing any
commercial uses or sleeping in the
stable
The applicant must comply with all other requirements of Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to stables, as well as to all other regulations including, but not be
limited to undergrounding of utility lines to the structures, lighting, roof material, Fire
Department requirements and others.
15. The proposed disturbed area will be 45.2%, which exceeds the maximum allowed
disturbance of 40% (Municipal Code 17.16.070B). The project does not qualify for greater
than 40% disturbance, as the resulting slopes will not be less than 2:1 grade. Grading for
this project is proposed to be 11,775 cubic yards of cut and 11,775 cubic yards of fill,
12,300 cubic yards of over -excavation, and 12,300 cubic yards of recompaction and will
be balanced on site. The cut/excavation is for the guest house, driveway, front of the
lot, north horse access, and south portion of the lot primarily, and 1,300 cubic yards is for
the basement excavation. The fill is primarily for the north side of the house, the
driveway, and southwest corner of the area behind the new driveway approach, and
12,300 cubic yards recompaction. The stable pad has a total cut of 550 cubic yards, and
900 cubic yards of fill.
16. There are two building pads proposed. The residential building pad is proposed
at 44,100 square feet and will have coverage of 9,344 square feet or 21.2% with allowed
deductions, (previously with the tennis court -38.6%). The stable pad is proposed at 5,720
square feet with 2,149 square feet of coverage or 37.6% with allowed deductions.
17. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 12,279 square feet or 6.56% with
allowed deductions (previously with tennis court - 10.7%), (20% max. permitted); and
the total lot coverage is proposed at 29,074 square feet or 15.5%, (previously with tennis
court -20.8%), (35% max. permitted).
18. In describing the criteria to be satisfied for a variance to exceed the maximum
permitted disturbance and walls that exceed 2.5' average height the applicant states: the
existing house on the property is located partially in the setback and has structures in the
easement. The proposed project complies with development standards and moves all proposed
ZC NO. 901
existing house on the property is located partially in the setback and has structures in the
easement. The proposed project complies with development standards and moves all proposed
structures out of setbacks and more centrally on the lot, including the residence, which creates a
large front yard. Every effort has been made to keep the development centrally located on one
main pad to further limit the increase in disturbance. The disturbed area is proposed to be above
the development standards due to the existing topography of the site. The lot is sloped in nature
and in order to provide a building pad that meets the development guidelines, additional grading
and disturbance is required; the proposed retaining walls will help to limit this disturbance.
However, a variance is required due to their average height. When looking at the breakdown of
site disturbance, approximately 15% of the overall disturbance comes from equestrian uses, (i.e.
the stable and corral), and if these items were not being proposed the development would not
require a variance for disturbed area. The applicant believes that the addition of these equestrian
facilities help to further the City of Rolling Hills as an equestrian community and therefore the
variance should be granted. At the recommendation of the Planning Commission, alternative lot
configurations were also analyzed however the number of walls and disturbance was lowest
with the currently proposed plan
19. Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date.
20. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission must
consider whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review,
Conditional Use Permit and Variances, and must find that the proposed uses are
consistent with the General Plan and development standards of the City, including
provision for open space and maintaining rural environment and that the uses will not
adversely affect adjacent properties.
21. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ZC NO. 901
Zoning Case No. 901
SITE PLAN REVIEW
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED
PROPOSED -PC APPROVED
RA -S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS
NEW RESIDENCE WITH
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES,
DETACHED GARAGES,
STABLE/LOFT
NEW RESIDENCE WITH
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES,
DETACHED GARAGES,
STABLE/LOFT
Front: 50 ft. from front easement line
Side: 35 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from rear easement line
STRUCTURES
Residence
Basement
Garage attached
Garage detached
Pool/spa
Pool Equip.
Guest House
Stable
Loft for Stable
Recreation Court
Att. Cov. Porches
Entryway
Service yard
Outdoor Kitchen
5,975 sq.ft.
5,000 sq.ft.
714 sq.ft.
441 sq.ft.
1,152sq.ft.
50 sq.ft.
800 sq.ft
1,810 sq.ft
611 sq.ft
7,000 sq.ft
1,360 sq.ft.
100 sq.ft.
300 sq.ft
460 sq.ft.
Residence
"Basement
Garage detached
Garage detached
Pool/spa
Pool Equip.
Guest House
Stable
"Loft for Stable
Att. Cov. Porches
Entryway
Service yard
Outdoor Kitchen
5,250 sq.ft.
5,250 sq.ft.
714 sq.ft.
441 sq.ft.
964 sq.ft.
50 sq.ft.
800 sq.ft
1,810 sq.ft
611 sq.ft
1,445 sq.ft.
275 sq.ft.
300 sq.ft
350 sq.ft.
(Site Plan Review required if size of
structure increases by at least 1,000
sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing
the size of the structure by more than
25% in a 36 -month period).
TOTAL
20,162 sq.ft
TOTAL
12,399sq.ft
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE
20,042 sf w/allowances 10.7% of
187,196 sq.ft. net lot area
12,279 sf w/allowances 6.56% of
187,196 sq.ft. net lot area
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
39,002 w/allowances or 20.8% of
187,196 sq.ft. net lot area
29,074 w/allowances or 15.53% of
187,196 sq.ft. net lot area
(35% maximum)
BUILDING PADS (30% guideline)
38.6% of 44,100 sq.ft. pad
37.6% of 5,720 sq.ft pad
21.2% of 44,100 sq.ft. pad
37.6% of 5,720 sq.ft pad
Residential
Stable
GRADING
12,745 cy cut, 12,745 cy fill,
10,300 cy overexcavation, 10,300
cy recompaction = balanced on
site.
11,775 cut, 11,775 cy fill, 12,300 cy
overexcavation, 12,300 cy
recompaction = balanced on site.
Site Plan Review required if
excavation and/or fill or combination
thereof that is more than 3 feet in
depth and covers more than 2,000
sq.ft.) must be balanced on site.
DISTURBED AREA
45.2% (84,550 sq. ft.)
45.2% (84,550 sq. ft.)
(40% maximum; any graded building
pad area, any remedial grading
(temporary disturbance), any graded
slopes and building pad areas, and
any nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist.)
STABLE (min. 450 SO.FT.
1,810 sq. ft. with 611 sq. ft. loft-
3,900 sq. ft.
1,810 sq. ft. with 611 sq. ft. loft-
3,900 sq. ft.
& 550 SO.FT. CORRAL)
STABLE ACCESS
Proposed from Residence Pad
Proposed from Residence Pad
ROADWAY ACCFSS
New off Pine Tree Lane
New off Pine Tree Lane
VIEWS
Planning Commission condition
Planning Commission condition
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Planning Commission condition
Planning Commission condition
"Loft for stable and basement are not included in the calculations for structural coverage
ZC NO. 901
NEARBY PROPERTIES (For information only)
Address
House size in
sq.ft.
Lot Area (gross
acres)
1 Pine Tree
*6,516
4.66
2 Pine Tree
*6,211
2.24
3 Pine Tree
*4,674
5.13
4 Pine Tree
*8,961
4.38
6 Pine Tree
6,148
1.31
7 Pine Tree
3,912
5.64
8 Pine Tree
2,812
2.23
10 Pine Tree
3,253
2.49
23 Portuguese Bend Road
*3,348
2.42
2 Pheasant Lane
5,651
5.0
Average
5,149
3.9
5 Pine Tree Lane
5,250 Proposed
5.15
NOTE: The above do not include garages, basements or accessory structures.
SOURCES: Assessors' records * City address file records
The following table lists stables /sizes approved since 2011
Location
Square Feet / No. of Stories
11 Blackwater Cyn. Rd.
890 sq. ft. one story
5 Buggy Whip
890 sq. ft. one story
0 Chestnut
900 sq. ft. one story
9 Chuckwagon Rd.
1,296 sq. ft. first floor / 792 sq. ft. loft
2,088 sq.ft. total
10 Crest Rd. W.
735 sq. ft. first floor / 453 sq. ft. Loft
1,188 sq.ft. total
49 Eastfield
600 sq. ft. one story
12 Johns Cyn. Rd.
735 sq. ft. one story
3 Meadowlark
480 sf. first floor / 360 sf. loft
840 sq.ft. total
29 Middleridge Rd. S.
2,160 sq. ft. first floor / 800 sf. loft with
center aisle; 2,960 sq.ft. total
6 Portuguese Bend Rd.
450 sq. ft. one story
77 Crest Rd. E
3,456 sq. ft. first floor/ 235 sq.ft. loft wilt
center isle; 3,691 sq.ft. total
1 Pine Tree Lane
2,976 sq. ft. one story
11 Saddleback
2,415 sq. ft. with 625 sq. ft. loft with
center isle; 3,040 sq.ft. total
34 Saddleback Rd.
Proposed 976 sq.ft. - one story
5 Pine Tree Lane
1,810 sq. ft. with 611 sq. ft. loft;
2,421 sq.f.t total
ZC NO. 901
-10-
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
11.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit.
The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit
application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is
consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the
provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find
that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards:
A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan;
B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and
structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially
detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures;
C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to
accommodate the use and buildings proposed;
D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development
standards of the zone district;
E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities;
F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title.
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
11.46.010 Purpose.
The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain
development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is
consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive
grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the
scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise
preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills.
11.46.050 Required findings.
A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application.
B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the
Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made:
1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and
policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as
maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing
buildable area of the lot;
3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the
natural terrain and surrounding residences;
4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the
greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
ZC NO. 901 11-
5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site
and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area;
6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect
drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature
trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible
with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or
transition area between private and public areas;
8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and
safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and
9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal)
must make the following findings:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone;
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied
the property in question;
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling
Hills.
SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance
ZC NO. 901
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH
A BASEMENT, DETACHED GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES,
STABLE, SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA, RETAINING WALLS AND
NEW DRIVEWAY; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A
GUEST HOUSE, DETACHED GARAGES, AND STABLE WITH LOFT;
AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED MAXIMUM PERMITTED AVERAGE
HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5
PINE TREE LANE, (LOT 94-RH), (SHARNG).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Ms. Lauren Sharng to request a
Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 5,250 square foot residence, with a 5,250
square foot basement, 1,115 square feet of detached garages (714 and 441 square feet
each), 1,445 square feet covered porches including 520 square feet at the stable, 964
square foot swimming pool and spa, 50 square foot pool equipment, 300 square foot
service yard, 275 square foot entryway, retaining walls, new driveway, 350 square foot
outdoor kitchen, and grading for a total of 48,150 cubic yards of dirt (11,775 c.y. cut and
11,775 c.y. fill; 12,300 c.y. over -excavation and 12,300 c.y. re -compaction). The applicant
also requests a Conditional Use Permit to construct an 800 square foot guesthouse, the
detached garages, and 1,810 square foot stable with 611 square foot loft; and Variances
to exceed the maximum permitted average height of retaining walls and to exceed the
maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings
to consider the application at their regular meeting on April 19, 2016 and in the field on
May 17, 2016 and continued to the evening meeting of May 17, 2016. Neighbors within
1,000 -foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in the
Peninsula News on April 7, 2016 and May 5, 2016. The applicants and their agents were
notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and the applicant and her
agents were in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard and presented from all
persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff. Four
residents visited the site during the noticed field trip on May 17, 2016. During the first
public hearing on April 19, 2016, the Planning Commissioners expressed concerns with
the project and specifically the crowding of the structures on the building pad, the long
driveway and walls, grading, and the proposed tennis court in the front yard area. The
project was revised to eliminate the tennis court, the size of the residence was reduced
from 5,975 square feet with a 5,000 square foot basement to 5,250 square feet with a
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
5,250 square foot basement, the porches were increased to 1,445 square feet from 1,260
square feet, the pool/spa was reduced to 964 square feet from 1,152 square feet, the 275
square feet entryway was increased from 100 square feet, and the outdoor kitchen was
reduced to 350 square feet from 460 square feet. The loft in the stable was increased
from 481 square feet to 611 square feet. The applicant withdrew the application for a
CUP and several Variances for the previously proposed tennis court. The applicants
have also removed the previously proposed two bathrooms in the guest house (and are
now proposing one bathroom which complies with the Municipal Code), an out of
grade porch at the north-west corner of the house has been decreased and some of the
hardscape and stairs to provide more landscaped areas and a less crowded condition on
the building pad. The Planning Commission has reviewed, analyzed and studied said
revised proposal.
Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 5.15 acres.
The net lot area is 4.3 acres or 187,196 square feet. The existing property is currently
developed with a single -family residence, garage, and swimming pool, which will be
demolished. Access to the property is taken from a joint driveway approach with 3 Pine
Tree Lane. A Condition of Approval is for the applicant to abandon their portion of the
joint driveway once their new driveway is constructed and remove the concrete, but
retain the access serving 3 Pine Tree Lane.
Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (new
construction of single family residence and accessory structures), and Section
15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption) of the CEQA guidelines.
Section 5. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for
Site Plan Review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any
new building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or
repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an
increase to the size of the building or structure by not more than 999 square feet in any
thirty-six (36) month period. The grading for the structures (new residence, garages,
swimming pool, guest house, and stable) require Site Plan Review due to the fact that
they are new structures and per Zoning Code 17.46.020.A-2. The pool requires a Site
Plan Review due to the grading required for it under Zoning Code 17.46.020.A.2(a) and
the size, and the retaining walls require a Site Plan Review due to their height being
over 3' in height and over 2.5' average.
With respect to the Site Plan for grading and the proposed structures the Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the
Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with
the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with
sufficient open space between surrounding structures and maintaining sufficient
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
14 2
setbacks to provide buffers between residential uses. Although the disturbed area
exceeds the maximum permitted amount of 40% at 45.2%, a large portion of it is for the
proposed 1,810 square foot stable with 611 square foot loft (which requires a
Conditional Use Permit), and the associated 3,900 square foot corral along with the long
driveway that is needed to accommodate horse trailers. The stable and corral promote
the rural, equestrian aesthetic of Rolling Hills. None of the structures are in setbacks.
The project conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements, except for disturbance.
The net lot area of the lot is 187,196 square feet. The structural net lot coverage is
proposed at 12,279 square feet or 6.56%, which includes all of the structures, with
allowance for permitted deductions, (20% max. permitted); and the total lot coverage
proposed, including the driveway would be 29,074 square feet or 15.5%, (35% max.
permitted). The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 45.2%, which exceeds the
maximum allowed disturbance of 40% (Municipal Code 17.16.070B).
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of
the lot by minimizing building coverage. The topography and the configuration of the
lot have been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will
not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or
structures, because the proposed project will be constructed partially on the existing
building pad of the currently developed lot, will be the least intrusive to surrounding
properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, is of sufficient
distance from nearby residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of
surrounding neighbors, and will allow the owners to enjoy their property without
deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. The proposed
project would be located on a gentler slope of the property and leaving the steeper and
more densely vegetated areas in their natural state to the north and northeast, along
with the natural drainage course.
The project promotes equestrian uses, therefore furthering the City's goal to remain an
equestrian community.
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and
mass with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared
to other residences in the vicinity of said lot as the proposed house is 5,250 square feet
and the average in the vicinity is 5,149 square feet. The development plan follows the
natural contours of the site to minimize grading by utilizing a portion of the existing
building pad for the new development. Due to the existing house being located in the
setback and easement it is necessary to move the house and therefore drop the pad
elevation in order to achieve the necessary building pad. The residence is proposed on
the shallowest sloped area with a basement being added to increase the residence size
while reducing the footprint. The slopes being created have been rounded and it was
attempted to mimic the existing slope in the area. The use of retaining walls along the
upper side of the building pad/back yard, stable and driveway has helped to minimize
grading.
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
® 3
D. The development plan will introduce additional landscaping, which is
compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and the
landscaping will provide a buffer or transition area between private and public areas.
There will be some clearing of existing landscaping due to overgrowth and improper
maintenance that has become a fire hazard.
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the new 20'
driveway will be safer to drive on as two cars can safely pass one another. There is
ample parking in the garages and there is a proposed parking pad at the front of the
house, outside of all setbacks, as Pine Tree Lane does not have wide shoulders to park
on so all visitor parking must be contained on site. An adequate driveway is proposed
to safely accommodate horse trailers to the stable and corral area.
Section 6. Sections 17.18.060 and 17.18.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code permit approval of a stable over 200 square feet and corral over 550 square feet
with a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed 1,810 square foot stable with 611 square
foot loft and 3,900 square foot corral comply with all requirements of these sections.
Two detached garages are proposed (714 square feet and 441 square feet). Section
17.16.210 (A)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a detached garage(s),
subject to approval of a conditional use permit. An 800 square foot guesthouse is
proposed. Section 17.16.210 (A)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a
guesthouse, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. All of the detached
structures comply with the provisions and conditions for such structures. With respect
to this request for Conditional Use Permits, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. Conditionally permitted uses are not outright permitted by the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code. The Commission must consider applications for a Conditional
Use Permit and may, with such conditions as are deemed necessary, approve a
conditional use which will not jeopardize, adversely affect, endanger or to otherwise
constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare or be materially
detrimental to the property of other persons located in the vicinity of such use.
B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the stable, corral, detached
garages, and guest house would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the uses are consistent with similar uses in
the community, and meet all the applicable code development standards for a stable
and corral, detached garages, and guesthouse and they are located in areas on the
property that are adequately sized to accommodate such uses. The proposed uses are
appropriately located in that they will be sufficiently separated from nearby structures
used for habitation or containing sleeping quarters. The stable/corral would be
constructed in furtherance of the General Plan goal of promoting and encouraging
equestrian uses. The detached garages are proposed to separate the residential
structures from the stable. The proposed guesthouse in a common amenity to Rolling
Hills.
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
CI4
C. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent structures have been
considered, and the project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to
these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed uses (stable/corral,
detached garages, and guest house) are located in the middle of a 4.3 acre net lot and
their general locations are of sufficient distance from nearby residences so as to not
impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. The proposed stable is to be
located adjacent to the corral and a path designated for equestrian uses that runs from
the stable to the driveway is separate from the other outdoor living areas on the
property and will be comprised of decomposed granite. The loft area of the stable is
directly accessed from the driveway.
D. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural
terrain, and surrounding residences because the proposed uses (stable/corral, detached
garages, and guest house) complies with the low profile residential development
pattern of the community and will not give the property an over -built look, and areas
will remain open and unobstructed. The lot is 4.3 acres net in size and is sufficiently
large to accommodate the proposed uses.
The stable will be compatible with the uses in the surrounding area because
Rolling Hills is an equestrian community and stables are encouraged. The stable will
look like a stable and the 3,900 square foot corral will promote open space on the pad.
The detached garages will be compatible with surrounding uses as they meet the
requirements of the City as well as being proportioned to the house size. They will
function like garages and not a residential structure.
The guest house will be compatible with the uses in the surrounding area
because it will have the same architectural design as the house and is in the rear yard
and is an amenity other residences in Rolling Hills have.
E. The proposed conditional uses (stable/corral, detached garages, and guest
house) complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district and
requires Conditional Use Permits pursuant to Sections 17.18.060, 17.18.090,
17.16.210(A)(4), and 17.16.210(A)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance.
F. The proposed conditional uses are consistent with the portions of the Los
Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting criteria for
hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of
California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List.
Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Code permit approval of
a variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when, due to
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable
to other similar properties in the same zone, strict application of the Code would deny
the property owner substantial property rights enjoyed by other properties in the same
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
vicinity and zone. The applicant seeks a variance from the requirement 17.16.190(F) that
walls not exceed five feet or 2.5 feet in average, and from 17.16.070(B) that disturbance be
limited to 40% of the net lot area. The walls do not exceed 5' high maximum but they do
not average out to 2.5' high and require a variance. The disturbance is proposed at
45.2%, which is higher than the permitted 40% due in large part to the proposed long
driveway. With respect to this request for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as
follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other
property or class of use in the same zone because the existing lot, despite it being over 5
acres gross, has approximately half of its overall area at a slope of 2:1 or steeper and the
remainder undulated and hilly and the lot requires grading in order to create a
sufficient flat area to construct the house and accessory structures. The existing building
pad cannot be utilized in its entirety for the new development, as most of it is located in
the setback. There is a drainage course along the western property line, which must
also be avoided. In order to generate the dirt needed for the pad, it was necessary to
drop the pad and the walls helped to achieve this. However, due to the slope in the rear
of the lot, and no grading allowed in the Association easements, the average wall height
did not average to 2.5'. The majority of the walls will not be visible from the street and
will mainly only be seen by the owner as they will be flanking the residential pad. The
walls for the stable will be visible from the western side. However, there is a steep
slope between the walls and the property line along with existing vegetation, which will
add additional screening for these walls.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance, because the site is
sloped in nature so in order to provide a pad that meets the development standards,
additional grading is required and it was necessary to push the limits of grading farther
out than if the lot did not have as much slope to it. The overage is not significant and
the property owner should not be denied the privilege of a new house because the
topographic nature of the lot makes it infeasible to comply strictly with Section
17.16.170.
The exceedance of the disturbance is due in large part to the proposed driveway.
Any concerns voiced by residents and the Planning Commissioners during the public
hearing were addressed in the revised site plan and during the field visit to the site.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in
which the property is located. A minor increase in the overall percentage of disturbed
area on the lot will have no effect on the public welfare or on property or improvements
in the vicinity and the walls which exceed 2.5' average in height are not in any setbacks
and will not cause any line of sight issues on Pine Tree Lane due to the rows of existing
trees currently in the vicinity.
Reso. 2016-15 , D 6
5 Pine Tree Lane
D. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. To the
contrary, absent a variance, the property owner would be deprived of the same rights
and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. Unique circumstances
applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply
with Section 17.16.070. The minor overage requested will allow the property owner to
enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to many other properties in the vicinity
and zone.
E. The variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous
waste facilities.
F. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed
project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies,
general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and will uphold the City's
goals to protect and promote construction that is rural in nature.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves Zoning Case No. 901 request for a Site Plan Review for the construction
of a new 5,250 square foot residence, with a 5,250 square foot basement, 1,115 square feet
of detached garages (714 and 441 square feet each), 1,445 square feet covered porches
including 520 square feet at the stable, 964 square foot swimming pool and spa, 50
square foot pool equipment, 300 square foot service yard, 275 square foot entryway,
retaining walls, new driveway, 350 square foot outdoor kitchen, and grading for a total
of 48,150 cubic yards of dirt (11,775 c.y. cut, 12,300 c.y. over excavation, and 11,775 c.y.
fill, and 12,300 c.y. re -compaction); Conditional Use Permit to construct an 800 square
foot guesthouse, the detached garages, and 1,810 square foot stable with 611 square foot
loft; and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted average height of retaining walls
and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. With the proposed
grading, the disturbed area of the lot would be 45.2% subject to the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan, Conditional Use Permits, and Variances approvals shall
expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections
17.46.080, 17.42.070, and 17.38.070 unless otherwise extended pursuant to the
requirements of these sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of this approval that if any conditions
thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted
thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease
such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has
been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of
thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination.
C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning
Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied
with unless otherwise set forth in this permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan.
Reso. 2016-15 7
5 Pine Tree Lane 1 Iii 1
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with
the site plan on file dated May 10, 2016 except as otherwise provided in these conditions.
The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan
check review shall conform to the approved development plan. All conditions of the Site
Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance approvals shall be incorporated into
the building permit working drawings, and where applicable complied with prior to
issuance of a grading or building permit from the building department.
The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto building plans
submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times.
Any modifications and/or changes to the approved project, including resulting from field
conditions, shall be discussed and approved by staff prior to implementing the changes.
E. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to Building and Safety
Department for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted
to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved
by the Planning Commission.
F. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for
Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform
in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth
therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance.
Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this project
shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed
according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith.
G. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 12,279 square feet or 6.56%
of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (20% maximum).
The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork, shall not
exceed 29,074 square feet or 15.5%, of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage
limitations (35% max).
H. Grading for this project shall not exceed 11,775 cubic yards of cut and 11,775
cubic yards of fill; 12,300 cubic yards of over -excavation, and 12,300 cubic yards of
recompaction and shall be balanced on site. The disturbed area of the lot, including the
approved stable and corral shall not exceed 45.2%.
I. The residential building pad is proposed at 44,100 square feet and shall not
exceed coverage of 9,344 square feet or 21.2% with allowed deductions. The stable pad is
proposed at 5,720 square feet and shall not exceed 2,149 square feet of coverage or 37.6%
with allowed deductions.
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
8
J. A new driveway shall be provided per the Fire Department requirements
and the apron of the driveway shall be subject to review and approval by the Traffic
Commission.
Further, the portion of the existing shared driveway with 3 Pine Tree Lane that is
located on the property at 5 Pine Tree Lane shall be abandoned and the concrete removed
once the new driveway off Pine Tree Lane is completed. At no time shall vehicular access
to 3 Pine Tree Lane be- impacted by construction activities at 5 Pine Tree Lane. The
driveway apron serving 3 Pine Tree Lane, but located on 5 Pine Tree Lane shall be
unaffected by this development and shall be available at all times for egress and ingress
to 3 Pine Tree Lane. Photographic evidence of the condition of the shared driveway and
apron with 3 Pine Tree Lane shall be submitted to the Planning Department before any
construction or demolition. Any damage caused to the apron, easements or curbs by
construction activities shall be restored at the expense of the applicant.
K. Access to the stable and to the corral shall be decomposed granite or like
100% pervious roughened material.
L. Only one sanitary facility consisting of a shower, sink, and a toilet and a
kitchenette is permitted in the guesthouse per Section 17.16.210(A)(5)(c).
M. A minimum of four -foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have
to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of all of the proposed
structures, or as otherwise required by the Fire Department.
N. At any time there are horses on the property, Best
Management Practices (BMPs) shall be applied for manure control, including but not be
limited to removal of the manure on a daily basis or provision of a receptacle with a tight
closing lid that is constructed of brick, stone, concrete, metal or wood lined with metal or
other sound material and that is safeguarded against access by flies. The contents of said
receptacles shall be removed once a week. It is prohibited to dispose of manure or any
animal waste into the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), into natural
drainage course or spread on the property.
O. The pool equipment area shall be enclosed and screened with landscaping.
Per LA County Building Code, pool barrier/fencing shall be required.
P. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Lighting Ordinance
of the City of Rolling Hills (RHMC 17.16.190 E), pertaining to lighting on said property,
roofing and material requirements of properties in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone.
Q. All utility lines to the residence, guesthouse, detached garages, and stable
shall be placed underground, subject to all applicable standards and requirements.
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
R. A drainage plan, as required by the Building Department shall be prepared
and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a construction permit. Such plan shall be
subject to LA County Code requirements.
S. All graded slopes shall be landscaped. A landscaping plan shall be
submitted to the City in conformance with Fire Department Fuel Modification
requirements and graded slopes. Prior to finaling the project, trees and shrubs shall be
planted to screen the project from the neighbors. The landscaping shall not form a hedge
like screen but be offset. The height of any new trees and shrubs, to be planted in
conjunction with this project, shall not at any time exceed the ridgeline of the roof of the
structures, which they are screening. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum
extent feasible, plants that are native to the area, are water -wise and are consistent with
the rural character of the community.
The landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance, (Chapter 13.18of the RHMC).
T. The setback lines and roadway easement lines in the vicinity of the
construction for this project shall remain staked throughout the construction. A
construction fence may be required.
U. Perimeter easements, including roadway easements and trails, if any, shall
remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to fences -
including construction fences, any hardscape, driveways, landscaping, irrigation and
drainage devices, except as otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community
Association.
V. Minimum of 50% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted
from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City's Construction and
Demolition permits for waste hauling prior to start of work and provide proper
documentation to the City.
W. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district
requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances
and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle
trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors shall be required.
X. During construction, all parking shall take place on the project site, on the
new driveway and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within the
unimproved roadway easements on the east side of Pine Tree Lane adjacent to project site
only, and shall not obstruct neighboring driveways. During construction, to the
maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City.
Y. 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
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
S 10
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.
Z. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for
clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be
found at:
httpWwww.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard definitions#FIRE.
It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor
the red flag warning conditions. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to
be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire
distinguisher.
AA. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices
(BMP's) requirements related to solid waste, drainage and storm water drainage facilities
management and to the City's Low Impact development Ordinance (LID). Further the
property owners shall be required to conform to the County Health Department
requirements for a septic system.
AB. Prior to finalingof the project an "as_graded" and an "as constructed" plans -
and certifications, including certifications of ridgelines of the structures, shall be provided
to the Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed
project is in compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to
the project during construction, shall be depicted on the "as built/as graded" plan.
AC. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of
this permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. The
affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution.
PASSED, A
, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
qcteliirdcUli
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Reso. 2016-15
5 Pine Tree Lane
ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016.
11
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.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-15 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH A
BASEMENT, DETACHED GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, STABLE,
SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA, RETAINING WALLS AND NEW DRIVEWAY;
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE,
DETACHED GARAGES, AND STABLE WITH LOFT; AND VARIANCES TO
EXCEED MAXIMUM PERMITTED AVERAGE HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS
AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE IN
ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5 PINE TREE LANE, (LOT 94-RH), (SHARNG).
was approved and adopted at regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
June 21, 2016 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Gray, Smith and Chairman Chelf.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Kirkpatrick.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
tgaw
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Reso. 2016-15
.5 Pine Tree Lane
12
RECEIVED
City Council Members,
JUL 062018
My name is Lauren Sharng. My husband Chris and I purchased 5
Pine Tree in December 2015, with the intent of building a new home.
Currently, we are renting a house at 25 Caballeros Road with our 3
children and 2 horses. We recognize that the building process takes a
substantial amount of time and we retained an architect, an engineer
and a soil expert even before we closed escrow in order to efficiently
pursue the project, even if saving only a few weeks. Our horses are
living in very cramped conditions and we are anxious about moving
them and our family into our new home.
We submitted our preliminary plans to the Planning Director in
February of 2016 and were placed on the April Planning Commission
Agenda for our first hearing. At the April Planning Commission Public
Hearing we received immediate feedback from the Commission
relating to the size and scale of the development. The design team
then revised the plans and re -submitted to the City Planning Director
prior to the May 17th meeting. The site staking for the May 17th field
trip was based on the updated plans, which incorporated the Planning
Commission's input including substantially decreasing the size of the
house, the covered porches, and the swimming pool, along with
eliminating the tennis court.
At the May 17 meeting, Mr. Keith Murphy, a prospective buyer of 3
Pine Tree Lane, emailed the City seven hours before the scheduled
meeting. The email categorically objects to every aspect of our
proposed project and practically our right to build a residence on our
property. Mr. Murphy did not attend the meeting but Mr. Anthony
Podell, the legal owner of 3 Pine Tree, was in attendance and he
endorsed our project, at which time the Planning Commission
directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval by a 4-0 vote of the
Planning Commission.
On June 21st, Mr Murphy, by now the owner of 3 Pine Tree, emailed
the city four hours before the scheduled Planning Commission
meeting. This time he asked that the Planning Commission delay
their vote so that he could "undertake further review of our plan(s)" for
5 Pine Tree. Again, Mr. Murphy was not in attendance for the
meeting. The Planning Commission voted to accept the Resolution of
Approval, as presented by City Staff, with a 4-0 vote.
Mr. Murphy's second email dated June 21 was especially
disappointing because 1 had just met the Murphys' in the RHCA's
offices the week before. We exchanged phone numbers and I offered
to go over the plans with them. In this neighborly exchange, I also
learned that Mr. Podell had taken the Murphy's over to our staked
property at 5 Pine Tree and showed them the scope and size of the
project.
I learned that an inquiry about the appeal process has been made by
Mr. Murphy. As of now, I do not know if he has or will file an
appeal. I have offered to meet with Mr. Murphy to explain our plans
that the Planning Commission already approved. As of the time of
this email, we have been in contact but unable to arrange a date.
Mr. Murphy's emails from May 17 shows that he was apparently
aware of our project at least as of that time and that he has already
had weeks if not months to "undertake further review of the plan." I
reckon that he must have closed the escrow on or about June 13. I
would like to think that his escrow allowed him plenty of time to
conduct his due diligence. Due diligence isn't something to be done
after the fact, nor at my expense. I have followed the rules. My plans
have been on file, in plain view, with the City for months. This is an
open and transparent process that has well -established integrity. 1
believe in and invested in the process. Delaying our project will set us
back both time -wise and financially.
Furthermore, I don't believe the appeal process applies in this case.
Mr. Murphy has nothing to appeal because he never formally
submitted any specific objections to the project in accordance with
the City's rules and regulations and he was therefore never turned
down for anything.
I think the Planning Commission has done a professional and
thorough job on reviewing and approving my proposed plan. If Mr.
Murphy submits an appeal, I think it should be denied.
Thanks for your consideration,
My best,
Lauren Sharng
RECEIVtL
.JUL 0 6 2016
City of Rolling
By
Tuesday, June 21, 201t )3:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Subject: RE: In Re: Zoning Case No. 901
Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 1:53:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Keith Murphy <KMurphy@organovo.com>
To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net>
CC: cari corbalis (caricorbalis@gmail.com) <caricorbalis@gmail.com>
To whom it may concern,
I understand that the project at 5 Pine Tree Lane, Zoning Case No. 901, is to be visited this evening. 1
would like to request that a vote on approval of the project be deferred to the next meeting. Mr. Tony
Podell, the former owner, let me know that my objections were not considered at the previous meeting
due to my lack of standing as not yet being the owner of 3 Pine Tree. Now that I have taken possession
(only in the past few business days), I request that sufficient time be allowed for me to undertake further
review of the plan prior to any vote on approval.
Thanks and best regards,
Keith Murphy
3 Pine Tree Lane
From: Keith Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 10:53 AM
To: 'ys@cityofrh.net' <ys@cityofrh.net>
Cc: cari corbalis (caricorbalis@gmail.com) <caricorbalis@gmail.com>
Subject: In Re: Zoning Case No. 901
To whom it may concern,
Regarding Zoning Case No. 901, a proposal for construction at 5 Pine Tree Lane, I wish to state some
objections. First, I object to each detail in the current proposal as submitted. Secondly, I further explicitly
object to each detail in the current proposal that requires an easement, allowance, or variance. In
addition, I specifically object to the size of the residence, the size of the basement, the presence of and
size of detached garages, the retaining walls, the required excavation, the required grading, the required
re -compaction, the size of the stable and loft. I object to the issuance of a variance to exceed the
maximum permitted height of retaining walls, and to the issuance of a variance to exceed the maximum
permitted disturbed area. I object on the environmental impact, the impact on the stability of the hillside,
the impact on the watershed, and the impact on view rights.
Please acknowledge receipt of these objections. Thank you.
Keith Murphy
Chief Executive Officer
Organovo, Inc.
6275 Nancy Ridge Dr.
San Diego, CA 92121
(858) 550-9993
kmurohvl&oroonovo. com
RECEIVED
JUN 21 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
Page 1 of 1
KECEIVED
From: Keith Murphy <KMurphy@organovo.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 10:52 AM
To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net>
Cc: "cari corbalis (caricorbalis@gmail.com)" <caricorbalis@gmail.com>
Subject: In Re: Zoning Case No. 901
MAY 1 7 2016 .
City of Rolling Hills
By
To whom it may concern,
Regarding Zoning Case No. 901, a proposal for construction at 5 Pine Tree
Lane, I wish to state some objections. First, I object to each detail in the
current proposal as submitted. Secondly, I further explicitly object to each
detail in the current proposal that requires an easement, allowance, or
variance. In addition, I specifically object to the size of the residence, the size
of the basement, the presence of and size of detached garages, the retaining
walls, the required excavation, the required grading, the required re -
compaction, the size of the stable and loft. I object to the issuance of a
variance to exceed the maximum permitted height of retaining walls, and to
the issuance of a variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area. I
object on the environmental impact, the impact on the stability of the hillside,
the impact on the watershed, and the impact on view rights.
Please acknowledge receipt of these objections. Thank you.
Keith Murphy
Chief Executive Officer
Organovo, Inc.
6275 Nancy Ridge Dr.
San Diego, CA 92121
(858) 550-9993
kmurphy@organovo.com
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 _5:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Subject: 5 Pine Tree Lane
Date: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:08:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Tony Podell <awpodell@gmail.com>
To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net>
CC: Wendy Starks <wstarks@cityofrh.net>
Yolanta,
In reference to Tuesday, April 19th's meeting regarding 5 Pine Tree we challenge the approval of all
permit applications until we see the staking and all reports and approvals relevant to construction of the
house, outlying buildings, pool and tennis court.
Per the plans you showed me for #5 Pine Tree the driveway has been relocated further down Pine Tree, that
and no
construction trucks or vehicles of any type using #3's driveway ever is our number one priority.
Thank you for your help,
Mary and Tony Podell
P.S. Would you please email me that you received this email.
RECEIVED
APR 1 9 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
Page 1 of 1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MAY 172016
y of Rolling Hill
PIrirminr� CCirnm► Hills, Ineei;n
Fan
): *thorn ua saldt
U : ?-. C . 961 5 P neTiez Lane
, r. .yW f ' rJ • \ ,tom}.
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
TO:
FROM:
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 6-A
Mtg. Date: 07/11/16
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR vr
THROUGH: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER ,10-1
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
ZONING CASE NO. 880 REVISED
15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 78-RH)
RA -S-1, 1.06 ACRES GROSS
MR. AND MRS. HASSOLDT
GARY WYNN, WYNN ENGINEERING
OCTOBER 15, 2015
DECEMBER 31, 2015
FEBRUARY 11, 2016
JUNE 30, 2016
BACKGROUND
1. Following Planning Commission approval in September 2015 of variances for an
almost completed 300 square foot addition, of which 61 square feet encroaches into the
side setback and the provision of a ramp like, 2 -foot wide access around the addition,
the City Council took this project under jurisdiction. (The 300 sf addition was approved
administratively based on a plot plan provided by the applicant. During construction of
the addition it was found that the addition encroached into the side setback and a
discretionary review of the project was initiated).
2. After several public hearings and postponements, a modified proposal was
submitted by the applicants to the Council at the November 9, 2014 meeting, which
included a two -foot wide on grade access at the corner of the addition but up to 4' wide
access along the sides of the addition and which would require a 6' high retaining wall
along the easement line. The City Council did not approve that proposal and reiterated
to the applicants to provide a 4'wide access. Council members have also requested that
ZC NO. 880 -REVISED
the area where the slope makes a 90 -degree angle at the rear corner of the addition be
widened to provide a wider passage area and remove the Pine Tree located above this
slope in the vicinity of the southerly property line. Subsequently, the applicants'
engineer submitted a letter explaining that in order to provide a 4' -wide access around
the addition, the retaining wall would need to be moved further south and into the
RI-ICA easement and the retaining wall would have to be 7' high. He explained why the
construction of such a tall retaining wall was not economically or structurally feasible.
Per the applicants' request, the City Council stipulated to the applicants that they could
complete the installation of the roof over the entire house, including the addition that
encroaches into the side setback, but at their own risk, in case the addition needs to be
modified due to the issue of the walkway around the addition, which is subject to this
review.
3. In November, the applicants submitted to staff a revised plan showing reduction
of the encroachment where 20 square feet at the corner of the addition was to be
demolished, which would accomplish the City Council's direction to provide a 4' -wide
walkway around the residence. In addition, between 3' to 5' high by 20' long retaining
wall would be necessary and would be located up to 10' in the side yard setback.
However, prior to the November 23, 2015 City Council meeting, the applicants
withdrew this request and requested continuance of the case.
4. On June 27, 2016 we received a letter, attached, from Mr. Harold Light, attorney
for Mr. and Mrs. Hassoldt requesting that Council members reconsider their decision to
provide a 4' flat walkway all around the addition and grant a site plan review and
variances for encroachment of 61 square feet of the addition into the side setback, an up
to 6' high retaining wall to be built 10' in the setback of which a portion would be built
along the easement line and a flat walkway around the sides of the addition that would
range in width from 4' and narrow down to 2' at the corner of the addition and then
flare out to up to 7' along the south west side of the house.
5. The letter from the attorney states that they submitted the request to the RHCA
Board for license agreement to encroach into the easement with an up to 7' wall and
that the RHCA conditions of approval are unreasonable and unacceptable to the
owners.
6. The revised project has been noticed in the local newspaper on June 30, 2016 and
the neighbors within 1,000 -foot radius of the parcel were also notified. As of the writing
of the report, no comments were received from any neighbors.
7. The property is zoned RAS-1 and consists of 1.06 acres gross. The net lot area for
development purposes is 36,484 square feet. Together with the 322 square foot addition
and the renovated sunroom the residence is 3,951 square feet with 748 square foot
ZC NO. 880 -REVISED
garage. The property is also developed with a 412 square foot stable, 239 square foot
gazebo, attached trellis, covered porch and service yard.
8. The structural coverage of the net lot is proposed to be 5,850 square feet or 16.0%,
including the stable, (max. permitted is 20%). With the allowed deduction the structural
coverage is 15.7% of the net lot area. The total coverage (structures and flatwork) is
proposed at 10,273 square feet or 28.2%, (max. permitted is 35% of the net lot area). (The
calculations include a minimum required size of 450 sq.ft.stable).
9. The disturbed area of the lot is 50%, and is legal non -conforming. No grading,
other than excavation for footings and the wall and backfilling for a total of 7.4 cubic
yards is required for this project.
10. The existing residential building pad is 15,710 square feet and will have coverage
of 32.2 %, with allowed deductions. Currently the coverage is 30%.
11. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt from environmental
review pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)
Guidelines because the project involves an addition to an existing structure that will not
result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the
addition, or 2,500 square feet.
12. When reviewing this application the City Council must consider the criteria for
granting of Variances and Site Plan Review.
The parcel, located to the RAS-1 zone is adjacent to lots in the RAS-2 zone is one of the
smallest and narrowest of lots as compared to the lots in the immediate vicinity.
ZONING CASE NO. 880
SITE PLAN REVIEW
EXISTING
PROPOSED
RA -S-1 ZONE SETBACKS
Single family residence and
accessory structures
Addition that requires Variances
Front: 50 ft. from front easement
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
STRUCTURES
Residence
Att. porch
Garage
Stable
Service yd
Gazebo
Attch trellis
3629 sq.ft.
175 sq.ft.
748 sq.ft.
412 sq.ft.
229 sq.ft.
239 sq.ft.
58 sq.ft.
Residence
Att. porch
Garage
Stable (min.)
Service Yd.
Gazebo
Attch trellis
3971 sq.ft
175 sq.ft.
748 sq.ft
450 sq.ft.
229 sq.ft
239 sq.ft.
58 sq.ft.
(Site Plan Review required if
size of structure increases by
1,000 sq. ft. or more in a 36-
month period).
TOTAL
5,490 sq.ft
TOTAL
5,850 sq.ft
ZC NO. 880 -REVISED
STRUCTURAL LOT
14.7%
16.0% of 36,484 sq.ft. net lot
area; w/deductions 15.7%
COVERAGE
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
27.1%
10,273 sq.ft. or 28.2% of 36,484
sq.ft. net lot area
(35% maximum)
BUILDING PAD COVERAGE
30.4.0% (w/allowances)
32.2% w/allowances of 15,710
sq.ft.residential building pad
RESIDENTIAL
(30% max permitted)
GRADING
N/A
7.4 c.y.
Site plan review required if
excavation and/or fill or
combination thereof is more
than 3 feet in depth and covers
more than 2,000 sq.
ft.,/balanced on site.
DISTURBED AREA
50%
50%
(40% maximum;
STABLE (minimum 450 sq. ft.) a
412 sq.ft.
412 sq.ft.(450 min.)
CORRAL (minimum 550 sq. ft.)
STABLE ACCESS
From driveway
From driveway
ACCESSWAY
Existin•
Existin•
VIEWS
N/A
N/A
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
N/A
N/A
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal)
must make the following findings:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone;
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied
the property in question;
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling
Hills.
ZC NO. 880 -REVISED
0
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
11.46.010 Purpose.
The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain
development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is
consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically
sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent
with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and
otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills.
11.46.050 Required findings.
A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application.
B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the
Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made:
1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and
policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as
maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing
buildable area of the lot;
3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the
natural terrain and surrounding residences;
4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the
greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site
and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area;
6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect
drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature
trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible
with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or
transition area between private and public areas;
8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and
safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and
9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance
ZC NO. 880 -REVISED
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
LAW OFFICES OF
HAROLD J. LIGHT
)UGC wlST OLrMIK SOULEVAwo. avvC 300
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 60064-1614
TCLCCC ONE 1310) 433.1333
FAX 13101 £73.0077
June 24, 2016
Our File No: 2122.06
Via E -Mail and U. S. Postal Service
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Re: William and Judith Hassoldt
Number 16 Portuguese Bend Road. Rolling Hills
RECEIVED
Dear Ms. Schwartz:
JUN 272016
City of Rolling Hills
By
This office represents William and Judith Hassoldt (the "Hassoldte"), who are the
owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road in the City of Rolling Hills (No. 16 PBR"). As
you know, the Hassoldts have been trying for well over a year to obtain final
approval for certain variances required as a result of the construction of an addition
to No. 15 PBR, which addition was discovered (after it was almost complete) to
encroach up to 7.5 feet into the side yard setback. The variances would allow the
encroachment into the setback with a two -foot clearance around the corner of the
house in lieu of the normal four -foot clearance and construction of an engineered
retaining wall. These variances were approved by the Planning Commission but
have not yet received approval from the City Council.
As a reminder, the encroachment into the setback came about innocently. The
Haesoldta' architect and engineer relied on a flawed site plan on file with the City.
Permits were issued administratively in late 2014, and all work was done in
accordance with the approved plans. When the encroachment was discovered the
City issued a stop work order in early 2015.
In September 2015 the Planning Commission approved a resolution granting the
requested variances, and it forwarded its recommendation to the City Council. In
October, notwithstanding the fact that the Planning Commission had accepted the
two foot clearance (after the County Fire Department had confirmed that the
proposed clearance would provide "full access to all sides of the home and not
impede Fire Department operations"), the City Council took the position that the
Hassoldts should nevertheless seek to achieve a four foot clearance. The only way
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
City of Rolling Hills
June 24, 2016
Page 2
to do so would be to request from the Rolling Hills Community Association (the
"RHCA") the right to encroach two feet into the RHCA easement that runs along
the side of No. 15 PBR and to construct the retaining wall in the easement. The
City Council tabled the matter, and the Hassoldts were directed to see the RHCA
about a licensing agreement allowing the retaining wall in the easement. Though
in light of the circumstances that action should not have been necesssary, the
Hassoldts prepared and submitted such a request to the RHCA.
It is now June 2016. Eighteen months have gone by since the stop work order was
issued. And, unfortunately, the Hassoldts do not have RHCA approval. Though
they believed, based on a meeting and site visit conducted early this month, that
there had, indeed, been an agreement on the conditions to approval of the retaining
wall, RHCA's counsel, Sid Croft, forwarded a letter earlier this week asserting on
behalf of his client that there is, in fact, no such agreement. This is, to say the
least, extraordinarily frustrating.'
What makes all of this so unnecessary is the fact that the requirement for a four
foot clearance (which is the last hurdle to end this nightmare) is clearly not
sacrosanct. Putting aside the fact that the essential purpose for such clearance --
fire department access -- is, according to the fire department itself, a non -factor in
this case, the Hassoldts have now learned of at least one nearby example of a
homeowner to whom the four foot rule has not been applied at all. That neighbor
has been allowed to maintain absolutely no clearance around the side of his house,
let alone the two feet that the Hassoldts have committed to provide. This is
manifestly unfair.
Especially in light of the many challenges and delays the Hassoldts have
encountered in trying to improve No. 15 PBR, and taking into consideration the fact
' Without belaboring the issue, there was a meeting in February before the
RHCA in which a motion to approve, allegedly subject to three conditions, was
passed. The record and the minutes clearly indicate that, of those three proposed
conditions (all of which relate to requests for a license to make changes within the
easement that had been separately initiated by the Hassoldts' neighbors, Steve and
Diana Nuccion, and have no real nexus to the Hassoldts' request), only one was to
be paid for by the Hassoldts. Mr. Croft, however, has taken the remarkable position
that, notwithstanding such a clear record, the financial burden for all of the claimed
conditions should be on the Hassoldts.
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
City of Rolling Hills
June 24, 2016
Page 3
that the one remaining issue is neither essential nor consistent with the rights
enjoyed by their neighbor, the Hassoldts request that the City place this matter
back on the agenda and approve the variance as initially approved by the Planning
Commission, allowing construction of the retaining wall with a two foot wide
passageway. If you have any questions about any issues related to this matter or if
you need any additional information in advance of or at the meeting, do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD J. LIGHT
HJL:akb
a, ail Ram qeg
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310)377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 7-A
Mtg. Date: 07/11/16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER 9+4'
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN INCREASE IN THE FY 16/17 BUDGET FOR
SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT.
DATE: JULY 11, 2016
ATTACHMENT:
FY 16-17 Supplemental Traffic Enforcement Staffing Proposal
Sheriff's Dept. Correspondence re: Rolling Hills Traffic Enforcement
Supplemental Traffic Enforcement Reports & Statistics from July 2015 - June 2016
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council evaluate the present deployment of deputies
concerning the Sheriff's Department's supplemental traffic enforcement services in
Rolling Hills for the remainder of FY 2016-17 and possibly increase in the number of
hours budgeted for the service.
BACKGROUND
As part of the FY 15/16 budget formulation process, the City Council through a
recommendation of Budget Committee reduced the supplemental traffic enforcement
budget and associated number of hours was from 350 hours to 175 hours. This decision
was made partly due to the Sheriff's Regional Law Contract formula being amended in
FY 14/15 and now provided a similar number of hours for general patrol traffic
enforcement. Although the Budget Committee again recommended the same 175 hours
for supplemental traffic enforcement that was approved in the FY 16/17 budget, the
Traffic Commission at their May 2016 meeting recommended it be increased back to 350
hours. The Commission believes that these additional hours are necessary to assist with
excessive speed and other traffic law violations that still are problematic on the City's
roadways.
O
During the City Council deliberations concerning the FY 2016-17 budget on June 13,
2016, there were two requests to amend the proposed budget that included the Traffic
Commissions request to increase the hours for supplemental traffic enforcement.
Although the City Council approved the proposed FY 16/17 budget entirely, it was
agreed to bring these two budgetary items back for further discussion at its June 27,
2016 meeting. After the City Council reviewed the historical budgets and discussed the
merits of amending the supplemental traffic enforcement budget for FY 2016-17 at this
meeting, the City Council asked that the item to be brought back to a future City
Council meeting for a final decision. Furthermore, the City Council requested staff
provide them information on the Sheriff deployment schedule and citation/warning
statistics for supplemental traffic enforcement during FY 2015/16 to assist them in their
decision making process.
DISCUSSION
The City contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for public safety
through a regional contract with the Cities of Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos
Verdes. Each City pays a proportionate share of the Lomita Sheriff's Station regional
contract for their services that typically includes hours of general traffic enforcement for
Rolling Hills. Additionally, for many years, the City of Rolling Hills has independently
contracted with the Sheriff's Department for additional 350 hours of supplemental
traffic enforcement. However, as part of the FY 15/16 budget formulation process, the
City Council through a recommendation of Budget Committee reduced the
supplemental traffic enforcement budget and associated number of hours from 350
hours to 175 hours. This decision was made partly due to the Sheriff's Regional Law
Contract formula being amended in FY 14/15 and now provided a similar number of
hours for general patrol traffic enforcement.
The City Council over the years has tasked the Traffic Commission to develop
enforcement strategies that will provide the right balance of Sheriff enforcement to
change the behavior of traffic law offenders in the community versus providing
deterrence by making a Sheriff patrol vehicle visible that will provide warnings. These
strategies would include: deciding time of day of when Sheriff traffic enforcement
would occur, location of where Sheriff enforcement should occur, types of violations
that should be the priority of Sheriff personnel, and determine what methodologies
should be considered when the Sheriff personnel are issuing citations (i.e. how many
miles over speed limit should a speeding ticket be issued, and when would a violator
should be issued a ticket vs. given a warning).
In regard to deployment, the Sheriff's Department maintains a strategy of being very
visible when conducting traffic enforcement as a means of encouraging safe driving and
to issue warnings if/when they feel it is appropriate. Staff further encourages their use
of a decoy car as much as possible. Enclosed is a Sheriff's Dept. correspondence on its
strategy for supplemental traffic enforcement. There have been statements by some
Couricilmembers recently that they believe that the supplemental traffic enforcement
emphasis was too much on citations concerning California stops and seat belt
violations. With the augmentation to the general traffic enforcement hours within the
basic Sheriff's Dept. law enforcement contract and the belief that the supplemental
traffic enforcement was not the best use of resources has reinforced their decision to cut
the supplemental traffic enforcement hours in half.
Residents routinely attend Traffic Commission meetings and strongly state the need for
more Sheriff's Dept. enforcement of traffic laws in Rolling Hills —especially speeding on
Crest Road. The Commission receives reports from Sheriff's Dept. Traffic Bureau
deputies on hazardous citations, non -hazardous citations and accidents. From the
information provided by the Traffic Bureau, the Traffic Commission recommended the
following deployment for the City's current allocation of 175 hours for supplemental
traffic enforcement: Phase 1 - July through November - 112 hours (80 of those hours
correspond to the first two weeks of the school year starting August 29); Phase 2 -
December - 16 hours in four hour shifts if possible; and Phase 3 - January -June - 47
hours in four hour shifts if possible.
Lomita Station Sheriff Captain Beringer and Traffic Bureau personnel will be present to
interpret the data provided the Commission within the staff report and to answer any
questions concerning the enforcement data provided and the issues surrounding
supplemental traffic enforcement.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the City Council considers approving any amendments that increases the FY 2016/17
budget, the budget can remain balanced by taking it from the $88,807 budget surplus,
by reducing an existing budget line item(s) in the same amount, or a combination of the
two.
NOTIFICATIONS
The Traffic Commissioners and Block Captains were notified of this item.
RC:hl
Traffic Enforcement Funding Amendment for FY 16-17.docx
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
S
ROLLING HILLS TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT FISCAL YEAR 2016-17
The program will begin July 1, 2016. The supplemental traffic enforcement will run from
July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. The primary focus of this directed traffic enforcement
will be Monday thru Friday. Locations will be random to increase our visibility and the
effectiveness of the enforcement. The breakdown is as follows:
PHASE 1
The first phase will start July 1, 2016 and continue through November 30, 2016. This will be
a total of 112 hours. 80 hours from phase 1 will correspond with the first two weeks of the
2016/17 school year, which begins on August 29, 2016.
The cost of the initial phase is $9,633.12 (112 hours x $86.01 per hour).
PHASE 2
A second phase will begin on December 1, 2016 and will continue through December 30,
2016. The program will consist of 16 hours of traffic enforcement. The breakdown is as
follows:
8 hours per week for 2 weeks for a total of 16 hours. The cost of this phase for the
month of December will be $1,376.16 (16 hours x $86.01 per hour).
PHASE 3
A third phase will commence on January 1, 2017 and will conclude on June 30, 2017. The
remaining 47 hours of traffic enforcement will be utilized throughout this time period. The
breakdown is as follows:
47 hours spread over a 6 month time period. The cost of this phase is $4,042.47 (47
hours x $86.01).
The 'traffic office will work closely with city staff and residents to increase the overall
effectiveness of the entire program. High visibility and compliance with traffic regulations
will be the main goal of this operation. This will result in a safer environment for everyone
traveling through the city of Rolling Hills.
If a shift is missed, it can be made up during the phase in which it was missed. This will
ensure maximum coverage throughout the operation.
TOTAL COST FOR ALL 3 PHASES: $15,051.75 (175 hours x $86.01)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
"A TRADITION OF SERVICE"
Date: July 7, 2015
OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
FROM: ANTHONY BLANCHARD, SERGEANT TO: BLAINE BOLIN, CAPTAIN
LOMfTA STATION LOMLTA STATION
SUBJECT: ROLLING HILLS TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
The purpose of this office correspondence to to provide L.orntta Statton'c philosophy regarding
supplemental traffic enforcement in the Sty of Rolling Hills.
The Lomita Station Traffic Office works whh city staff and residents to ensure and maintain the
overall effectiveness of the supplemental traffic enforcement program. High ponce visibility and
motorist compliance wtth traffic regulations are the main..goata of this_ supplemental traffic
enfnrtxrment, with the expectation of e safer environment for everyone traveling through the city
of Roiling Hills.
Deputies
through
targeted with high visibility, nd traffic citations/warnings a shall be issued as appropriate. will be
Although the primary focus of this service is to provide supplemental traffic enforcement, the
vlsftrle presence of a patrol car driving through the city deters criminal activity end is en added
element to our crime suppression efforts
ALB:alb
JULY 2015 ROLLING HILLS TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
DATE
TIME
HOURS
LOCATION
VIOLATION
RESIDENT
CITES
NON -
RESIDENT
CITES
WARNINGS
DEPUTY
7/20/15
0700-0800
1
EASTFIELD RD/CHUCKWAGON RD
STOP SIGN
1
0
0
BOUSE
1000-1100
1
EASTFIELD RD/OUTRIDER RD
STOP SIGN
0
1
0
BOUSE
1100-1200
1
EASTFIELD RD/CHUCKWAGON RD
STOP SIGN
1
0
0
BOUSE
1200-1400
2
PORTUGUESE BEND RD
SPEED
0
1
0
BOUSE
7/22/15
0800-0900
1
CINCHRING RD
-STOP SIGN
0
0
0
BOUSE
0900-1200
3
PORTUGUESE BEND RD
SPEED
1
0
1
BOUSE
7/28/15
1500-1800
3
VARIOUS
MONITORED TRAFFIC
0
0
0
SOUZA
7/30/15
1300-1400
1
CREST RD EAST/SOUTHFIELD RD
SPEED
0
0
1
DESPOT
1400-1600
2
' VARIOUS
MONITORED TRAFFIC
0
0
0
DESPOT
1600-1700
1
EASTFIELD RD
MONITORED TRAFFIC
0
0
0
DESPOT
0
1700-1800
2
EASTFIELD RD/OPEN BRAND RD
STOP SIGNS
1
1
0
DESPOT
1800-1900
1
CREST RD EAST
SPEED
0
0
1
DESPOT
7/30/15
0700-0800
1
PATROL
MONITORED TRAFFIC
0
0
0
FABIAN
0800-0900
1
PORTUGUESE BEND RD
SPEED/STOP SIGN
1
0
1
FABIAN
0900-1000
1
PORTUGUESE BEND RD
SPEED
1
0
0
FABIAN
1000-1100
1
PORT BEND RD/SADDLE BACK RD
STOP SIGNS
0
0
0
FABIAN
1100-1200
1
CREST ROAD
MONITORED TRAFFIC
0
0
0
FABIAN
1200-1300
1
PORTUGUESE BEND RD
SPEED
0
0
1
FABIAN
7/31/15
1000-1100
1
PORTUGUESE BEND RD
SPEED
0
0
0
DESPOT
1100-1200
1
RINGBIT RD
MONITORED TRAFFIC
0
0
0
DESPOT
1200-1300
1
CREST RD E/SOUTHFIELD RD
SPEED
1
0
0
DESPOT
1300-1400
1
PORT BEND/SADDLEBACK RD
STOP SIGN
0
0
0
DESPOT
1400-1500
1
EASTFIELD RD
MONITORED TRAFFIC
0
0
0
DESPOT
1500-1600
1
EASTFIELD RD
STOP SIGN
0
0
1
DESPOT
1600-1700
1
VARIOUS
MONITORED TRAFFIC
0
0
0
DESPOT
TOTAL
32
7
3
6
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2015 ROLLING HILLS SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
DATE
TIME
HOURS
LOCATION
I
VIOLATION
RESIDENT
NON-RESIDENT
CITES
WARNINGS
DEPUTY
8/31/15
0600-0700
1
CREST RD W/ BUGGY WHIP RD
J
SPEED
0
0
1
BOUSE
0700-0900
2
PORTUGUESE BEND RD
SPEED
0
1
0
0900-1000
1
24 PORTUGUESE BEND RD
SPEED
1
0
0
100-1100
1
CREST RD E / EASTFIELD RD
STOP SIGN
0
0
0
1100-1200
1
SADDLEBACK RD
STOP SIGN
0
0
0
1200-1400
2
PORT BEND RD POPPY TRAIL
SPEED
0
1
0
8/31/15
0600-1400
8
VARIOUS LOCATIONS PATROL
VARIOUS
0
0
0
DESPOT
9/1/15
0630-0830
2
CHUCK WGN RD/EASTFIELD
STOP SIGN
1
1
0
SMITH
0830-1000
2
CREST RD/EASTFIELD RD
STOP SIGN
1
0
1
1000-1430
4
EASTFIELD RD/CHUCKWAGON
STOP SIGN/EXP REG
1
1
1
9/2/15
0700-0800
1
CREST RD/SOUTHFIELD RD
TINT WNDWS/FOLLOW TOO
0
0
1
DESPOT
0800-0900
1
CREST RD/SOUTHFIELD RD
STOP SIGN
1
0
0
0900-1100
2
CREST RD W/ BUGGY WHIP RD
SPEED
0
0
0
9/3/15
1200-1300
1
CREST RD W/BUGGY WHIP
SPEED
1
0
0
DESPOT
1400-1500
1
PORT BEND/SADDLEBACK RD
STOP SIGN
0
0
1
et
1500-1600
1
CREST RD W/BUGGY WHIP
SPEED
1
0
0
1600-1700
1
EASTFIELD RD/OPEN BRAND RD
STOP SIGN
1
0
0
9/4/15
0500-0800
2
CHUCKWAGON RD/EASTFIELD RD
STOP SIGN
0
1
0
SMITH
0800-0900
1
EASTFIELD RD/ CREST RD E
STOP SIGN
0
0
0
0900-1000
1
CHUCKWAGON RD/EASTFIELD RD
STOP SIGN
0
0
1
1000-1300
4
CREST RD E/EASTFIELD RD
WARRANT / NO LICENSE
0
1 FH/A ARREST
0
9/9/15
1400-1600
2
VEH PREP/STATION DUTIES
VARIOUS
0
0
0
FABIAN
1600-1700
1
PORTUGUESE BEND RD
VARIOUS
0
0
0
1700-1800
1
CREST RD
STOP SIGN
0
0
1
1800-1900
1
7 PORTUGUESE BEND RD
I
STOP SIGN
0
1
0
1900-2200
3
2 PORTUGUESE BEND RD
i
VARIOUS
0
1
0
9/8/15
1500-1700
2
EASTFIELD RD/ OUTRIDER RD
SPEED
1
0
0
DESPOT
1700-1900
2
EASTFIELD RD/OPEN BRAND RD
STOP SIGN
0
0
0
9/9/15
1200-1500
3
EASTFIELD RD/OPEN BRAND RD
STOP SIGN
0
0
1
DESPOT
1500-1600
1
CREST RD W/BUGGY WHIP
SPEED
1
0
0
9/10/15
0530-0730
2
VARIOUS LOCATIONS PATROL
VARIOUS VIOLATIONS
0
0
0
FABIAN
////lb
DATE
TIME
HOURS
LOCATION
VIOLATION
RESIDENT
CITES
NON-RESIDENT
CITES
WARNINGS
DEPUTY
0730-0830
1
MIDDLE RIDGE LN N
STOP SIGN
1
0
0
0830-0930
1
PORTUGUESE BEND RD
STOP SIGN
1
0
0
0930-1130
2
VARIOUS LOCATIONS PATROL
VARIOUS
0
0
0
9/11/15
0500-0800
3
VARIOUS LOCATIONS PATROL
VARIOUS
0
0
0
SMITH
0800-0900
1
CREST RD E/EASTFIELD RD
STOP SIGN
0
0
1
0900-1300
4
CHUCKWAGON RD/EASFIELD RD
STOP SIGN / NO LICENSE
0
1 MH/AARREST
0
9114/15
0600-0800
2
CREST RD W/BUGGYWHIP
SPEED
0
0
0
BOUSE
0800-0900
1
PORT BEND/CREST RD
STOP SIGN
0
0
0
1100-1300
2
PORT BEND RD POPPY TRAIL
SPEED
2
0
0
9/14/15
1300-1600
3
2
PORT BEND RD/POPPY TRAIL
PORT BEND RD/POPPY TRAIL
SPEED
SPEED
0
0
2
2
0
0
DESPOT
1600-1800
TOTAL
80
I
14 11
9
I
Inventory Ust
7/7/16
DECEMBER 2015 ROLLING HILLS TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
DATE
TIME
HOURS
LOCATION
VIOLATION
RESIDENT
CITES
NON
RESIDENT
CITES
WARNINGS
DEPUTY
12/11/15
0900-1100
2
CREST RD E/SOUTHFIELD RD
STOP SIGN
1
0
0
ROUSE
1100-1300
2
CREST RD E/CABALLEROS
STOP SIGN
0
2
2-R
BOUSE
1200-1400
2
CREST RD E
SPEED
0
1
2 -NR
DESPOT
1400-1600
2
CREST RD E/SOUTHFIELD RD
STOP SIGNS
2
0
2 -NR
DESPOT
12/14/15
1000-1200
2
CREST ROAD W
SPEED
1
0
1 -NR
DESPOT
1200-1400
2
EASTFIELD/OPEN BRAND
STOP SIGN
0
0
1 -NR
DESPOT
12/15/15
1000-1100
1
CREST RD W
MONITORED TRAFFIC
0
0
0
BOUSE
1100-1200
1
PORTUGUESE BEND RD
SPEED
0
1
0
BOUSE
1200-1400
2
CREST RD W/EASTFIELD
STOP SIGN
0
0
2-R
BOUSE
TOTAL
16
4
4
10
Inventory List
7/7/16
May 2016 ROLLING HILLS TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
DATE
TIME
HOURS
LOCATION
VIOLATION
RESIDENT
CITES
NON -
RESIDENT
CITES
WARNINGS
DEPUTY
5/2/16
0700-1100
4
Portuguese Bend Rd / Poppy Trail
Speed
4
0
0
Bouse
5/4/16
1100-1500
4
Crest Road W/ Buggy Whip
Speed
1
3
0
Despot
5/5/16
0830-1230
4
Portuguese Bend Rd / Poppy Trail
Speed
3
1
1
Bouse
5/9/16
0700-1100
4
Portuguese Bend Rd / Poppy Trail
Speed
2
2
0
Bouse
5/11/16
0900-1300
4
26 Portuguese Bend Rd
Speed
2
2
2
Bouse
5/13/16
1100-1500
4
Crest Road W / Buggy Whip
Speed
2
2
0
Despot
5/16/16
1000-1400
4
Portuguese Bend Rd / Poppy Trail
Speed
3
1
1
Bouse
5/17/16
1300-1500
2
Portuguese Bend Rd / Pheasant
Speed
0
2
0
Bouse
5/17/16
1500-1600
1
Portuguese Bend Rd / Pheasant
Cross Double Yellow
1
0
0
Bouse
5/17/16
1600-1700
1
Portuguese Bend Rd / Pheasant
Speed
0
1
0
Bouse
5/19/16
0630-0830
2
Crest Road W / Buggy Whip
Speed
0
2
0
Despot
5/19/16
0830-0930
1
Southfield / Crest
Speed
1
0
0
Despot
5/19/16
0930-1030
1
Southfield / Crest
Stop Sign
1
0
0
Despot
5/23/16
1200-1600
4
26 Portuguese Bend Rd
Speed
1
3
2
Bouse
5/24/16
1200-1600
4
26 Portuguese Bend Rd
Speed
2
2
1
Bouse
5/25/16
1400-1700
3
Crest Road W / Buggy Whip
Speed
2
1
0
Despot
TOTAL
47
25
22
7
Inventory List
7/7/16
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310)377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 8-A
Mtg. Date: 7/11/16
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER
TERRY SHEA, FINANCE DIRECTOR
DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE CONSIDERATION OF
CHANGING THE RATE FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
BUILDING PERMIT RELATED FEES
JULY 11, 2016
ATTACHMENT:
Comparable Cities Table
2015 Revenue Table for Building Permit Related Fees
Rolling Hills General Fund Historical and Expenditure Trends
RECOMMENDATION,
Staff recommends the City of Rolling Hills maintain its fees associated with Building,
Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical Permit and related fees at 2.5 times the amount set
forth in the Los Angeles County Building Code for each fee.
ALTERTNATIVES
A. The City of Rolling Hills reduce its fees associated with Building, Plumbing,
Mechanical, and Electrical Permit and related fees to 2.25 times the amount
set forth in the Los Angeles County Building Code for each fee.
OR
B. Other alternative that the City Council deems appropriate.
BACKGROUND
During the FY 2014/15 budget preparation process, the Finance/Budget/Audit
Committee and City Council, at the request of Councilmember Black, considered
lowering the City's Building Permit related fees due to the recent run of significant
surplus budget years, but the City Council decided to leave the fees unchanged. During
the FY 2015/16 budget preparation process, the Committee decided not to change the
Building Permit related fees. However, the Committee directed staff to review the fees
again in January of 2016. Unfortunately, since the Building related fees revenues are so
in the arrears in receiving its monthly payments from Los Angeles County, it was
decided to postpone the review to the FY 16/17 budget preparation process and utilize
FY 14/15 Building Permit related fees revenues in order to provide the Finance Director
a whole year of information to analyze. Furthermore, the potential change in these fees
is a fiscal philosophical decision it was thought best that the entire City Council be part
of the discussion.
DISCUSSION
In 1982, the City Council enacted a rate that is 2.5 times that of the County of Los
Angeles for Building Permit related fees. It was proposed two years ago in a City
Council Budget Committee meeting to lower the fees to 2.25 times that of L.A County
fees. Building Permit related fees and Property Taxes are the two biggest sources of
revenue for the City of Rolling Hills. The vast majority of the City's activities and staff
work revolve around development. By State statute, a fee cannot be set higher than the
costs associated to the services provided. The Finance Director made a calculation for
his analysis in the report utilizing the calendar year 2015 actual revenues for Building
Permit and Planning/Zoning/Subdivision Code fees together, and concluded that they
do not cover the costs of the City's development related activities. Therefore, it was
recommended by the Finance Director that the City's Building Permit related fees not
be amended on that point alone.
To provide the City Council a comparison of what other cities that utilize the Los
Angeles County Building and Safety Department to provide plan check and
construction inspection services, attached is a table that illustrates what each
municipality charges for their Building Permit related fees. It also illustrates all the
significant General Fund fees and taxes that finance most of these cities municipal
government services. Although Rolling Hills' multiplier is in the range of what these
cities pay for Building Permit fees, its property tax percentage return is the lowest.
Furthermore, all the other cities have more General Fund revenue sources to pay for its
municipal government services. For most of these cities, sales taxes are its most
significant revenue. But with other cities, business license fees or franchise fees can also
be large revenue sources.
It is believed the City's Building Permit related fees are at an appropriate rate,
especially since the City does not include any additional fees or taxes that other cities do
to raise revenue. As stated before, at least 50% of all the City's resources are invested
in some manner to planning, building and zoning activities. For FY 14/15, Building
Permit and other related fees collectively brought in $650,932 in revenue, but the staff
time and overhead costs associated with development conservatively calculated were
$695,065 in expenditures. Thus, the City took in $44,673 in revenue less than it needed
to cover its development related costs.
Councilmember Black is proposing that the City initially decrease the Building Permit
related fees by decreasing the multiplier to 2.25 times that of the County fee. He
believes that the Rolling Hills residents are already paying enough in property taxes
that should offset the need for higher Building Permit related fees. Furthermore,
Councilmember Black would like to eventually lower the multiplier to 2.0 times the
County rate. It is true that all Rolling Hills residents are paying property taxes, but
unfortunately the City only receives 6.5 cents on every dollar paid which is not enough
to cover all of the General Fund municipal government expenditures.
The City has had significant surplus budgets since FY 2012-13, but the City anticipates
for FY 2016-17 the City will have a much more modest surplus of $88,807 —before
transfers. Although the City has a robust fund balance that is estimated to be $4,010,703
at the end of FY 16-17, it is relatively small compared to foreseen and unforeseen
expenses that could be significant such as: ADA compliance of the civic center, storm
water retention and clean up projects, unfunded State and Federal mandates, a natural
disaster, sudden economic/building downturn and law suit costs. Furthermore, this is
the first year of employing the new Associate Planner for a full fiscal year and staff will
need to continue accounting for the new costs associated with this position. Therefore,
lowering the Building Permit related fees is believed not prudent when balancing a lot
of fiscal unknowns.
FISCAL IMPACT
Since the Building Permit related fees represent such a large percentage of the City's
development fees, adjusting them could be very risky because they are economy
sensitive. If the City Council adjusts them wrong, this could have a negative impact to
the entire governmental budget. Based on utilizing calendar year 2015 revenues, it was
calculated that a .25 drop in the multiplier in the building related fees would be
approximately $55,000 in lost City revenue. It is forecasted that a similar loss in
revenue would occur for FY 16-17 if the reduction is implemented. Although the City
could absorb this loss in good times, it is always much more difficult to raise fees when
there is a recession or building downturn.
CONCLUSION
The City of Rolling Hills has set its Building Permit related fees associated to the
County with the same formula for over 34 years. It is clear the Building Permit fees do
not cover all the costs of the services provided for development. The City's revenues
are very limited, but the City's prudent fiscal policies have made its governmental
budgets very stable. Spending time and resources to potentially change the Building
Permit related fees is very risky in an unstable local government financing
environment. Due to the reasons stated above, the Finance Director recommends that
City Council not make any adjustments to its Building Permit related fees.
RC:hi
Buil dingFeessfaff rptdoa
0
SIGNIFICANT GENERAL FUND REVENUES
OF COMPARABLE CITIES
CITY
BUILDING
PERMIT
MULTIPLIER
PROPERTY
TAX
SALES
TAX
FRANCHISE
FEES
BUSINESS
LICENSE
TAX /FEES
TRAINSIENT
OCCUPANCY
TAX
USER
FEES
NEW
CONST.
TAX
UTILITY
USER TAX
TICKET
TAX
CASINO
TAX
MINING
TAX
FINES
CHANDLER
GRAVEL FEE
Artesia
2
x
x
x
x
x
x
Carson
1.5
6.74 Cents
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Commerce
3
7 Cents
x
x
x
x
x
C
Irwindale
2
SO Cents
x
x
x
x
I
La Canada Flintridge
1.5
7 Cents
x
x
x
x
Lomita
2
18 Cents
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rolling Hills* -
2.5
6.5 Cents
-
_
Rolling Hills Estates
3"
x
x
x
x
x
x
*Rolling Hills does receive nominal sales taxes, franchise fees and fines that add up together less that 1% of the Gerneral Fund.
**Roiling Hills Estates utilizes primarily the 3 times multiplier except for very small projects (e.g. water heater change outs) when the 2 times multiplier is utilized.
I --In Irwindale, the Mining tax represents 17% of General Fund Budget.
C --In Commerce, Casino tax represents 40% of General Fund Budget.
Rev. 5/8/14
City of Rolling Hills
Los Angeles County Building Permit Fees
2015
2015
January February March April May June July August September October November December Total
Permits - •
Building 47,654.90 2,911.90 23,941.40 4,786.50 10,904.30 16,023.70 5,168.00 10,575.30 8,806.80 19,939.00 6,417.30 34,444.35 191,573.45
Electrical 5,251.32 463.11 16,496.71 1,549.80 171.80 1,429.90 1,265.50 1,610.20 6,076.30 8,165.80 - ' .2,468.00 44,948.44
Mechanical 2,431.50 - 1,514.30 563.00 - 353.00 - 490.30 2,346.00 863.40 - 912.10 9,473.60
Plumbing 2,346.20 1,417.30 698.50 3,433.10 113.30 1,333.70 113.80 2,122.90 2,545.40 - 1,067.60 15,191.80
Sewer 319.80 - 149.50 469.30• 397.80' - 397.80 150.30 399.80 .` - - 2,284.30
Swimming Pool 2,061.50 4,955.00 2,061.50 1,104.50 5,33.1.30 3,167.30 6,365.60 5,327.40 - 2,160.60 - 32,534.70
Grading - . - - 907.10 1,963.60 - - - - 2,870.70
60,065.22 9,747.31 44,861.91 11,906.20 16,918.50 22,307.60 14,217.80 22,240.00 20,174.30 31,128.80 6,417.30 38,892.05 298,876.99
Plan Check
Building 16,362.97 23,903.21 17,126.41 1,248.60 7,060.80 14,079.40 5,253.70 38,037.01 9,950.40 78,391.81 424.60 17,297.60 229,136.51
Electrical 226.00 - 9,077.10 - - - 284.00 - 9,587.10
Mechanical - - -
Plumbing - - - - - - - -
Grading 990.10 738.80 - 369.47 995.00 2,510.00 4,651.50 - 369.47 10,624.34
Energy -
17,579.07 24,642.01 26,203.51 1,618.07 7,060.80 14,079.40 6,248.70 40,547.01 9,950.40 83,327.31 424.60 17,667.07 249,347.95
77,644.29 34,389.32 71,065.42 13,524.27 23,979.30 36,387.00 20,466.50 62,787.01 30,124.70 114,456.11 6,841.90 56,559.12 x548,224.941
Multiplier
Fees 219,289.98
Multiplier 2.25 493,402.451 I
Difference between 2.50 and 2.25 54,822.491
2.50
City of Rolling Hills - General Fund Historical Revenue
& Expenditure Trends - FY 2016/17 Budget Amounts
$5,000,000
$4,500,000
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$-
$1,644,162$1767;537
$1,176,930
$2,011,297
$3,221,894
-. $3,321,129 $3,110,05853,340
160,286
581,592 $1,502,5361,620,797
$1,497,431 $1,578,562
$1,311,317$1,396,196 $1,437,199
$3,831,
$4 372 689$4,293,058
—41--Fund Balance
—0—Revenues
—L-Expenditures
$1,972,182$2,023,119
4,010,703
$1,864 911,931,600
$1,871,855
$1,502,107$1,4s1,983$1,502,876$1,611,602
1,502,107$1,481,983$1,502,876$1,611,602
-I-
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Fiscal years 2005/06 to 2014/15 are actual amounts, FY 2015/16 projected amounts, FY 2016/17 proposed budget
amounts