Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Agenda 08-22-2016
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 1 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 19'" day of August, 2016, I serve the within City Council Meeting - 08/22/2016 a copy ofwhichis 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 19" day of August, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California. Ewa Nikodem Administrative Assistant ( AGENDA REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2016 7:00 P.M. Next Resolution No. 1188 Next Ordnance No. 347 e'er', ij Rdia9 q INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 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 August 8, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Financial Statement for the Month of July, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. D. Allied Recycling Tonnage Report for July, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 5. COMMISSION ITEMS NONE. Page 1 of 3 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION IN ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5 PINE TREE LANE AS REFLECTED IN PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-15. AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF 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). B. 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 7.5' INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND THE EAVES ENCROACH 4' INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK BEYOND THE MAXIMUM OF 5' ENCROACHMENT ALLOWED; TO CONSTRUCT AN UP TO 7' HIGH 32' LONG RETAINING WALL WHICH WOULD NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5' IN HEIGHT AND WHICH WOULD ENCROACH 12.5' INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. PREVIOUS PROPOSALS WERE 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, NOVEMBER 9, 2015, JANUARY 11, 2016 AND JULY 11, 2016. 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 AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 20 -FOOT SIDE -YARD SETBACK WITH EAVES AND BY 61 -SQUARE FEET, DUE TO A 300 - SQUARE FOOT ADDITION; APPROVING A MODIFIED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A RETAINING WALL GREATER THAN THREE FEET IN HEIGHT AND VARIANCES TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 20 -FOOT SIDE -YARD SETBACK BY 12.5 FEET, DUE TO A SEVEN (7) FOOT HIGH RETAINING WALL THAT DOES NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5 FEET IN HEIGHT; AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE WITHDRAWAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 6 -FOOT HIGH WALL AND A 2 -FOOT FLAT WALKWAY AROUND THE BUILDING ADDITION IN ZONING CASE NO. 880 AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 78-RH), ROLLING HILLS CA, (HASSOLDT). City Council Agenda 08/22/16 Page 2 of 3 7. OLD BUSINESS NONE. 8. NEW BUSINESS NONE. 9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS A. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE FOR AN APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. B. UPDATE ON THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA REGIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 11, 2016. (ORAL REPORT) C. DISCUSSION CONCERNING SCHEDULING A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION. (ORAL REPORT) 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF A. QUARTERLY SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2016. B. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A DRAFT LETTER TO CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY REGARDING ITS WATER BUDGET APPEAL PROCESS. C. CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE ASSOCIATE PLANNER POSITION TO ASSISTANT PLANNER IN ORDER TO INITIATE RECRUITMENT FOR POSITION. 11. CLOSED SESSION NONE. 12. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Monday, September 12, 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), ifyozi need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377.1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting. City Council Agenda 08/22/16 Page 3 of 3 DRAFT Agenda Item No. 4-A Meeting Date: 08/22/16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 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 7:01 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Dieringer. Councilmembers Absent: Black (excused). Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Keith Murphy, 3 Pine Tree Lane. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering. Chris Sharng, 5 Pine Tree Lane. Shahla Rizi, 23 Portuguese Bend Road/41 Eastfield Drive. David Lillington, 14 Georgeff Road. Isabel Puri, 15 Bowie Road. Preston Young, on behalf of 2738 Palos Verdes Drive North (Chen). Spencer Karpf, 8 Maverick Lane. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME Keith Murphy, 3 Pine Tree Lane addressed the City Council to suggest that a provision be added to the City's Municipal Code so that potential new owners that are in escrow to purchase a property are notified of Zoning Cases being considered by the Planning Commission. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West addressed the City Council to ask that the City provide a date certain by which his petition needs to be submitted so that it can be on the March 2017 ballot. Mayor Dieringer suggested that staff handle this inquiry administratively. 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. 0 DRAFT A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of July 11, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Financial Statement for the Month of June, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. D. Allied Recycling Tonnage Report for June, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. E. Review and approval of the Planning/Traffic Commission Recruitment/Appointment Timeline for terms expiring in January 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. F. City of Rolling Hills Conflict of Interest Code Biennial Review. RECOMMENDATION: No changes. Receive and file. G. Consideration of a date of December 12, 2016 from 4-7 pm for the 3151 Annual Holiday Open House RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. H. Consideration of the following claim — CLAIMANT: Rick Edler/Merryweather Properties, Inc.; DATE OF LOSS: August 5, 2015; DATE FILED: July 15, 2016; ALLEGATION: Water damage to several units on a property located at 608 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 RECOMMENDATION: Deny claim. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as presented. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. COMMISSION ITEMS RESOLUTION NO. 2016-17 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A SWIMMING POOL/SPA, WALLS, FIRE PIT, BARBECUE, POOL EQUIPMENT, AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED 2.5' HIGH AVERAGE FOR ASSOCIATED WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 906 AT 27 CREST ROAD WEST, (LOT 174 -B -MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (GOLDENBERG). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 EXEMPTION GUIDELINES. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to construct a swimming pool, spa, walls and various other amenities in Zoning No. 906 at 27 Crest Road West and stated that the Planning Commission approved this request. She stated that a location for a future stable and corral is proposed at the rear of the property and the lot is currently developed with a tennis court. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she attended the site visit when the Planning Commission visited this site and she is familiar with the project. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-17 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 906 at 27 Crest Road West. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Minutes City Council Meeting 08-08-16 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 2016-18 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, GARAGE AND A BASEMENT, SWIMMING POOL, VARIOUS OUTDOOR AMENITIES AND VARIOUS RETAINING WALLS, A NEW DRIVEWAY AND GRADING; REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO ENCROACH WITH THE RESIDENCE, BASEMENT, LIGHT WELLS AND SEVERAL WALLS INTO SETBACKS, OF WHICH SOME DO NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5' IN HEIGHT, TO LOCATE THE POOL, POOL EQUIPMENT AND FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL IN FRONT YARD AREA, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AND DISTURBED AREA, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED COVERAGE OF FRONT SETBACK WITH THE DRIVEWAY AND TO EXPORT DIRT IN ZONING CASE NO. 895, AT 10 BOWIE ROAD, (LOT 4-CRA), ROLLING HILLS, CA (PANG JUI YIU). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 EXEMPTION GUIDELINES. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to construct a new single-family residence, garage, swimming pool, retaining walls, a new driveway and various other amenities in Zoning Case No. 895 at 10 Bowie Road stating that the Planning Commission approved this request after several public hearings; and after the applicant revised the project to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and several of the neighbors. She stated that a neighbor who did not speak up previously (Barnard), recently submitted a letter objecting to the project and the letter is included with the staff report. She further stated that another neighbor expressed concern regarding the soils, geology and hydrology of the entire area noting that the applicant has submitted soils reports which state that the area is suitable for development and at the time of plan check, the reports will be further reviewed. She further reviewed the proposed grading stating that the applicant is requesting a variance to export more dirt than is allowed so that the house can be lowered as suggested by the Planning Commission in response to concerns raised about the project. She reviewed the proposed new driveway configuration stating that the Traffic Commission reviewed and recommends approval of the new driveway apron. She further reviewed the disturbance, the development standards and the other variances being requested. Discussion ensued concerning what would trigger the need for additional soils and geology reports. In response, Planning Director Schwartz stated that this matter would be determined by the County during its review of the reports submitted. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-18 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 895 at 10 Bowie Road. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION IN ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5 PINE TREE LANE AS REFLECTED IN PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-15: Minutes City Council Meeting 08-08-16 D DRAFT 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 PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 EXEMPTION GUIDELINES. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated the on June 21, 2016, the Planning Commission approved the applicant's request in Zoning Case no. 901 at 5 Pine Tree Lane and on July 11, 2016, the City Council received a report on the project and at that time, the report was received and filed. She stated that pursuant to the appeal procedure set forth in the Municipal Code, this project was appealed by Mr. Keith Murphy, the property owner at 3 Pine Tree Lane so this case is before the City Council for review and consideration. She stated the staff reprot contains the complete record of the proceedings thus far including the appeal as well as the correspondence that was submitted with regard to this appeal. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the objections expressed in Mr. Murphy's appeal, which include objection to the variance granted for the grading and the height of the retaining walls. She noted that at the time this matter was before the Planning Commission, Mr. Murphy was not the owner of the property but the Planning Commission was informed by the previous owner that the property was in escrow. Ms. Schwartz further reviewed the proposed project, which includes a 5,250 sq. ft. residence with a 5,250 sq. ft. basement; two detached garages; a pool and spa; an 800 sq. ft. guesthouse and a 1,810 sq. ft stable with a loft. She stated that the applicant is also proposing a new driveway to access the property and several walls which range in height from 3-5 ft. She stated that this project was modified, and reduced in size and scope from what was originally proposed based on the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission during its review of the project. Ms. Schwartz further explainted that the current driveway serving this property also serves the property at 3 Pine Tree Lane and the Planning Commission included a condition in its approval of the project that the applicants maintain the driveway open for use by 3 Pine Tree Lane and that there be no impact of the development on the access to 3 Pine Tree Lane. She reviewed the proposed grading stating that the dirt will be balanced on site. Ms. Schwartz stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to exceed the maximum allowed disturbance with disturbance proposed at 45.2% where the maximum allowed is 40%. She further reviewed the development standards. Mayor Dieringer called for public comment. Keith Murphy, 3 Pine Tree Lane addressed the City Council to further explain his objections stating that his specific concern with regard to the grading at the back wall near his property line and the variance being requested to allow for the construction of 2:1 slopes versus 3:1slopes. He expressed concern that his property would be at risk for property damage and erosion damage. He stated that he had an engineer, John Schuricht of Palos Verdes Engineering review the plans and visit the site and he was informed by Minutes City Council Meeting 08-08-16 DRAFT Mr. Schuricht that there is risk to his property because of the project. He further stated that he also had a geologist, Tony Lee review the project and Mr. Lee stated that there is a risk of erosion due to the project. Mr. Murphy further expressed concern, with regard to the shared driveway, that condition J in the Planning Commission's resolution does not adequately allow for his continued use of the driveway. Mr. Murphy further suggested that the City Council reconsider some of the amenities that were eliminated during the Planning Commission's consideration of the case, including the tennis court. He further suggested that the applicant consider raising the building pad to maintain the slope on his side and that the applicant reconsider how the overall project is designed to make the best use of the property without impacting his property. In response to Mr. Murphy's suggestions, Councilmember Pieper explained the Planning Commission's reasoning for suggesting that the building pad be lowered, noting that if it were to be raised, it might create a view obstruction. Discussion ensued concerning the issues raised by Mr. Murphy and the communications between Mr. Murphy and Mrs. Shamg. Further discussion ensued concerning condition J in the resolution regarding maintaining access to the existing shared driveway that serves Mr. Murphy's property. Mayor Dieringer commented that the City Attorney indicated, when this mater was discussed previously, that the condition is sufficient to provide for continued access to the property at 3 Pine Tree Lane. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the City Council on behalf of the applicant to further explain the final project and the changes that were made during the Planning Commission's consideration of the project to address the concerns raised. She explained that the variance requested to exceed thc maximum allowed disturbance stating that the exceedance is primarily due to the proposed stable and corral; and without those items the disturbance would be at 39% which would not require a variance. She further explained the variance requested to exceed the maximum average 2.5 ft. wall height stating that the proposed walls average 3 ft. in height and are mostly visible from the Shamg property and the downhill side of the stable. Ms. Nicholson further commented that since the City Council received its report on the Planning Commission's approval, the applicant received a soils and geology report which indicated that there are favorable geologic conditions and the planned development will not have a negative impact on neighboring properties and a copy of that report has been provided to the City. Ms. Nicholson further explained the review process that the proposed project will be subject to during the County Building Department's review and assessment of the project. With regard to the issue raised regarding the access to Mr. Murphy's property via the shared driveway, Ms. Nicholson stated that the access to Mr. Murphy's property will be maintained. Discussion ensued concerning the feasibility of the changes Mr. Murphy suggested. In response to Councilmember Mirsch, Ms. Nicholson commented that as part of her preparation of a plan; when she stamps the plan, she is confirming that the project will not negatively impact the subject property or the neighboring properties and further, the engineers that finally approve the plans will make a similar affirmation. In response to Councilmember Wilson, Ms. Nicholson explained the revised driveway configuration. It was noted that the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the revised driveway, but that review occurred before the Traffic Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the revised location of the driveway apron. Minutes City Council Meeting 08-08-16 DRAFT Chris Sharug, 5 Pine Tree Lane addressed the City Council to further explain Uie revisions that were wade to their original plan and the process they went through during the Planning Commission's consideration of this case, which ultimately resulted in the Planning Commission's approval of the project. He commented that the project received a thorough and rigorous review when it was before the Planning Commission and requested that the City Council approve the project. Shahla Rizi, 23 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the City Council to express concern that she will be able to see the house from her property across the canyon and requested that there be vegetation to screen the house from her view. Discussion ensued concerning the conditions included in the Resolution that might address Ms. Rizi's concern. Mr. Murphy addressed the City Council to further explain why this appeal was filed. He suggested again that the City notify new owners that are in escrow to purchase a property of Zoning Cases being considered by the Planning Commission. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Dieringer asked for comments from the City Council. Councilmember Pieper commented that based on his review of the proposed project, he does not believe it would result in a better project if the suggestions Mr. Murphy made were implemented. Discussion ensued concerning the issues raised by Mr. Murphy and whether or not a field trip is necessary. Following discussion, the City Council concurred that the Planning Commission adequately reviewed this project and that a field trip is not necessary. Following further discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council direct staff to prepare a Resolution upholding the Planning Commission's decision granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case Nu. 901 at 5 Pine Tree Lane with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried by roll call vote without objection. Recognizing that there are members of the public present with interest in item 1OB under Matters from Staff relating to California Water Company's water budget appeal process, Mayor Dieringer suggested that the item be taken out of order. Hearing no objection, she so ordered. MATTERS FROM STAFF CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY WATER BUDGET APPEAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE. (ORAL REPORT) City Manager Cruz provided an update on the City's efforts in working with California Water Service Company with regard to the water budget appeal process and the changes that were recently made to Cal Water's Emergency Water Conservation plan. He stated that the changes include: reducing water reduction requirement from 36% to a voluntary 10% water reduction target; suspending water surcharges and suspending the water budget appeal process as of July 29, 2016. Mayor Dieringer further explained the issues that surround the water budget appeal process including that Cal Water is not willing to allow access to previous property owners usage data when setting water budgets for new residents since 2013. She noted that one resident in particular was having difficulty working with Cal Water regarding their water budget appeal until they advised Assemblyman David Hadley of the issue which resulted in a prompt resolution of the issues. Discussion ensued concerning the water budget appeal process and the Minutes City Council Meeting 08-08-16 DRAFT challenges associated with the process. Councilmember Pieper suggested a letter be written to Cal Water outlining the concerns. Councilmember Mirsch suggested the letter also be copied to Assemblyman Hadley and the CPUC. Mayor Dieringer called for public comment. David Lillington, 14 Georgeff Road addressed the City Council to express concern regarding the way water budgets are set and the water budget appeal process. Roman Puri, 15 Bowie Road addressed the City Council on behalf of his mother Isabel Puri to also express concern regarding the way water budgets are set. Shahla Rizi, 41 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council to express concern regarding the way water budgets are set. In response to her inquiry, the City Council informed her that if she is not residing at the property, she would need her tenant's information in order to file an appeal. Preston Young, addressed the City Council on behalf of 2738 Palos Verdes Drive North (Chen) to express concern regarding the way water budgets are set. Spencer Karpf, 8 Maverick Lane addressed the City Council to express concern regarding the way water budgets are set. Following discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council direct the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare a draft letter to California Water Service Company regarding this issue for the City Council's review at its August 22 meeting. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) RESOLUTION NO. 1187 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THE CITY TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz presented the staff report which explains that the Congestion Management Program (CMP) is a state mandated program intended to address the impact of new construction and local growth on the regional transportation system and air quality and requires that the City hold a public hearing and adopt a Resolution finding the City to be in conformance with the CMP and adopting the CMP Local Implementation Report. She stated that the report certifies that the City did not cause any impact on regional transportation or air quality; and that the City is within the State requirements for the CMP program. Mayor Dieringer called for public comment. Hearing none, she closed the public comment and asked for comments from the City Council. Minutes City Council Meeting 08-08-16 DRAFT Following brief discussion, Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1187 finding the City to be in conformance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and adopting the CMP Local Development Report as presented. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. OLD BUSINESS REPORT ON STATUS OF RESOLUTION REQUESTED IN ZONING CASE NO. 880 AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 78-RH), ROLLING HILLS CA, (HASSOLDT). Planning Director Schwartz reported that since the last time the City Council considered this case at which time staff was directed to prepare a resolution partially approving and partially denying the applicant's request, the applicant's representative has submitted a revised site plan indicating that they will no longer be requesting a variance for a less than 2 ft. walkway, but will be requesting a variance to construct an up to 7 ft. high wall which would encroach into the side yard setback. She stated that this revised request will have to be noticed for a public hearing. She further commented that since this revised plan substantially complies with the suggestion previously provided to the applicant by the City Council, staff will also bring a draft resolution approving the applicant's revised request for the City Council's consideration at its August 22, 2016 meeting. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council receive and file the report. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Councilmember Pieper abstained from voting on this matter due to the proximity of his property to the subject property. NEW BUSINESS None. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS DISCUSSION CONCERNING SCHEDULING A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION. (ORAL REPORT) Mayor Dicringer suggested that the City Cowtcil consider a Saturday or Sunday dale for the joint meeting between the City Council and Planning Commission given that it has been difficult to schedule for a weekday evening. The City Council directed staff to continue pursuing the proposed weekdays and report back to the City Council. Mayor Dieringer asked that this matter be agendized for further discussion at the August 22 City Council meeting. STATUS REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TREES AND VIEWS AD HOC COMMITTEE ON ITS EFFORTS TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE AND TO POSSIBLY BRING FORWARD A BALLOT MEASURE TO MODIFY OR REPEAL MEASURE B. (ORAL REPORT) The Trees and Views Ad Hoc Committee provided an update on the status of the discussions regarding Minutes City Council Meeting 08-08-16 0 DRAFT bringing forward a ballot measure to repeal Measure B and reported that a decision on a recommendation has not yet been reached. Discussion ensued concerning the options the City Council may consider in moving forward given that a notice of intent to submit a new initiative has been filed; and concerning the impact of repealing Measure B. Councilmember Mirsch expressed concern that this issue with having a measure on the ballot whether it's put on by the City Council or by an initiative, cannot be amended except by another vote of the people. Mayor Dierginer asked for public comment. Spencer Karpf, 8 Maverick Lane asked the City Council if a measure could be drafted in such a way that if it were adopted by the voters, it could still be treated as an ordinance. In response to Mr. Karpf's inquiry, City Attorney Jenkins stated that a provision can be placed in an initiative ordinance that allow for subsequent amendment by the City Council but most proponents don't include such a provision. Mr. Karpf further expressed concern that this matter has the potential to become a very divisive issue. Arvel Witte, 5 Quail Ridge Road South addressed the City Council in support of the City's previous view ordinance. Following further discussion, Mayor Dieringer asked that this matter be agendized for further discussion at the September 12 City Council meeting. City Manager Cruz suggested that item 10A under Matters from Staff pertaining to thc tcnnis court arca improvement project be taken out of order. Hearing no objection, Mayor Dieringer so ordered. MATTERS FROM STAFF DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL - PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TENNIS COURT AREA. City Manager Cruz presented the staff report including the background and current status of the tennis court improvement project being coordinated jointly by the City and the Rolling Hills Community Association. He commented that the City's portion of the project primarily relates to the changes being made to make the tennis courts and restroom that serve the area ADA compliant. He reviewed the proposed plans and the preliminary budget for the project stating that the estimated cost to the city is currently proposed at $186,980. He stated that staff is asking the City Council to accept the conceptual plans; to approve the preliminary budget; appropriate $5,000 toward constructing the ADA compliant restrooms; and authorize staff to retain the County of Los Angeles or private engineering firm to prepare the final structural plans. City Clerk Luce noted that correspondence in support of the project was received earlier today and has been placed on the dais. Kristen Raig, RHCA Association Manager addressed the City Council to further explain the proposed project. She commented that one of the objectives of this project is to make it a place where people can gather because there is no other place in the City for people to gather. Following discussion, Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council approve the preliminary plans and preliminary budget for the improvements to the Tennis Court area; appropriate up to $5,000 towards Minutes City Council Meeting 08-08-16 DRAFT building the ADA compliant restroom; and authorize staff to retain either Los Angeles County or a private engineering firm to adopt the final plans. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection by roll call vote. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION TO PURSUE A PROPOSAL TO PURCHASE BASIC VIDEO EQUIPMENT IN ORDER TO POST IMPORTANT COMMUNITY PRESENTATIONS ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. (ORAL REPORT) Mayor Dieringer suggested that the City Council consider purchasing basic video equipment in order to record and post important community presentations on the City's web site. The City Council did not act on the suggestion, but rather it was suggested that, as a trial at the next presentation, Mayor Dieringer video record the meeting and forward to Councilmember Pieper for editing so that it can be forwarded to staff and uploaded to the City's web site. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION TO PURSUE A PROPOSAL TO HOST A CITY TOWN HALL MEETING IN THE NEAR FUTURE. (ORAL REPORT) Mayor Dieringer suggested that the City Council consider hosting a Town Hall meeting in the futre. The City Council briefly discussed the suggestion, but no action was taken. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS . None. CLOSED SESSION None. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Dieringer adjourned the meeting at 10:28 p.m. in memory of philanthropist and long time resident Harlyne Norris. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, August 22, 2016 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, Califomia. Respectfully submitted, Minutes City Council Meeting 08-08-i6 -10- DRAFT Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, Bea Dieringer Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 08-08-16 CHECK CHECK NO. DATE * 24439 08/16/2016 • 24440 * 24441 08/172016 24442 08/22/2016 24443 08222016 24444 08222016 24445 08/22/2016 24446 08222016 24447 08/22/2016 24448 08/22/2016 24449 08222016 24450 08/22/2016 24451 08/22/2016 24452 08/22/2016 24453 08/22/2016 24454 08/22/2016 24455 08222016 24456 08/22/2016 24457 08/22/2016 24458 08/22/2016 24459 08222016 24460 08222016 24461 08/22/2016 24462 9/1/16 • PR LINK 8/5/16 • PR LINK 8/5/16 • Previously Disbursed City o/Ko&fly Agenda Item No: 4-B Mtg. Date: 08/22/16 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 8222016 - CHECK RUN PAYEE WENDY STARKS VOID WENDY STARKS CALPERS- CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DAILY BREEZE DAILY BREEZE DELTA DENTAL GROUNDWORKS LANDSCAPE INC. JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS LA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT LOU'S FLOOR COVERING INC. MAILFINANCE OPUS BANK ROLLING HILLS ESTATES S & W COMMUNICATIONS, INC. THE GAS COMPANY USCM VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS - VISION SERVICE PLAN - (CA) WILLDAN INC. XEROX CORPORATION CALPERS PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING PR LINK - PAYROLL 16 & PR TAXES Total DESCRIPTION NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 AMOUNT PPE08-16-16 PAYCHECK 1,926.56 PRINTER ERROR FINAL PAYCHECK AND VACATION PAYOUT 1,476.08 GASB 68 650.00 MAINT OF RADAR UNIT & CIMP IMPLEMENTATION 39,728.89 LEGAL ADVERTISING PV NEWS 385.20 LEGAL ADVERTISING 339.95 DENTAL INS AUGUST 1,680.38. MTC FOR ICEBERG ROSES 464.00 ATTORNEY SERVICES JULY 7,547.20 PRINTER/COPIER SERVICE 110.69 LOMITA STATION CONTRACT 24,828.64 CUSTOM SHUTTERS FINAL PMT 1,937.50 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE 590.14 OFFICE SUPPLIES & LCC CONFERENCE 1,072.10 CA CONTRACT CITIES BOARD MTG 1,500.00 PHONE SYSTEM SECURITY MODIFICATION 150.00 GAS BILL 17.42 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PPE 08/19/16 1,530.00 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PPE 08/19/16 280.56 VISION PLAN AUGUST 197.96 B&S PLAN CK SVCS 2,285.00 05/01/16 LOST BILL 33.00 HEATH PREMIUM 9/01/2016 7,190.40 Processing Fee 50.95 Pay Period - July 6, 2016 Through July 19, 2016 19,376.82 S 115,34944 I, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, California certify that the above demands are accurate and there is available in the General Fund a balance of $115,349.44 for the payment of above i Raymond R/Cruz, City Manager 9592161 Printed on Recycled Paper CITY OF ROLLING HILLS • BALANCE SHEET - PRELIMINARY July 31, 2016 e - MUNICIPAL GENERAL & DEPOSIT N OPEB COPS & COLLINS. SELF- REFUSE TRAFFIC TRANSIT UTILITY CAPITAL FUND FUND TRUST CLEEP FACILPtIES INSUlt. COLLECT. SAFETY PROP A. C. M FUND &TDA ASSETS Cash & cash equivalents S 4,488,099 S 1,771 - 5° 'I - S 94,396 5 18,282 S 260,374 S 235,421 5 (149) S 145,295 S 1,236,507 Cash & cash equivalents - Capital Project Fund - - - - - - - - - Poppy Trail Grading Bond - 305,000 - Accounts receivable 5,931 - 222,332 87,082 Prepaid expense & deposits 35 190 - - LIABILITIES BEGINNING YID OF YEAR TOTAL TOTAL S 6,479,996 S 6,866,551 305,000 305,000 315,345 266,804 35190 37436 TOTAL ASSETS S 4,529,220 5 306,771 S - $ 94,396 5 18,282 5 482,706 5 322,503 S (149) S 145,295 5 1,236,507 Accounts & Contract payable S 21,670 S • S - $ - S $ - $ 63,459 S S S Available for OPEB - - - - - - - Deposits 22,406 306,771 Deferred revenues 14,012 - - - - - TOTAL LABILITIES 58 088 306 771 - - - 63 459 5 7,135,531 S 7,475,75 FUND BALANCE Unassigned Fund Balance 4 471 132 - - 94 396 , 18,282 482 706 259 044 (149) S 145 295 1,236,507 TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE 4 471,132 - 94 396 18,282 482,706 259,044 (149) 145 295 1,236,507 TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE & LIABILmES S 4,529,220 5 306,771 5 5 94,396 5 18,282 S 482,706 5 322,503 S (149) S 145,295 5 1236,507 COMPOSITION OF CASH Petty Cash S 1,500 OPUS Bank - Checking Account 110,212 OPUS Bank - Money Market 79,016 OPUS Bank - Checking Account 1,003,567 Calif. State Local Agency Investment Fund 4,790,701 Malaga Bank /Preferred - CD's 495.000 E 6,479,996 Terry Sh7ttInance Director Raymond ' Cruz, City Manag Date DateDaat !I/ -a& S 85,129 5 397,382 329,177 .325,574 14012 14012 428 318 ' 736 968 ' 6707,213 6,738,823 6,707,213 6,738,823 S 7,135,531 7,475,791 r1 m T Op It 0 Pe CITY OF ROLLING RILLS SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES - PRELIMINARY Actual Compared to Annual Budget July 1, 2016 to July 31, 2016 Fund GENERAL Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue CITIZENS' OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAN hi Y (COPS) Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FLINT) Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Nct Revenue COMMUNITY FACILITIES Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue MUNICIPAL SELF-INSURANCE Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue REFUSE COLLECTION Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TRAFFIC SAFETY Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TRANSIT - PROPOSITION A, C & M Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers transfers in (out) Net Revenue UTILITY FUND Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TOTAL ALL FUNDS Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue This Year This Year Better Last Year (Worse) Adjusted Annual Remaining Budget Budget $ 109,809 S 17,028 $ 92,781 1,931,600 S 1,821,791 118,433 31,993 (86,440) 1,842,793 1,724,360 (8,624) (14,965) 6,341 88,807 97,431 2,000 2,000 - (344,050) (346,050) (6,624) (12,965) 6,341 (255,243) (28,619) - - - 115,125 115,125 7,158 - (7,158) 164,000 156,842 (7,158) - (7,158) (48,875) (41,717) - - - 0 (7,158) - (7,158) (48,875) (41,717) - 100 100 - - 62,700 62,700 - - - (62,600) (62,600) - - - 62,600 62,600.00 - - - 0 - 6,000 6,000.00 _ - - (6,000) (6,000.00) - - (6,000) (6,000.002 64,905 64,233 672 a 771,900 706,995 63,459 62,998 (461) 761,508 698,049 1,446 1,235 211 10,392 8,946 (2,000) (2,000) - (24,000) (22,000) (554) (765) 211 - (13,608) (13,054) - - - 50 50 - 388 388 55,500 55,500 (388) 388 (55,450) (55,450) _ - - 55,450 55,450 - Q88) 388 - 0 5,677 5,673 4 85,786 80,109 - - 190,000 190,000.00 5,677 5,673 4 (104,214) (109,891) 5,677 5,673 4 (104,214 (109 891 - - 150,000 150,000.00 - - - (150,000) (150,000.00) - - 250,000 250,000.00 - - - 100,000 100,000.00 180,391 86,934 93,457 2,904,561 2,724,170 189,050 95,379 (93,671) 3,232,501 3,043,451 (8,659) (8,445) (214) (327,940) (319,281) $ (8,659) S (8,445) $ (214) $ (327,940) $ (319,281) CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL ALLIED WASTE RECYCLE NOW REPORT Report Date: 2016 MONTH 2016 January February March RECYCLED (tons) 74.63 82.00 83.40 86.74 April May June 120.19 100.07 July 85.65 August September October November December Year to Date Totals: Average Monthly Totals: 2016 GREEN WASTE (tons) 83.74 66.79 C&D Recycled 4.33 3.20 C&D Disposed 1.85 1.37 4.10 1.37 Disposal Tonnage 151.42 155.47 134.50 118.77 163.93 134.20 124.30 04 Diversion 51.49% 49.22% 59.28% 61.58% 59.38% 61.87% 64.57% 106.96 100.87 102.06 11.44 4.97 35.79 52.70 12.62 19.13 41.37 96.02 103.09 113.19 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 632.69 90.38 659.53 94.22 225.61 32.23 81.82 MONTHLY TOTALS (tons) 315.97 308.83 340.40 312.72 434.59 402.12 467.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.78% 982.58 11.69 140.37 0.58 2,582.23 368.89 RECEIVED AUG 15 2016 City of Rolling Hills By CD ort �z INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: THRU: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 6-A Mtg. Date: 08/22/16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: DATE PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 901 -RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL 5 PINE TREE LANE (LOT 94-RH) RA -S-2, 5.15 ACRES (EXCL. ROADWAY EASEMENT) MS. LAUREN SHARNG TAVISHA NICHOLSON, BOLTON ENGINEERING JULY 28, 2016 REQUEST AND CITY COUNCIL ACTION 1. The applicant, Mr. and Mrs.. Sharng requested a Site Plan Review to construct 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 ranging from a 3- 5 feet, 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 applicants also requested 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. A new driveway apron is also proposed, which was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Traffic Commission at its July 28, 2016 meeting. ZC NO. 901, 5 Pine Tree Lane 2. The Planning Commission adopted a Resolution approving the project on June 21, 2016 and the City Council received and filed a report on this case on July 11, 2016. 3. On July 21, 2016 the Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council by Mr. Keith Murphy, 3 Pine Tree Lane. On August 8, 2016 the City Council held a de novo public hearing in Zoning Case No. 901, and after discussion and consideration, directed staff to prepare a Resolution upholding the Planning Commission's decision. 4. In addition to Mr. Murphy's appeal and testimony, the property owner at 23 Portuguese Bend Rd. testified at the City Council public hearing requesting that the project be screened from her view. Staff feels that condition "S" in the resolution addresses this concern. Enclosed with this report is additional correspondence from Mr. Murphy. 5. Together with standard findings of facts and conditions of approval, conditions specific to this project have been included in the draft 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 Lane, but retain the access (apron) to 3 Pine Tree Lane over 5 Pine Tree Lane property • Provide photographic evidence of the condition of the portion of the apron that is to remain for access to 3 Pine Tree Ln. and restore it after construction, if damaged • During construction stake the southerly and westerly property, easements and setback lines along the limits of the project • 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. 6. It is recommended that the City Council review and consider the attached Resolution for adoption. ZC NO. 901, 5 Pine Tree Lane s RECEIVED AUG 1 7 2016 City of Rolling Hills By City of Rolling Hills City Council 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 17, 2016 Keith Murphy 3 Pine Tree Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Council Members, I wanted to thank you sincerely for considering the appeal of Zoning Case 901 at the City Council's meeting of August 8, 2016. 1 appreciate the acceptance of the appeal and the time spent in discussion of the issues, and wanted to submit some further thoughts as the Council considers the resolution language being considered at the meeting on August 22, 2016. The basis for my appeal was that during its consideration of the proposal, the Planning Commission improperly failed to consider or address my objections to the project, citing for example in the minutes that "9t was noted that Keith Murphy is not a property owner". Because of this, the input of a key stakeholder was not heard in the planning process, and the hearing of an appeal was appropriate. 1 truly appreciate you taking the time to hear out my points for consideration on the issuing of variances for the project. As you can expect, it brings significant harmony to any development scenario to have all parties feel as though they have been heard, and I thank you for hearing out my concerns. In regard to a final decision, the Council voted to request resolution language for consideration, such language to be presented for a vote on Aug. 22 at the Council's regular meeting. I'm hopeful that the Councilmembers upon reviewing this language recall a point I raised during the discussion on August 8. As required by 17.38.050, the City Council to permit the variance must find that "the granting of such variance will not be... injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity." My key worry, of course, is that the project as approved by the Planning Commision might be injurious to my property or improvements thereon. However, the approval of resolution language that finds that this project will not be injurious in any way is a guarantee that I feel comfortable relying on, because the standard it sets is so high. Such a finding is not, for example, a finding that the project will probably not be injurious, or a finding that the project most likely will not be injurious, but rather that with certainty it will not be injurious. Such a finding confirms that the Council is confident and is not relying on future protections such as midstage reviews to assure no injury, but is fully affirming at this stage that injury is not a possible outcome. I can put my full faith in such a finding and welcome the closure it provides. The resolution language should also meet another standard in 17.38.050, whereby the City Council find that "such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights". Similar to the guarantee of no injury, this finding would be very reassuring and can be relied on, because it represents that the City Council fully considered all alternative options to achieve such preservation and enjoyment, including presumably reviewing in full alternative options or requesting such review from the Planning Commission. As a further point, 1 wanted to express my appreciation that during our discussion Mayor Dierenger was able to confirm that the language in Condition J of the approval was drafted by the City Attomey to have the twin effect of guaranteeing full access along the existing driveway to 3 Pine Tree Lane in on an ongoing basis as well as barring construction access to 5 Pine Tree Lane via the shared driveway during the project. Finally, I wanted to laud the City Council for its focus on the relevant issues during these matters. Although a number of false narratives and irrelevant points were made in opposition to the acceptance of an appeal and during its consideration, these were appropriately rejected by the Council members. In particular, for the Council to give any merit to an argument that a property owner felt "worked over" by the Planning Commission already and thus shouldn't face an appeal or further delay would serve to invite future purposely overambitious construction requests to give buffer against appeal. The fact that a highly unreasonable initial plan was proposed which initiated strongly worded objections from many parties (Tony Podell, former owner of 3 Pine Tree; myself; and indeed from the Planning Commission itself) and required hard work by the Planning Commission to rein in should not impact the clear-eyed review of the remaining issues. It is my opinion that the Council properly focused away from such irrelevant matters. The City Council focused instead on dealing with the state of the current proposal and the remaining required variances, which the Council will now move forward to determine the risk of when it considers the resolution at hand. If the council now affirms that there is no risk of injury to my property, I cannot be anything but satisfied with that as an outcome of the appeal. Thank you, Sincerely, Keith Murphy E) RESOLUTION NO.1188 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF 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 PERMIII'ED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5 PINE TREE LANE, (LOT 94- RH), (SHARNG). THE CITY COUNCIL 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 adopted Resolution No. 2016-15 approving the project on June 21, 2016 and the City Council received and filed a report in this case on July 11, 2016. Chapter 17.54 of the Municipal Code sets the process for appeals of the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. Anyone may appeal a decision of the Planning Commission within 30 -days of the Commission action. On July 21, 2016 an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed to the City Council. On August 8, 2016 the City Council held a duly noticed de novo public hearing in Zoning Case No. 901, and after discussion and consideration, directed staff to prepare a Resolution upholding the Planning Commission's action. 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 and not affect the access serving 3 Pine Tree Lane. Resolution No. 1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane Section 4. The City Council 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 City Council 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 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 17.16.0708). 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 Resolution No. 1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane 2 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 new 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. 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 City Council finds as follows: Resolution No. 1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane 3 6 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. 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. Resolution No. 1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane 4 O 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 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 City Council 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. Resolution No. 1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane 5 6 The exceedance of the disturbance is due in large part to the proposed driveway. Any concerns voiced by residents and the City Council 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. 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 City Council 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 Resolution No. 1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane 6 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. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated July 01, 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 those 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 City Coucil. 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%. Resolution No.1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane 7 j 0 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. J. A new driveway shall be provided per the Fire Department requirements and the apron of the driveway shall meet the conditions of approval of 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. Resolution No. 1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane 8 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. At time of planting such plants shall be no smaller than in 15 gallon containers, or equivalent. 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 southerly property line, setback and easement lines and the westerly roadway easement and front setback lines, along the limits of the project, shall be 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 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. Resolution No. 1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane 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: http://www.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 finaling of 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 ofAcceptanceof 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, APPROVED AND ADO''I ED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2016. BEA DIERINGER, MAYOR Al PEST: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Resolution No. 1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane 10 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1188 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF 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 FERMI FED AVERAGE HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMI I I'ED 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 City Council on August 22, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane 11 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: THRU: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 6-B Mtg. Date: 08/2W16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR 1 RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER / 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 AUGUST 11, 2016 AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1189: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 20 -FOOT SIDE -YARD SETBACK WITH EAVES AND BY 61 -SQUARE FEET, DUE TO A 300 -SQUARE FOOT ADDITION; APPROVING A MODIFIED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A RETAINING WALL GREATER THAN THREE FEET IN HEIGHT AND VARIANCES TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 20 -FOOT SIDE -YARD SETBACK BY 12.5 FEET, DUE TO A SEVEN (7) FOOT HIGH RETAINING WALL THAT DOES NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5 FEET IN HEIGHT; AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE WITHDRAWAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 6 -FOOT HIGH WALL AND A 2 -FOOT FLAT WALKWAY AROUND THE BUILDING ADDITION IN ZONING CASE NO. 880 AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 78-RH), ROLLING HILLS CA, (HASSOLDT). 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 ZC NO. 880 -Revised required 20 -foot side yard setback and the provision of a ramp like, 2 -foot wide access around the addition, the City Council took this project under jurisdiction. The addition was approved administratively based on a plot plan provided by the applicants. The applicants obtained s building permit for this addition. During construction of the addition it was found that the addition encroaches into the side setback and a discretionary review of the project was initiated. The applicants have also enclosed a 42 square foot portion of the house and renovated a sun -room without building permits. They are required to obtain City's administrative approval for this work and obtain building permits. 2. During the proceedings, which included several public hearings and postponements, the applicants submitted a different proposal for the access around the addition, which entailed a 2' wide flat walkway with a 6' high retaining wall in the side setback. At the July 11, 2016, City Council meeting, council members by a 3-1 vote directed staff to prepare a Resolution approving the addition, but not the 7 wide walkway, which would result in a 6' high retaining wall in the side setback. Members of the Council indicated that they would consider a proposal with a higher retaining wall encroaching further into the side yard setback, if such construction resulted in a 4' -wide walkway around the addition. To accomplish this a 32 -foot long, an up to 7' high retaining wall would be required, which would encroach up to 12.5 feet into the side yard setback for a short distance. The Council also discussed that the area where the slope makes a 90 - degree angle at the rear corner of the addition be widened to provide for a wider passage area and suggested that the Pine Tree located above this slope in the vicinity of the southerly property line be removed. 3. The Rolling Hills Community Association granted the applicants a license agreement to construct an up to 7' tall retaining wall in the side easement and the Architectural Committee approved the addition. CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS: 4. Enclosed with this staff report is a draft Resolution representing approval of this project, as presented. iThe City Council, could after holding a public hearing and deliberation adopt the Resolution if it finds that the project and information provided are acceptable. The City Council could also add, amend or delete any of the conditions of approval stated in the Resolution. If those changes are substantive, direct staff to bring an amended resolution to the next City Council meeting. However, if members of the City Council have more questions or the project is not satisfactory, the public hearing could be continued (preferably to a date specific), or provide other direction to staff. The enclosed Resolution contains standard findings of fact and conditions including conditions specific to this case such as: • Any modification to the project or any further development on the property require Planning Commission review and approval ZC NO. 880 -Revised • Plans for the unpermitted addition/renovation of the sun room shall be submitted for Planning approval and building permits obtained REVISED REQUEST 5. Following the July 11, 2016 City Council meeting, the applicants chose to submit a revised plan meeting the requirement for a 4' wide access around the addition, which necessitates the construction of a 32 feet long, up to 7' high retaining wall that for an about a 4 -foot distance encroaches up to 12.5' into the required 20 -foot side yard setback. The height of the wall and amount of the encroachment decreases as the wall moves away from its mid -point, and at the walls' both ends reaches 2' in height. In meeting the City Council and RHCA request, the Pine Tree has been removed and the proposed retaining wall flares out to provide a wider area just behind the addition. With these changes, the applicants are currently proposing to retain the as built 300 square foot addition, of which 61 square feet encroaches 7.5' into the side yard setback and the eaves encroach 4' past the 5' allowable encroachment, (per the Zoning Code, up to 5' encroachment of eaves is permitted into side setbacks); provide a 4' -wide walkway around the residence addition and construct a 32 -foot long, not to exceed 7 -foot high retaining wall that encroaches up to 12.5 feet into the 20 -foot required side yard setback. The wall, as it moves away from the mid point, becomes shorter and encroaches less into the setback. 6. According to the LA County Building and Safety/Public Works engineers, during the plan check stage, the applicant will be required to prepare and submit a geological report that includes seismic design, structural calculations and details. This would also address slope stability. The Building Department engineering staff during plan check stage, will determine the extent and level of reports and observations required. In addition, when a project is close to a property line the building engineers look at temporary cuts adjacent to the property lines to verify that excavation does not go beyond the property line. If the applicant can't accomplish the temporary cuts without going beyond the property line, then shoring must be provided, or permission obtained from the adjacent property owner to do so. 7. The public hearing for consideration of the revised project has been noticed in the local newspaper and the neighbors within 1,000 -foot radius of the parcel were also notified. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 8. 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 342 square foot addition and the renovated sunroom the residence is 3,971 square feet with 748 square foot garage. The property is also developed with a 412 square foot stable, 239 square foot gazebo, attached trellis, covered porch and service yard. ZC NO. 880 -Revised 0 9. The structural coverage of the net lot is proposed to be 5,870 square feet or 16.0%, including the min. required 450 sq.ft. stable, (max. permitted is 20%). With the allowed deduction the structural coverage is 5,750 sq.ft. or 15.8% of the net lot area. The total coverage (structures and flatwork) is proposed at 10,293 square feet or 28.2%, (max. permitted is 35% of the net lot area). 10. The disturbed area of the lot is 71 %, and is legal non -conforming. The wall construction will entail a cut of 10 cubic yards of dirt, which will be used to backfill the wall. 11. 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%. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. In justifying the project, the applicants' representative states in part that the current plan proposed is as a result of the requirement for a 4'wide walkway. A PV Stone rubble wall existed near the addition and it was removed during construction of the addition, which necessitated a different support of the slope and further out from the addition. The project generally is compatible with the neighborhood and is one of the oldest homes in the City with several non -conforming conditions on the lot, such as exceedance of disturbed area. It is difficult to make any improvements to the lot within required development standards, although other than the encroachment and existing non -conformities, the project meets all other development standards. ZC NO. 880 -Revised 0 ZONING CASE NO. 880 -REVISED SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S-1 ZONE SETBACKS Single family residence and accessory structures Addition that requires variance; retaining wall that requires variance 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 -future 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 5,870 sq.ft STRUCTURAL LOT 14.8% 16.0% of 36,484 sq.ft. net lot area; w/deductions 15.7% COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 27.2% 10,293 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 None Site plan review required if excavation and/ur fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq. ft.,/balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA 71% 71% (40% maximum; STABLE (minimum 450 sq. ft.) a 412 sq.ft. 412 sq.ft. available room for 450 sq.ft. CORRAL (minimum 550 sq. ft.) STABLE ACCESS From driveway From driveway ACCESSWAY Existing Existing 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; ZC NO. 880 -Revised 0 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. 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. 13. 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 RESOLUTION NO. 1189 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 20 -FOOT SIDE -YARD SETBACK WITH EAVES AND BY 61 -SQUARE FEET, DUE TO A 300 - SQUARE FOOT ADDITION; APPROVING A MODIFIED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A RETAINING WALL GREATER THAN THREE FEET IN HEIGHT AND VARIANCES TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 20 -FOOT SIDE -YARD SETBACK BY 12.5 FEET, DUE TO A SEVEN (7) FOOT HIGH RETAINING WALL THAT DOES NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5 FEET IN HEIGHT; AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE WITHDRAWAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 6 -FOOT HIGH WALL AND A 2 -FOOT FLAT WALKWAY AROUND THE BUILDING ADDITION IN ZONING CASE NO. 880 AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 78-RH), ROLLING HILLS CA, (HASSOLDT). The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. William Hassoldt ("Applicants"), with respect to real property located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA (Lot 78-RH), which requested variances to encroach into the required 20 -foot side -yard setback. One variance proposed an encroachment of 61 square feet (due to the addition of a 300 -square foot bedroom closet to the home). The second variance proposed two 3 -foot tall retaining walls. These retaining walls, in conjunction with the building encroachment, would reduce the width of the walkable passage area around a portion of the residence to only two (2) feet. Of the two proposed retaining walls, one is "L" -shaped and would adjoin the exterior wall of the addition and project approximately eight (8) feet into the side yard. The purpose of this wall is to provide physical separation between the exterior of the home and an adjoining earthen slope. The second proposed retaining wall, approximately 12 -feet in length, would be located adjacent to the edge of the Rolling Hills Community Association ("RHCA") easements and project approximately 10 -feet into the side yard setback. The purpose of these walls would be to retain earthen ramps in order to provide a 2 -foot wide passage around the building, which is less than the four (4) foot minimum passage required by the Building Code. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on May 19, 2015, July 7, 2015, July 21, 2015, and September 15, 2015. At its September 15, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission approved Zoning Case No. 880 (Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-21) by a 2-1 vote. During the proceedings it was also discovered that the Applicants had remodeled and poured a new foundation for the sunroom on the property and had also constructed an addition totaling 42 -square feet at the rear of the property. These improvements were not depicted in the original application submitted to staff in connection with this project. Section 2. Following Planning Commission approval of Zoning Case No. 880, the City Council took jurisdiction of the application at its October 12, 2015 meeting. Pursuant to Section 17.54.015 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, a review hearing for cases taken under jurisdiction by the City Council shall be conducted de novo. Resolution No. 1189 15 Portuguese Bend Rd. 1 Section 3. On October 26, 2015, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and public field trip, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information on the record, including evidence presented by Mr. Hassoldt. At the conclusion of the October 26, 2015 meeting, the City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution to approve the request for a Variance for 61 -square foot encroachment of the 300 -square foot addition into the south side yard setback, and to disapprove the request for the Variance for the 3 -foot high walls and a 2 -foot ramp -like walkway around the addition due to fire safety access concerns regarding the substandard walkway. Council further directed the Applicants to provide a 4 -foot wide walkway around the perimeter of the addition, widen the area where the slope makes a 90 degree angle at the rear corner of the addition to provide a wider passage area, and remove the Pine tree located above this slope in the vicinity of the south property line. Section 4. On November 4, 2015, the City received a proposal from Mr. Gary Wynn, Applicants' engineer, proposing to modify the direction of the City Council in order to allow for a 2 -foot wide on -grade access at the corner of the addition which would widen to 4 -feet wide along the sides of the addition. Such a modification would require a 6 -foot high retaining wall along the easement line. Section 5. On November 9, 2015, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information on the record, including an objection to the proposed modifications and request for Variances from Mr. Howard Weinberg, attorney for the neighbors at 18 Portuguese Bend Road. The City Council did not approve Mr. Wynn's November 4, 2015 proposal and reiterated support for its October 26, 2015 direction and for consideration of a resolution at its November 23, 2015 meeting. Section 6. Following the November 9 2015 hearing, in order to accomplish the City Council's direction to provide a 4 -foot wide walkway around the residence, the Applicants submitted a revised plan to staff which proposed to reduce the size of the encroachment by demolishing 20 square feet at the corner of the addition. This new plan would also require an encroachment of 10 feet into the side yard setback for the purposes of constructing a 3 -foot to 5 -foot high by 20 -foot long retaining wall. Prior to the November 23, 2015 City Council meeting, however, the Applicants withdrew this proposal and requested that the case be continued. Section 7. On June 27, 2016, the City received a letter from Mr. Harold Light, attorney for the Applicants, requesting that the City Council reconsider its direction of October 26 and November 9, 2015 and approve the Variance requests. Section 8. On July 11, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered the Applicants' request, public testimony, and other information on the record. At the conclusion of the July 11, 2016, meeting, the City Council again directed staff to prepare a resolution to: (I) approve the request for a Variance for 61 -square foot encroachment of the 300 -square foot addition and eaves into the south side yard setback, and (2) to disapprove the request for the Site Plan and Variance for the 6 -foot high wall and a 2 -foot flat walkway around the addition due to the walkway's inconsistency with the Building Code and Fire Code. Section 9. On August 4, 2016, the Applicants withdrew the variance proposing the 6 -foot tall retaining wall and 2 -foot -wide flat walkway and modified their request to include one seven -foot retaining wall, which would encroach into the required 20 -foot side -yard setback by 12.5 feet for a short distance. The remaining distance of the 7 -foot wall would be 5 feet or less in height and would encroach Resolution No. 1189 15 Portuguese Bend Rd. less into the setback as the wall moves away from its midpoint. This retaining wall, in addition to the 61 -square foot building encroachment, would preserve a four (4) foot wide walkable passage area around the residence. The City Council hereby acknowledges the withdrawal of the previous site plan and variance request. Section 10. On August 22, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered the Applicants' request, public testimony, and other information on the record. Section 11. Findings for Approval of Variances to encroach into the required 20 -foot side -yard setback by 61 -square feet addition and eaves and up to a maximum of 12.5 feet by a retaining wall. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. In the subject application, the Applicants requested Variances to exempt them from strict compliance with Section 17.16.120, requiring a side -yard setback of 20 feet in the RAS-1 zone; and section 17.16.190(F), requiring that retaining walls shall not exceed five feet in height and that the walls shall average out to two and one-half feet as measured from the finished grade to the top of the wall. With respect to these requests for Variances to encroach with the addition, eaves and the retaining wall into the side yard setback and to construct higher than a 5 -foot retaining wall that does not average out to 2.5 feet in height, the City Council finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to this property that do not generally apply to the other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The mostly completed addition was inadvertently built in the setback in reliance on a prior survey that was found to be inaccurate after construction was nearly complete. The property is the smaller and narrower in width than other properties in the immediate vicinity, which creates a challenge to develop or improve the property. The front of the residence encroaches into the front setback and the portion of the addition subject to the variance is located behind this condition and is not visible from the street; B. The Variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which would be denied to the property in question absent such variances. With the constraint of the lot's size and width and the configuration of the existing residence with the bedrooms located on the south side of the house, it is a challenge to provide a larger closet for one of the bedrooms in strict compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, a seven -foot retaining wall is necessary in order to preserve a four -foot walkway around the perimeter of the home, as proscribed by section 17.16.190(H); in order for a seven - foot high retaining wall to average out to 2.5 feet, the length of the wall would have to exceed 32 feet. A variance from the requirements of section 17.16.190(F) would preserve the enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties by minimizing the amount of construction necessary to achieve an average wall height of 2.5 feet and would help preserve the aesthetics of the property; C. The granting of the Variances would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The side -yard encroachments total of 61 square feet and 12.5 feet are minor in scope. These additions will not be visible from the street (Portuguese Bend Road) or adjoining residences because the subject home's location and elevation is approximately 20 feet lower than the closest neighboring home Resolution No. 1189 15 Portuguese Bend Rd. and there is substantial vegetation surrounding the subject home. The encroaching portion of the addition, being located on the south side of the property, will not impair views of neighbors to the north. Furthermore, a seven -foot retaining wall is necessary in order to preserve a four -foot walkway around the perimeter of the home and ensure adequate access to all corners of the property by emergency access vehicles; D. In granting the Variances, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed. The proposed improvements will be orderly, attractive, and will not affect the rural character of the community due to their relatively small scope and size. The proposed improvements will not encroach into existing equestrian use on the property, which consists of a 412 square foot stable and adjacent corral; and E. The Variances requested are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. The proposed improvements will comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The structural lot coverage and the total impervious lot coverage are within the requirements of the City. Section 12. Findings for Approval of Site Plan review for a retaining wall that exceeds three feet in height, as required by Section 17.16.190(F). With respect to the modified Site Plan review application, the City Council finds as follows: A. The proposed retaining wall complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance. A four -foot wide walkway is required by the City's Municipal Code in order to provide sufficient access to the perimeter of the home. The proposed seven -foot high retaining wall is proposed in an area that surrounds the perimeter of the home, including the 300 -square foot closet addition. In order to maintain a four -foot walkway around the perimeter of the home, as required by code, the slope adjacent to the home and the addition would need to be retained and pushed back. For this reason, neither a three-foot nor five-foot high retaining wall would be sufficient to maintain the four -foot walkway required by the City's Municipal Code B. The retaining wall substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the construction of a seven -foot high retaining wall will not adversely affect or be detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings or structures because the proposed improvement will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is least intrusive to surrounding properties; C. The Retaining Wall is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. The proposed project is consistent with the scale of the home because the length of the proposed retaining wall will not exceed 32 feet and most of it will be between 5 and 2 feet in height; D. The Retaining Wall preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding vegetation, draining courses and land forms. The proposed height and length of the retaining wall are at the minimum threshold required in order to retain the size of the slope adjacent to the property and allow for a four -foot wide walkway; Resolution No. 1189 15 Portuguese Bend Rd. E. Minimal excavation and back fill of 10 cubic yards is required, which does not trigger grading requirements, although geotechnical report will be required for slope stability and drainage F. The proposed project will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect the drainage flow; G. The proposed project preserves surrounding vegetation and shrubs because the height of the wall will translate into a wall that is shorter in length, thereby preserving the rural character of the RA -S zone, and requiring less construction overall which would disturb less existing vegetation; H. The proposed retaining wall is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles. A seven -foot high retaining wall would preserve a four -foot walkway around the perimeter of the home, as required by code, in order to allow for the safe passage of emergency access personnel; and I. The construction of the proposed retaining wall conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 13. Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the City Council hereby APPROVES a site plan review for retaining wall greater than three feet in height and variances to encroach into the required 20 -foot side -yard setback with eaves and by 61 -square feet, due to a 300 -square foot addition and 12.5 feet encroachment into the side -yard setback, due to a seven (7) foot high retaining wall, which does not average out to 2.5 feet in height subject to the following conditions: A. The approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070(A) of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. If any conditions of approval are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have 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 Code and the Zoning Ordinance including outdoor lighting requirements, roofing material requirements, stable and corral area set aside requirements and all other requirements of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in this approval. D. The project shall be developed and maintained in conformance with the site plan on file in the City Planning Department dated August 4, 2016. The conditions of this approval shall be printed onto building and construction plans and be available on site at all times. E. The Applicants shall obtain the required building permits for the remodel and new foundation for the sunroom on the property, as well as permits for the construction of the 42 -square foot Resolution No. 1189 15 Portuguese Bend Rd. addition at the rear of the property and for all other interior improvements, where a building permit is required. F. This project including all additions, hardscape and wall shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. Any deviations to this project that the RHCA may recommend or request, which would trigger additional grading, require additional walls or affect any of the herein approved development, shall be submitted for reviewed by the Planning Commission. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 5,870 square feet or 16.0% of the net lot area, including the existing stable. With allowable deductions, the structural lot coverage shall be 15.8%. H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 10,293 square feet or 28.2% with allowances, in conformance with lot coverage limitations. I. The disturbed area of the lot shall remain as is currently and not exceed 71.0%. J. Residential building pad coverage on the 15,710 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 32.2%, with permissible allowances. K. The existing stable or an area of a minimum of 1,000 square feet, feasible for development of a stable, corral and access thereto, shall be retained on the property at all times. L. All utility lines for structures subject to this application shall be placed underground. M. The property owners and/or their contractor shall be responsible for compliance with the no -smoking provisions in the Municipal Code. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&pate=hazard definitions#FIRE It is the sole responsibility of the property owners and/or their 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 extinguisher. N. Notwithstanding Section 17.38.065 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, there shall be no further modifications, changes or variations to the project approved by this resolution, or any further development on the property without Planning Commission review and approval. O. Any trees or shrubs introduced for this project or in the future, when grown, shall not exceed the ridge height of the residence and shall be maintained at such height at all times, so as not to impair neighbors' views. The landscaping, if planted, shall include native drought -resistant vegetation and be planted in an offset manner so as not to result in a hedge -like screen. If landscaping of 5,000 square foot area or greater is introduced the landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. At planting time all shrubs and trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallon in size or larger. Resolution No. 1189 15 Portuguese Bend Rd. P. All graded areas shall be stabilized to prevent erosion. Any work or landscaping for erosion control in the RHCA easement shall be approved by RHCA. Q. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property is not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. R. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. S. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. Any overflow parking during construction may be on the roadway easement adjacent to the property and shall not obstruct driveways or the road. T. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. U. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities. Further, the property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to solid waste. V. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, including roadway easements shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, driveways, fences -including construction fences, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and equipment, except that the Rolling Hills Community Association may approve certain encroachments. W. 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. X. No final inspection or certificate of occupancy shall be issued, until it has been determined that the construction complies with the approved plans and the conditions set forth herein and building permits have been obtained for all construction, including the "as built" additions. Y. The licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. Resolution No. 1189 15 Portuguese Bend Rd. Z. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Site Plan Review approval, or the approval shall not be effective. The Affidavit and the Resolution shall be recorded. AA. All conditions, when applicable, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the Building and Safety Department. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF AUGUST 2016. BEA DIERINGER MAYOR ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Resolution No. 1189 15 Portuguese Bend Rd. 8 i4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1189 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 20 -FOOT SIDE -YARD SETBACK WITH EAVES AND BY 61 -SQUARE FEET, DUE TO A 300 - SQUARE FOOT ADDITION; APPROVING A MODIFIED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A RETAINING WALL GREATER THAN THREE FEET IN HEIGHT AND VARIANCES TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 20 -FOOT SIDE -YARD SETBACK BY 12.5 FEET, DUE TO A SEVEN (7) FOOT HIGH RETAINING WALL THAT DOES NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5 FEET IN HEIGHT; AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE WITHDRAWAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 6 -FOOT HIGH WALL AND A 2 -FOOT FLAT WALKWAY AROUND THE BUILDING ADDITION IN ZONING CASE NO. 880 AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 78-RH), ROLLING HILLS CA, (HASSOLDT). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on August 22, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1189 15 Portuguese Bend Rd. INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 9-A Mtg. Date: 08/22/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY COUNCIL PERSONNEL COMMITTEE Councilmember Leah Mirsch Councilmember Jeff Pieper SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE FOR AN APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. DATE: AUGUST 22, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: Letters of Interest (2 total in alphabetical order) RECOMMENDATION The City Council Personnel Committee will provide an oral report with a recommendation for an appointment to the Planning Commission to fill the unexpired term of Jill Smith who resigned from the Planning Commission in June. The unexpired term goes through January 1, 2018. BACKGROUND In June 2016, Commissioner Jill Smith resigned from her position on the Rolling Hills Planning Commission resulting in a vacancy on the Commission. Upon receipt of Commissioner Smith's resignation, staff initiated the recruitment process for filling the vacancy. On June 22, 2016, notice advising residents of the vacancy and providing for the submission of letters of interest to serve on the Planning Commission was posted at City Hall. Additionally, on June 22 and July 6, the notice and information about serving on the Planning Commission was published in the City Newsletter. DISCUSSION As a result of the noticing of this vacancy, two letters of interest were received and are attached to this staff report. In alphabetical order, the following residents submitted letters of interest for serving on the Planning Commission: • Carmen Schaye (58 Portuguese Bend Road) • Matt Seaburn (14 Portuguese Bend Road) On August 15 and August 18, the City Council Personnel Committee was scheduled to conduct interviews with the candidates. Because of the timing of the interviews, there was not time to include a recommendation in this report. The Committee will provide an oral report with its recommendation. NOTIFICATION The applicants for the Planning Commission have been advised that the City Council will be considering the appointment at its meeting of. August 22, 2016. CONCLUSION At the time of the writing of this report, the City Council Personnel had not yet completed both of the interviews. As such, the Committee will provide an oral report at this meeting with its recommendation. As a part of its recommendation, it is further suggested that under the Mayor's signature, a letter be sent to the applicant not selected encouraging their application in the future for other commission appointments. RRC:hl Planning Commission Appointment-report.docx July 19, 2016 Dr. Carmen E. Schaye Candidate Rolling Hills Planning Commission I am writing to express my interest in serving as a Planning Commissioner on the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. I am a 21 year homeowner and 24 year resident of Rolling Hills, a former college administrator and University Professor. I am a long time member of the Rolling Hills Women's Club and have served as the Women's Club Secretary. Rolling Hills Planning Commissioners serve an important role in our City in preserving our community's values as expressed in our General Plan and municipal laws. If I am chosen to serve in this capacity, I believe that I will be an asset to the Planning Commission. I have the background, interest and energy to address all the issues presented to the Planning Commission and make evidenced -based recommendations to the City Council. As a long time resident who loves our City, I am familiar with and will support the municipal regulations that help us to maintain the unique, wonderful way of life that we enjoy here in Rolling Hills. I have had previous experiences which have equipped me to engage in the evaluative and rule application process that is required of our Planning Commissioners. When I was involved with the restoration of historic homes in the City of Charleston, South Carolina, I worked with Charleston's Planning Commission to obtain their approval for the modemization and modification of several 19th century residential homes. Before these modifications could be approved, they were required to meet specific design requirements and were required to conform to the strict rules and regulations set forth by the City of Charleston and its Preservation society. RECEIVED JUL 19 2015 City of Rolling Hills By As a former College Dean of Student & Administrative Services, I served as an adviser for the college's building development. As such, I worked with others to assure that the architectural elements of new proposed campus buildings would be consistent with existing academic building structures, as required. I have also had experience working with others to govem organizations within the context of the rules of those organizations, such as my previous service as a Medical School Trustee and service within the Palos Verdes Art Center. I also have had experience with our own City's Planning Commission regarding the renovation of an accessory structure on our property. Upon the purchase of our property it came to our attention that a pre-existing animal shelter was not in compliance with our City codes. We went through the Planning Commission approval process to upgrade and conform this structure to code so that we could house our goats within this structure. In addition, I have become familiar with the issues deaft with by our Planning Commission from having attended several Planning Commission meetings, which have included proposals regarding new housing developments, home renovations, subdivisions and views In addition to the above, I have an interest and background in architecture, having taken many courses in architecture and design. I believe that this background would assist me in serving as a Planning Commissioner and help me to provide possible design alternatives to homeowners that would allow them to accomplish their home design goals without the necessity of providing a variance or exception to our municipal regulations. The key is to uphold the values of our community in the plans that are approved, but still accomplish the house design purpose for the homeowner. If selected to serve, I will be committed to performing my duties to the best of my ability; I also would be willing to improve my knowledge and skills as a Commissioner by self - study and by attending recommended training. Thank you for your consideration of my candidacy for the position of Rolling Hills Planning Commissioner. Sin ely, Dr. Dr. ar�cha"ye 58 Portuguese Bend Rd. 0 Monday, July 11, 2016 1:48 PM Subject: Planning Commission Date: Monday, July 11, 2016 1:47 PM From: Matt Seaburn <mseabum@rentawheel.com> To: "hluce@cityofrh.net" <hluce@c tyofrh.net> Hi Heidi I'd like to be considered for the Planning Commission. Matt Sea burn 14 Portuguese Bend Road 310.663.1904 RECEIVED JUL 11..2016 City of Rolling Hills By INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX (310)377-7288 Agenda Item No: 10-A Mtg. Date: 08/2W16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERRY SHEA, FINANCE DIRECTOR THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER Vf SUBJECT: QUARTERLY SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2016. DATE: AUGUST 22, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS DASH BOARD REPORT CARD INVESTMENT ALLOCATIONS SUMMARY REPORT BY QUARTER Attached you will find the City's quarterly investment report for review. Pursuant to the City Council's direction, it is agendized under "Matters from Staff" in order that it receives an appropriate level of review by the City Council. Below are Cash and Yield comparative date from the fourth quarter as of June 30, 2016 to the third quarter as of March 31, 2016 and Year to Date Interest Income comparative data from the fourth quarter as of June 30, 2016 to the fourth quarter as of June 30, 2015. The Portfolio has been diversified by investment instrument and maturity between Money Market, LAIF, and FDIC insured Certificates of Deposits. Also, the Ca1PERS CERBT Strategy 1 OPEB Irrevocable Trust results for the fourth quarter as of June 30, 2016 and Fiscal Year to Date FY 2015/2016. Cash & Yield Comparative Data 4th Quarter FY 2015/2016 to 3rd Quarter FY 2015/2016: Active Deposits Inactive Deposits Total Cash Portfolio Yield at Cost 4th Quarter 3rd Quarter FY 2015/16 FY 2015/16 Variance $ 6,846,739 $ 6,351,948 $ 494,791 19,811 24,639 (4,828) $ 6,866,550 $ 6,376,587 '$ 489,963 0.601% 0.360% 0.241% YTD Interest Income Comparative Data 4th Quarter FY 2015/2016 to 4th Quarter FY 2014/2015: 4th Quarter FY 20115/16 Annual Interest - Budget $ Total YTD Interest Earned Over (Under) Budget $ % of Annual Budget 4th Quarter FY 2014/15 14,000 $ 13,550 27,180 14,904 13,180 $ 1,354 194.14% 109.99% Ca1PERS CERBT Strategy 1 OPEB Irrevocable Trust results for the fourth quarter as of June 30, 2016 and Fiscal Year to Date FY 2015/2016. Beginning Balance Contribution Investment Earnings Administrative Expense Ending Balance 4th Quarter Fiscal YTD FY 2015/16 FY 2015/16 $ 500,872 $ 508,571 12,329 (107) 4,943 (420) $ 513,094 $ 513,094 Note: Original Contribution December 2011 $354,733. We are pleased to answer any questions you may have. TS Investment Report cover meno.doc CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS as of June 30, 2016 INVESTMENT INSTITUTION ACTIVE DEPOSITS Money Market OPUS Interest Checking OPUS LAIF Malaga Bank . CD Preferred Bank - CD % of Total STATE TREASURY %of Taal T. • e Malaga Bank S ,� 245,000.00 S 245,000.00 S 245,000.00 0.450% 09/15/15 09/13/16 Preferred Bank S . 250,000.00 S 250,000.00 S 250,000.00 1.250% 06/27/16 12/27/17 %of Total 'y 7.23% 7.23% S S S BOOK VALUE FAIR VALUE ACCRUED PAR PRICE (MARKET INTEREST( PURCHASE MATURITY VALUE fa COST VALUE) DISCOUNT YIELD DATE DATE 89,246.70 S 89,246.70 S 89,246.70 0.150% 1,003,049.35 S 1,003,049.35 S 1,003,049.35 0.650% 01/12/16 01/12/17 15.95% 15.95% 5,259,442.69 S 5,259442.69 S 5,259,442.69 0.576% 76.82% 76.82% ACTIVE DEPOSITS TOTALS INACTIVE DEPOSITS S 6,846,738.74 S 6,846,738.74 S 6,846,738.74 0.601% CHECKING OPUS S 18.310.79 S 18.310.79 S 18,310.79 %of Total 92.43% 92.43% PETTY CASH N/A S 1,500.00 S 1.500.00 S 1,500.00 % of Total 7.57% 7.57% INACTIVE DEPOSITS TOTALS $19,810.79 519,810.79 $19,810.79 GRAND TOTAL CASH 56,866,549.53 NOTES: (I) Investment portfolio is in compliance with investment policy established by City Council. (2) Thc City has the ability to men oil expenditure requirements for the next six months. (3) LAIF fair market value is only provided in lune of each year. Prq�ared By: Date Approved : erry Shea, Finance Director Raym d R. Crux, City Manager s1LAc CITY OP ROLLING HILLS DASH HOARD REPORT CARD as al May 31.2016 Nhi JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY MAY FY 201415 FY 101116 FY 201116 FY 101116 FY 101516 FY 101116 FY 201116 FY 101118 FY 106114 FY 201116 FY 201118 FV 101116 FY 1015-16 I. CASH FLOW ACTIVE DEPOSITS Bosh Vest Pries 9) Coo 1 5 OPUS Ball • Mooey Mut% 8 494AS) 5 521.319 5 575.914 5 582.630 3 303.687 5 525.133 0 1.769.370 $ 913520 5 1081.203 3 1124.743 31.480118 $ 440140 0 69247 OPUS BsO - ]Waal pcLwp - 13O,0.tl 1.003.873 1.00.073 1.001.943 1.0]2514 r' 1.093.039 LAW 1545,123 1546.923 1.46.912 1546.912 1548.973 2541.971 1.549,972 2551.331 2151.332 !006.331 04,099,443 5259063 3259,443 Si 641484 Bank CDARS-WS 1.455.000 1.455.000 1,453.00 2.455.000 1.455,090 2.453.00 1.433. 1453.000 1.453.000 - Malaga BrN'Mr(am3Bank .CDS 245050 0 1510 145,000 143,10 245,0]0 145 030 243,01 245,0.90 545.. 1�30.tl 145 WO - 495 am ACTIVE DEPOSITS TOTALS 35.740,205 13.774.240 55.822.136 0 3.829.332 1 5131.39 3 5.774106 1 6.018541 5 604.652 5 6.316.408 3 6.351.948 5615104 56.947205 3 6.616139 INACTIVE DEPOSITS Opm Bank . Chat* 1 330,109 3 217.047 3 157.657 1 101.149 0 20.433 5 27,43] 1 28,091 S 7346 1 44.720 5 23.139 1 14463 3 11,957 0 10311 Ray Cub 130 ISW 000 1300 1520 15® 1,500 1300 ISO ._la. I`5W 1µO 100 INACTIVE DEPOSITS TOTALS 5 3)1pµ 5 116.547 5 159.157 0 102649 1 21.933 1 10.937 3 30.391 $ 3.746 3 46220 5 24.639 5 13.363 1 14.437 1 19111 GRAND TOTAL CASH 16,091,614 3 5,99?737 3 5,981,993 1 5,932,201 0 3154592 5 51103 143 1 6,048,733 1 630,597 3 6101610 3 6376507 36.761 063 0 6971,,2 0 666550 Asia PeptiD^ From Prelims Math 1 (651403) 0 1335 0 48.595 0 6216 1 1.108 1 (58154) 5 244.136 1 216.510 0 101.556 1 15.540 1 3933% 3 201,0]1 0 (120.466) IL LIQUIDITY CALCULATION IJ9ui%O 34.633302 54.653301 14,453,501 5 4.653.501 3 4.633301 1 4.653301 3 4.65).502 0 4.653,502 3 4.633.502 3 4,702.440 34,131494 54,131.684 1 4.794.590 Avenge Cub Bane 05500,178 15.499,663 35.590329 3 5.61463 0 5.%0.466 3 5194.465 1 5119560 5 5.791429 0 5.784.644 3 3,946514 53.860,49 03.971483 3 62%9387 Faepavy Rama Per Policy 3 696200 0 783.833 0 780473 5 710173 3 788$)3 5 788.073 3 79680 S. 733.873 1 788$0 1 809340 3 809148 5 809348 3 109.248 Sa Mandl Cash Rame 0 1306378 5 1.206.718 3 1.118,081 5 1.186.769 3 1,199,110 1 1312.461 3 1212.461 0 1.117.244 0 1195319 1 1311438 51312117 S 1323.665 5 948,193 mailable Reserve for Lorca Tam Memo . 54.333418 14,5613E 34.694,754 5 410,703 1 4.61390 1 4.561.745 1 4.805.381 1 3447.80 5 5,140188 5 5.139310 3553130 55.723341 0 5298346 ILL PORTFOLIO DIVERSIFICATION DIVERSIHGTO9 OY IN'ST%V61EST Many Marta 162% 9.13% 9,89% 9.993 10.01% 9.10% 19.40% 13..77% 17.11% 1721% 22.07% 6.34% 1.308 brava CMk0o0 0.09% 0,09% 0.00% 0.00% 000% 0W% 020% 1603% 1580% 15,76% 14.83% 14.43% 1465% IMF 44.34% 44,11% 43.74% 43.69% 43.70% 44,14% 42.35% 40.92% 40.26% 63.07% 59,44% 7541% 7682% Tmnoy Ms 000% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 000% 0.00% 0.00% 00056 0.00% 003% 0.00% 0.00% 0(O% emirate ofPTon 47.04% 4676% 46.37% 46.32% 461919 46.76% 1813% 27.206 26➢3% 086% 3.64% 3.53% 7,13% IWOI% IWW% IWW% 10003% l030µ 10909% IWOM 10309% IWW% IWM% 10000% 100.01% IWW% DIVERSIFICATION BY MAURITI' Lm Than 93 Days 096% . 53.14% 53,63% 53.68% 7085% 90.56% 71.75% 95.32% 9341% 9039% 81.31% 01.03% 78.11% 90 Days '13 Weds 003% 46.76% 11,38% 21.36% 14.95% 13.20% 14.11% 0004 0.00% 0.00% 009.6 0.00% 0.00% Six MVWs. 26 Weeks 47.04% 0.00% 24.99% 14.96% 410% 4,24% !O7% 4.606 4.50% 1961% 1849% 17,96% 18.13% Qi Tru.S2 Vieth OD]% 060% 009% 000% 00% 0.00% 009% 000% 000% 005% 009% 0006 365% 1003% 1030% 10060% 10002% IWOM IWW%' 10003% 100.00% IW.W% 10000% 10000% 103 W% IWW% IV. PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE MEASURES Yield at Coo Mw11 0.314% 0313% 0.326% 0.329% 0.3306 0,347% 0.360% 0410% 0,414% 0.440% 0,458% 0.557% 0091% BENCHMARKS 6 Mandl CD 0.13 0,27 0.17 0.28 018 0.17 017 02] 037 OE 038 0,29 0.29 I Yea CT 1.02 1.04 1,0] 1.07 109 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.13 1.13 1.11 1.12 1.13 900.y RRill 001 009 00] 001 0.02 0.13 0.23 0.26 0.31 0.3 0.13 0.13 0.30 S Year Tmmy 0.69 0.67 0.70 0.71 064 0.88 0,98 0.91 0.73 008 0,77 0,09 0.67 10 Yea Tmwy 2.36 2.32 2.17 1.17 2.07 2.26 2,24 1.09 1.78 1.09 1.11 1.32 1.50 Yawl Interest 1344930 8 0350 1 14.0 1 14.000 3 14.0.30 3 1400 5 14.0000 1 14101 3 1420 1 14.005 1 1!00 0 1!(03 0 140(0 3 14,090 Opus Bank A¢O Ma489 Disk (TSARS - COS CAD LAW MRS to MIAs Ma) Thal YTO barest Earned Owr Arlo) Amod 11.1130 % oOAmml BW6a 5 615 5 83 0 152 9 1.174 0 1246 5 1,356 5 1.510 3 24%2 3 3277 3 394 0 4.755 0 5.470 5 6,57 8.011 730 1.60 2.342 3.048 3.754 3,768 4,016 4.172 4.395 4,760 4,760 4.760 4.956 - 1.093 1093 Ii03 5.452 3.53 ]432 6.563 69) 6.563 • • 5 HAI 0 013 3 1112 1 3.516 1 5.187 5 6.113 0 6.371 3 9390 5 11091 3 11.381 3 16479 1 16.193 1 I7J00 1 31 1 (13.1171 1 (0908) 1 (10.4841 3 (8,6131 5 (7,7371 0 0419) 1 (4.410) 1 (2.999) 0 (1.619) 5 1,079 3 1,793 0 1.360 10124% 511% 11.31% 11.11% 38,40% 44.45% 45.31% 60.50% 70.58% 0129% 11415% 11995% 12!14% Month July August Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April (c) May June (1) OPUS $ 744,366 $ 733,571 683,779 604,120 552,670 1,798,261 1,990,766 2,129,796 2,123,755 500,230 1,465,719 1,1 10,607 $ 14,437,640 (2) $ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS BASED ON FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 ACTUAL/CASH BUDGET FORECAST as of June 30, 2016 MONTHLY CASII BALANCES Total MALAGA - CD's Cash By T -Bill LAIF CDARS - CD's Month $ 2,546,922 $ 2,700,000 $ 5,991,288 2,546,922 2,700,000 5,980,493 2,546,922 2,700,000 5,930,701 2,548,972 2,700,000 5,853,092 2,548,972 2,700,000 5,801,642 2,548,972 1,700,000 6,047,233 2,551,332 1,700,000 6,242,098 2,551,332 1,700,000 6,381,128 4,006,332 245,000 6,375,087 4,009,443 245,000 (a) 4,754,673 5,259,443 245,000 6,970,162 5,259,443 495,000 6,865,050 - (2) $ 38,925,007 (2) $ 19,830,000 $ 73,192,647 (e) . Average $ 1,203,137 $ - $ Notes: 3,243,751 $ 1,652,500 (e) $ 6,099,387 Lowest Balance Highest Expense (a) S 4,754,673 (b) S 460,313 (d) Liquidity Calculation (e) Average Monthly Cash Balance Less 40% Emergency Reserve Available Investment Liquidity (1) Actual/Forecast Cash Budget FY 2014/15 (2) Monthly Bank Reconciliations (3) Per Investment Policy FY 14/15 General Fund Audited Revenue $2,023,119 X 40%= $809,248 (4) Six Month Cash Reserve based on FY 14/15 Actual/Forecasted Annual Expenditures divided by two. Lowest Deposits (c) 5 500,230 (d) Average Cash Balance $ 6,099,387 Expenditures By Month $ 144,505 98,215 117,375 137,744 142,472 (b) 460,313 109,684 125,541 148,669 132,131 127,383 152,355 (I) $ 1,896,386 $ 158,032 Six Month Liquidity Cash Reserve S 4,794,590 (4) S 948,193 (d) $ 4,794,590 (e) $ 6,099,387 • (3) (809,2481 $ 4,794,590 S 5,290,139 INVESTMENT ALLOCATIONS SUMMARY as of June 30, 2016 Investment Type Book Value Less Than 90-180 181-360 One Two Three Price © Cost 90 Days Days Days Year Years Years Money Market 1.30% $ 89,247 $ 89,247 $ $ - $ - $ - $ - LAIF 76.82% 5,259,443 5,259,443 Interest Checking 14.65% 1,003,049 - 1,003,049 - - CD'S 7.23% 495,000 245,000 250,000 - Total Active Deposits 100.00% $ 6,846,739 $ 5,348,689 $ $ 1,248,049 $ 250,000 $ - $ # , Cash Six Months Active Cash Reserve Cash .. Liquidity Deposits Reserve Per Policy Reserve Liquidity FY 15/16 Cash Budget $ 4,794,590 $ 6,846,739 $ 2,052,149 $ 809,248 $ 948,193 Maturity Investment Allocation Less Than 90 Days 78.12% 90 Days - 13 Weeks 0.00% Six Months - 26 Weeks 18.23% One Year - 52 Weeks 3.65% Two Years - 104 Weeks 0.00% Three Years - 156 Weeks 0% 100.00% a atiRaleafs it INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 10-13 Mtg. Date: 08/22/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE��CITY COUNCIL FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER f'`'"`-' SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A DRAFT LETTER TO CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY REGARDING ITS WATER BUDGET APPEAL PROCESS. DATE: AUGUST 22, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: Draft letter to California Water Service Company California Water Service Company Water Budget Appeal Application RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council consider whether it wishes to make any changes to the enclosed draft letter to the California Water Service Company (Cal Water) regarding its water budget appeal process and direct the City Manager to transmit the letter. BACKGROUND At the August 8, 2016 City Council meeting, the City Council directed that the City Manager and City Attorney work together on a letter to send to Cal Water regarding the City's concerns about Cal Water's water budget appeal process. The draft letter presented for City Council review and approval addresses Cal Water's initial baseline water budgets and the inadequate process Cal Water established to appeal them. DISCUSSION The California' State Water Resources Control Board (the "Board") adopted a set of regulations in response to Governor Brown's April 1, 2015 Executive Order (B-29-15) which mandated a statewide 25 -percent reduction in potable, urban water use, as compared to 2013. The Board's regulations stipulated that a 36 -percent reduction in water use be achieved in Ca1 Water's Palos Verdes service area. In response, Cal Water implemented a comprehensive Drought Response and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (the "Plan") to assist customers in using water wisely and meet the reduction targets mandated by the Board. As part of the Plan, each resident was provided a water budget that was reduced by 36% based on each household's water usage for each month of calendar year 2013, starting in June 2016. However, for new residents who moved to Rolling Hills in April 2013 or later, instead of using the previous property owner's water usage to calculate the water budget for the property, Cal Water used the average water use of all residents within its Palos Verdes Water District. This allocation is insufficient for parcels in Rolling Hills, since the great majority of residents in the Palos Verdes Water District either live in apartments or on properties that are much smaller in size than the properties in Rolling Hills. Below is a table provided by Ca1 Water showing in the third column the water budgets set for new residents: Month January 20.13 Single -Family Resident al• Average Consumption for the Palos Verdes Service Are a•`,s" 15.5 Calculated Water Budget for Customers Without Same- Month r:nnwmptinn Histnry In 2013 In the Palos Verdes Service Area*." 10 Calculated Water Budget Converted to Gallons per Day 249 Calculated Water Budget Converted to Gallons per Hour 1038 February 17.4 12 299 12.46 March 19.3 13 324 13.5 April 20.9 14 349 1434 May 25.2 17 423 17.63 June 29.5 19 473 19.71 July 28.4 19 473 19.71 August 29.9 20 498 20.75 September '32.3 21 523 21.79 October 26.9 I8 448 18.67 November 27.5 18 448 18.67 December 21.8 14 349 14.54 • • Data for single-family residential customers only includes those service connections that are classified in Cal Water's billing system as being for individual residences that have separate water meters. Alternatively, data for multi -family residential customers only includes those service connections that are classified in Cal Water's billing system as being for properties with multiple residences, but only one water meter for the entire property, such as apartment complexes. •• Cal Water's Palos Verdes service area includes, principally, the cities of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Palos Verdes Estates. Attached to this email is an aerial overview of the boundaries of the service area. Average monthly water use in Cal Water's other service areas had no impact on water budgets for Cal Water's customers in its Palos Verdes service area. ••• Data presented in hundred cubic foot Increments (Ccf); one Ccf equals 748 gallons. As indicated by the table above, the water budgets for post -2013 residents were set at low allocations compared to pre -2013 residents. Consequently, most of these new Rolling Hills residents exceeded their water budgets and were charged costly surcharges. Although Cal Water represented to the City that it would contact all post- 2013 residents and inform them of the water budget appeal process, the City believes that this outreach effort fell short. As a result, few residents appealed. Further, the appeal form was confusing because it did not expressly provide that post -2013 residents could appeal their allocations. Cal Water's representatives acknowledged this shortcoming in the appeal form to the Mayor and the City Manager at an August 401 meeting and committed that if drought surcharges need to be reinstituted at some point in the future, the appeal form would be modified. During the August 4, 2016 meeting, Cal Water demonstrated its aerial imagery and GIS system utilized when reviewing water budget appeals. Had this system been employed to evaluate the water allocations of post -2013 Rolling Hills residents (with an average parcel size of 2.7 acres), the properties would have been allocated a significantly higher water budget than the one provided based on average consumption in the entire service area. The below table illustrates what a two -acre property would have received through an appeal process its baseline water budget. The difference is significant enough that most of the post -2013 Rolling Hills properties would not have been surcharged had this method been employed. On August 15, 2016, the City received an email from Cal Water rejecting the request made by the Mayor at the August 4 meeting that the water allocation for the City's post - 2013 properties be recalculated and surcharges also be recalculated based on the revised allocations. Nonetheless, staff recommends that the attached letter be delivered to Cal Water in a final effort to avoid appealing to the PUC. The attached letter drafted to Cal Water is requesting that all these residents' parcels be reviewed by aerial imagery and GIS analysis without any further water appeal application paperwork and retroactively provided the revised water budget. The letter further requests that Cal Water utilize prior customer water -usage information in order to determine the base allocation for the parcels belonging to persons who came to reside in the City following January 1, 2013. It further requests that any improperly imposed surcharges be reimbursed or credited against future billings. The request is made on behalf of all residents that moved into the City after January 1, 2013. If Cal Water does not approve this request or does not contact the City by September 9, 2016, the letter indicates that the City Council may consider all courses of action available to it, which would include submitting an appeal directly to the California Public Utilities Commission. NOTIFICATION The residents that have contacted the City to assist them with their water budget appeals. RRC:hl Cal Water letter-staffieport.docx August xx, 2016 Mr. Justin Skarb California Water Service Company 2632 W. 237th Street Torrance, CA 90505 Dear Mr. Skarb, I write in response to your emails of August 11, 2016 and August 15, 2016. I have reviewed your assertions carefully and respectfully disagree with Cal Water's responses to the City's concerns. The City submits this letter in order to clarify the record and to reiterate its position. In 2015, the California Water Resources Control Board required that Cal Water customers in the Palos Verdes Peninsula establish a water conservation target of 36 percent. In response to this mandate, Cal Water adopted and implemented Schedule 14.1 which, among other things, calculated an individual customer's monthly water budget by averaging water usage among customers within the same "customer class." As all of Cal Water's customers within the Palos Verdes Peninsula are within the same "customer class," the base allocation budget established for these customers was more or less identical. Bearing in mind the inherent unfairness such a calculation would have on customers without a complete water consumption history from 2013, "Cal Water...established an appeals process for customers to have their monthly water budgets reviewed." 1 Absent from Cal Water's assessment of the needs of its customers in the Palos Verdes Water District in general, was an understanding of the unique needs of the City of Rolling Hills, specifically. For instance, the City of Rolling Hills is comprised of 685 single-family homes2, located on lots averaging 2.7 acres, and portions of which are required to facilitate the care of horses or other agrarian uses. Following the implementation of Cal Water's Schedule 14.1 in 2015, it quickly became apparent that City residents would not be able to stay within their allocated water budgets and would need to avail themselves of the appeal process. t August 11, 2016 email from Mr. Justin Skarb to Mr. Michael Jenkins Re: Cal Water - Rolling Hills Question 2 Indeed, the entire City is zoned only for residential/agricultural use. California Water Service Company (Skarb) August xx, 2016 Re: Water Budget Appeal Process Page 2 of 3 L ----J DR4FT Due to the number of residents who were able to successfully submit an appeal request, the City believes that Ca1 Water's informational outreach regarding the appeals process, in addition to the appeal documents themselves, were inadequate. For one thing, these documents did not provide sufficient information as to the acceptable grounds for an appeal. Rather, customers were asked to select from one of the following grounds: medical need, household size change, low water usage in 2014, significant water savings achieved since 2011, or large animal care. While Cal Water has indicated that these five enumerated bases for appeal are not exhaustive, the language of the appeals form does not impart to the applicant the ability to appeal for other reasons, such as the purchase of a home in the City after January 1, 2013. Furthermore, it is very clear that the ambiguity of these documents resulted in a lost opportunity for many of these new residents in receiving a substantial increase in their water budgets that could have been obtained through the water budget appeal process via aerial imagery and GIS system. This was concluded from the data provided by Ca1 Water when illustrating a real sample two -acre property that received a huge increase to its water budget through the appeal process and was smaller than the average Rolling Hills parcel. As we discussed, the City's request that Cal Water consider prior customer information in determining the water budget for "new" properties is not only appropriate, but also reasonable.3 Rather than comparing a Rolling Hills equestrian single-family property to properties within other cities, Cal Water is being asked to compare the property to itself by utilizing prior customer information in order to yield a more accurate water -consumption estimate. Your emphasis on the point that prior water usage history would "not account for the unique circumstances of the new customer"4 is an inaccurate and overbroad dismissal of the City's request. Prior Rolling Hills property owners have more in common with subsequent owners than do residents of other neighboring cities. Furthermore, an unaltered single-family property in the City with a set number of bedrooms will still have the same occupancy load (and, arguably, water usage) regardless of when it was purchased. Additionally, the City wishes to reiterate the point that it is not requesting that Cal Water disseminate prior customer information, to other customers, to the City, on the Cal Water website, or otherwise. The City is simply asking Cal Water to consider in its calculations information that it already has in its possession, and to provide an accurate water budget for a property without 3 In fact, this is a practice currently employed by at least one other California water purveyor, Golden State Water. 4 August 11, 2016 email from Mr. Justin Skarb to Mr. Michael Jenkins Re: Cal Water - Rolling Hills Question California Water Service Company (Skarb) August xx, 2016 Re: Water Budget Appeal Process Page 3 of 3 necessarily revealing that information. As I explained during our August 4, 2016 meeting, the authority you cite as to why Cal Water cannot comply with this request is not instructive and inapplicable. For these reasons, the City is concerned that Cal Water's rate setting practice is unreasonable and unfair especially with regard to new City residents; a sentiment that the City has repeatedly expressed to Cal Water. At this time, the City is requesting that Cal Water rectify the unfairness it has imposed against City residents by: 1. Utilizing prior customer water -usage information in order to determine the base allocation for the parcels belonging to persons who came to reside in the City following January 1, 2013 (a sample of whose documentation has been enclosed herewith along with a list of all residents who moved to the City after January 1, 2013); 2. Providing an individualized water budget for these properties using aerial imagery and GIS analysis; and 3. Reimbursing these residents for any improper surcharges resulting from Cal Water's inaccurate water -budget calculations and allocations during the entire surcharge period, starting from June 2015. Should Cal Water fail to comply with the City's request (or otherwise fail to contact the City) by September 9, 2016, the City Council shall consider all of its available alternatives to address the unfairness highlighted above. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Raymond R. Cruz City Manager Enclosures c: Rolling Hills City Council Honorable David Hadley, California State Assemblymember Honorable Ben Allen, California State Senator II THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK California Water Service Water Budget Appeal Application Single -Family Residential California Water Service (Cal Water) is committed to providing fair and equitable water budgets for our customers. We recognize that budgets may not be adequate for customers in certain dreumstances; such customers may appeal for an increase to their water budget. Increases in water budgets may be granted for the following reasons: • Significant water savings achieved since 2011(must have at least 10 months of consumption In 2011 on file) • Low water use In 2014 • Household size change • Large animal care (e.g., horses) • Medical need Please include all documentation available to support your appeal. Cal Water may also request additional data. Appeals will be considered in the order that they are received and within 30 days of receipt. If an extended review period is necessary, any change to the customer's water budget may be retroactive by one month. If you believe you qualify for an appeal, please complete and sign this form, and retum It by mall to: califomia Water Service, Attn: Appeals Com- mittee, P.O. Box 4189, Montebello, CA 90640, or by email to appeal@calwatercom. Please complete a separate form for each service address being appealed. For questions about this application, please contact the Drought Gall Center toll -free at (844) 726-8579. 1 CALIFORNIA WATERSERVICE CUSTOMER INFORMATION (please type or print) Customer Account Number (located on front page of your Cal Water bill) Email Name As It appears an your water bill City CA ZIP Code Service Address Do NOT use a P.O. Bar City CA ZIP Code Mailing Address IIf different from the address above Daytime Telephone Number Please Include area code Total number of adults and children Home ❑ Cell ❑ living in your household FOR APPEAL . Significant water savings achieved since 2011 horses) • Law water usage in 2014 of your appeal (include additional sheets or attachments H necessary) 2 PLEASE CHOOSE BASIS Household size change tame animal are (e.g., • Medial need Please provide a detailed explanation read carefully and sign below) declare, under penalty of perjury, that I am the water account holder for the above I understand that false Information may result in surcharges 3 DECLARATION (please 1, (prim name) amount and that all of the above Information, including any attachments, Is true and correct for exceeding my water budget. X California Water Service Customer Signature Date INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310)377-7288 Agenda Item No: 10-C Mtg. Date: 08/22/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER At SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE ASSOCIATE PLANNER POSITION TO ASSISTANT PLANNER IN ORDER TO INITIATE RECRUITMENT FOR POSITION DATE: AUGUST 22, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: Existing salary range for Associate Planner 2016 salary survey for Associate Planner position 2016 salary survey for Assistant Planner position RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the recommendation of the City Council Personnel Committee to reclassify the Associate Planner position to Assistant Planner, maintain the existing budgeted salary range for the new position, and direct and provide the City Manager with the authority to develop an appropriate job description for the Assistant Planner position in order to initiate the recruitment process immediately. BACKGROUND The Associate Planner submitted her letter of resignation effective August 17, 2016. This vacancy brought to light the City's difficulty to recruit for this position when it was initially created during FY 2015-16 in order to make the hire. The City Council Personnel Committee discussed options on how to best fill this position at its August 15, 2016 meeting. It was concluded that reclassifying the Associate Planner position to an Assistant Planner position and maintaining the existing salary range was the best course of action not only to recruit and fill the position; but also to select a qualified candidate that could possibly transition to the Planning Director position when it becomes vacant by the incumbent's retirem- t. DISCUSSION The City Council authorized a new position of Principal Planner during the FY 2015-16 budget preparation process. This position was created to assist the Planning Director with the increased workload in development, code enforcement and special projects. When recruiting for this position last year, the City received applications from only three candidates and staff felt their qualifications were not at level to commence with interviews by an outside panel. The position was then downgraded and advertised as an Associate Planner, but the City again received a disappointing number of applications. We were told by planning professionals it was because the advertised salary range (and benefits) was not attractive enough to have experienced planners to apply. The City went forward with interviews performed by an outside panel to prioritize the top candidates. From this list, two candidates were offered the position by the City Manager. However, both declined because the salary offered was not enough for them to accept the position. Staff was ready to move forward with a third recruitment effort, but a colleague of the Planning Director came across a potential candidate before a new process started. The new candidate was interviewed, made an offer, and she (Wendy Starks) accepted it. However, when Wendy was made the offer, she was told that all the City's salary ranges were under review by the Personnel Committee and a final decision concerning them would be made by the City Council later in the fiscal year. When told that the Council was limiting the salary range to 85% of the average of the City's comparable cities, Wendy was very disappointed and made it known that this amount would not motivate her to stay for the long term. When she submitted her letter of resignation, Wendy mentioned the low salary range was the primary factor for her leaving. With cities hiring planners the last few years, it has been a challenge to recruit and retain them. After comparing the City's salary and benefits to other cities that recently hired at similar position (Rolling Hills Estates, Palos Verdes Estates, Hermosa Beach and Lawndale), and speaking to their Planning and HR personnel about their recruitment process and the number of applications received; it became evident to staff that the City needs to rethink the next recruitment because the City's benefits are mediocre and the salaries are not at market rate as compared to the other nearby cities. Staff also found it will be tough for the City to attract top mid -career professionals as they would have to take a significant cut in their PERS retirement rate (up to 33%) and have to pay Social Security if they come to Rolling Hills. Most municipal employees in California do not pay FICA that equates to an immediate 7% cut in their net pay. Furthermore, Social Security now applies a "Government Pension Offset" to public employees that equates to a huge cut in ones Social Security benefits that does not occur with private sector retirees. Thus, this is another salary reduction that applicants have to take into account when taking a position in Rolling Hills. With these challenges outlined, staff suggested to the Personnel Committee that the City reclassify Associate Planner position to an Assistant Planner and keep the existing salary range. Although the position requires less experience, staff believes it will attract Associate Planners from other cities and talented planners coming out of planning masters programs due to the now very competitive salary range. Furthermore, with the possibility of transitioning to the Planning Director position if the individual expands ones knowledge base, proves to have the skill sets and is a natural fit in the organization; this new position is believed to be attractive to candidates the City is seeking. The Personnel Committee unanimously agreed with this recommendation and we're now seeking the City Council's approval. If the City Council approves the recommendation, staff will finalize the job description and immediately start recruiting for the position. RRC: Assistant Planner-staffreport.docx City of Rolling Hills Planning Associate Salary Range* $61,461 - $79,493 *It was set at 85% of average salary range of the comparable cities surveyed in 2015 E City of Rolling Hills Salary Schedules of Near by Cities As of July 2016 Associate Planner Low High Title Carson $ 72,144 $ 92,052 Associate Planner El Segundo NA NA NA Hermosa Beach 73,080 88,776 Planning Associate Lawndale 76,572 93,072 Associate Planner Lomita NA NA NA Palos Verdes Estates 76,224 97,284 Planner Rancho Palos Verdes 71,857 93,327 Associate Planner Rolling Hills Estates 71,184 106,764 Associate Planner Signal Hill 69,420 88,596 Associate Planner Average of the 7 Cities $ 72,926 $ 94,267 City of Rolling Hills Salary Schedules of Near by Cities As of July 2016 Assistant Planner Low I High Title Carson $ 62,172 $ 79,344 Assistant Planner El Segundo 61,768 75,079 Assistant Planner Hermosa Beach 60,012 72,948 Planning Assitant Lawndale 63,000 76,584 Associate Planner Lomita 57,264 71,124 Assistant Planner Palos Verdes Estates NA NA NA Rancho Palos Verdes 62,235 82,131 Assistant Planner Rolling Hills Estates NA NA NA Signal Hill 58,392 74,532 Assistant Planner Average of the 7 Cities $ 60,692 $ 75,963 Name 901- 5 Pine Tree Lane email mailing address SR ISharng sharngla@me.com 25 Caballeros Rolling Hills, CA 90 SR Tavisha Nicholson tnicholson@boltonengineering.com SR Tony Inferrera TonyInferrera@yahoo.com A Anthony Podell awpodell@gmail.com Wynn and Hassoldt will 'get the agenda with 68 - A Gary Wynn 15 Portuguee Bend Rd J A William Hassoldt 10 Pine Tree L Rolling Hills CA 90: SR + 8/8 CC Draft Miinutes Keith Murphy kemurph@alum.mit.edu 3 Pine Tree Lane A = Agenda only SR = Agenda + Staff Report 'Via email only Ewa, when you email the staff report/Resolution & agenda to Lauren Shrang before the 8/22 City Council meeting, pls also email the neighbor at 3 Pine Tree, but also include the MINUTES from the 8/8 CC mtg to him First Last e-mail mail ZC 880 -15 Portuguese Bend Road SR SR SR SR A A William Hal Stephen 'Howard Roger Sean Hassoldt Light Nuccion Weinberg Hawkins Cardenas hassoldt@earthlink.net hallight@hjllaw.com snuccion@yahoo.com howard@weinberglaw.la rehawkinslaw@gmail.com seancard@yahoo.com SR = Agenda + Staff Report A = AGENDA ONLY Via email only 1 10 Pine Tree Lane attorney 18 Portuguse Bend Road attorney 61. fr Name Carmen Schaye Matt Seaburn [Agenda ONLY - via email H Email carmenschaye@cox.net 56 P B Rd mseaburn@rentawheel.com 14 P13 Rd Water Budget appeals - Contact list City Title First Name Last Name Notes Street Address E-mail Honorable David Ms. Mr. Mr. Shahla David Roman Mr. Preston Mr. Spencer Mr. Lance Mr. Brian Li Li Mr. & Mrs Chris Mr. & Mrs Stuart Mr. Zaffar Mr. Mr. Todd Jason Jing Wang Ms. Nina Mr. Robert Ms. Angela Mr. & Mrs Steve Mr. Paul Ms. Lisa Ms. Adriana Mr. & Mrs Vahe Minyu Mrs. Mary Beth Hadley, 66th Assembly District Rizi Lillington Puri (on behalf of Isa Young Karpf Yamato Marcotte Chen Lucas Wang Hassanally Mihm Senior Chu Ritter Mehrdad Luchini Johnson Tansavatdi Turner Popovich Avedissian Zhang Syal 41 Eastfield (on behalf of) (used to be 2740) 23211 Hawthome Blvd, Suite Torrance CA 90505 23 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills CA 90274 14 Georgeff Road Rolling Hills CA 90274 15 Bowie Road Rolling Hills CA 90274 2738 Palos Verdes Drive N Rolling 8 Maverick Lane Rolling 5 Sagebrush Lane Rolling 6 Eaucalyptus Lane Rolling 2738 Palos Verdes Drive N Rolling 22 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling 46 Saddleback Rd. Rolling 27 Portuguese Bend Rd Rolling 16 Roadrunner Road Rolling 8 Qual Ridge Road North Rolling 50 Saddleback Rd Rolling 63 Crest Rd. East Rolling 9 Buggy Whip Drive Rolling 71 Crest Rd. East Rolling 19 N Middleridge Lane Rolling 24 Outrider Rd Rolling 4 Roadrunner Rolling 1 Middleridge South Rolling 14 Caballeros Road Rolling 74 Saddleback Road Rolling 48 Eastfiled Drive Rolling Hills CA 9( pkyoung44@gmail.com Hills CA 9( skarpf®earthlink.net Hills CA 9( az239-1@lafn.org Hills CA 9( e@marcoFecompany.com Hills CA 9( pkyoung44@gmail.com Hills CA 9( alyalucas@yahoo.com Hills CA 9( saralee@us-attorneys.com Hills CA 9( rec31313@gmail.com Hills CA 9( tmihm@tectonics.net Hills CA 9( jasonsenior@yahoo.com Hills CA 9( angiewang_hu@yahoo.com Hills CA 9(liz@doubletmanagement.com Hills CA 9( Robert_Mehrdad@raytheon.com Hills CA 9( tbrazy@landmarkdividend.com Hills CA 9( rosan@pinnaclepmc.com Hills CA 9(paul@nutribon.com Hills CA 9( lisa@lisalauco.com Hills CA 9( adripopovich®dressage4life.com Hills CA 9(ibroupinian@hotmail.com Hills CA 9( ZHANGMINYU2014@Gmail.com Hills CA 9(oneoffregister@yahoo.com Public:UTILITIES:Cal Water:Drought Water Conservation:Water Budget Appeals:Contacts WaterBudgetAppeals.xlsx