City Council Agenda 09-12-2016CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the
within proceeding; my business address is 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
On the 9ih day of September, 2016, I serve the within
City Council Meeting - 09/12/2016
a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, and the
below were emailed or mailed the agenda:
E -MAILED MAILED
Interested
RH Web site listSery Parties
Interested parties
DropBox
person, or persons, named
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 declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on the 9111 day of September, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California.
ctAsi—
Ewa Nikodem
Administrative Assistant
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310)377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2016 7:00 P.M.
Next Resolution No. 1190 Next Ordnance No. 347
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding the items on the
consent calendar or items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place
on any items not on the agenda.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may
request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council
Actions.
A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of August 22, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
B. Payment of Bills.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
C. Consideration of an Agreement with Martin & Chapman Co. for 2017 Election Services.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
D. Consideration of an Exchange Agreement and Assignment of Federal Surface
Transportation Program — Local (STP-L) Funds between the City of Rolling Hills and the
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA).
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
5. COMMISSION ITEMS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-19 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR
A SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR
GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A STABLE WITH COVERED PORCHES,
CORRAL, AND A RIDING RING, TO ENCROACH WITH THE RIDING RING INTO
THE FRONT SETBACK, AND TO EXCEED THE PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF
THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 904 AT 34 SADDLEBACK ROAD, (DELGADO).
Page 1 of 3
B. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-20 - 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 BASEMENT, GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, SWIMMING
POOL WITH A SPA, RETAINING WALLS AND NEW DRIVEWAY; AND
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE
AND STABLE WITH LOFT AND CORRAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 902 AT 23
CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 132A -MS), (HYNES).
AND
CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRAFFIC
COMMISSION TO APPROVE A NEW DRIVEWAY APRON AT 23 CREST RD
EAST.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
NONE.
7. OLD BUSINESS
NONE.
8. NEW BUSINESS
NONE.
9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
A. STATUS REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TREES AND VIEWS AD HOC
COMMITTEE ON ITS EFFORTS TO AMEND THE VIEW PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE AND TO POSSIBLY BRING FORWARD A BALLOT MEASURE TO
MODIFY OR REPEAL MEASURE B. (ORAL REPORT)
10. MATTERS FROM STAFF
A. REPORT AND DISCUSSION REGARDING ZONING CODE REQUIREMENT THAT
UTILITIES BE UNDERGROUNDED UPON RELOCATING OR INCREASING THE
ELECTRICAL PANEL SERVICING A BUILDING OR PARCEL.
B. UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY'S
RESPONSE TO THE LETTER SENT BY CITY OF ROLLING HLLS REGARDING
WATER BUDGETS AND ASSOCIATED APPEAL PROCESS. (ORAL REPORT)
11. CLOSED SESSION
NONE.
City Council Agenda
09/12/16 Page 2 of 3
12. ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills
City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item.
Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the
City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting due to your disability, please contact the 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
09/12/16 Page 3 of 3
DRAFT
Agenda Item No. 4-A
Meeting Date: 09/12/16
MINUTES OF
A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 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 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Black, Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Dieringer. 'arrivedjast after Roll Call
Councilmembers Absent: None.
Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager.
Mike Jenkins, City Attorney.
Terry Shea, Finance Director.
Heidi Luce, City Clerk.
Gary Wynn, Wynn Engineering.
Dan Armendariz, District Manager, California Water Service Company.
Ramona Ci, 46 Eastfield Drive.
Alya Lucas, 4 Open Brand Road/22 Portuguese Bend Road.
Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West.
OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may
request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions.
A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of 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.
Mayor Dieringer asked that Item 4A be removed from the Consent Calendar for individual consideration.
Hearing no objection, she so ordered.
DRAFT
Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council approve the remaining items on the consent calendar
as presented. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of August 8, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
Following discussion concerning the content of the minutes specifically related to the details of the
discussion that ensued during the oral report from the Trees and Views ad hoc committee, and noting a
typographical error on pg. 10 where the word "future" was misspelled, Mayor Dieringer moved that the
minutes be amended to add the discussion that was not represented regarding the specific options the
Committee was considering. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Wilson moved that the
City Council approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council held on August 8, 2016 as
amended to correct the typographical error. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried
with Mayor Dieringer opposed.
COMMISSION ITEMS
None.
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.
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).
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz reviewed the
applicant's request to construct a new residence and ancillary structures in Zoning Case No. 901 at 5 Pine
Tree Lane. He reviewed the background on the case stating that the Planning Commission adopted a
Resolution approving the project on June 21, 2016 and the City Council received and filed the report on
this case on June 11, 2016. He further stated that the Planning Commission's decision was then appealed
by Mr. Keith Murphy, 3 Pine Tree Lane and the City Council, at its August 8, 2016 meeting held a public
hearing to consider the appeal at which time after public testimony, discussion and consideration, the City
Council directed staff to prepare a Resolution upholding the Planning Commission's decision. He further
reviewed the staff report stating that included with the staff report is a Resolution upholding the Planning
Minutes
City Council Meeting
08-22-16
DRAFT
Commission's decision to approve the project for the City Council's consideration along with an
additional correspondence from Mr. Murphy. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Black, City Clerk Luce
confirmed that the resolution presented for consideration reflects the same project and conditions that was
approved by the Planning Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Black stated for the record that he reviewed the
minutes from the August 8, 2016 public hearing on this matter.
In response to Mayor Dieringer regarding the comments contained in Mr. Murphy's letter pertaining to his
assertion that the findings constitute a guarantee that the project will not be injurious to his property, City
Attorney Jenkins commented that Mr. Murphy misapprehends how California law works and is
misreading the language. He further stated that the language in Section 7C of the Resolution that affirms
the finding that the variance requested is not injurious to the neighboring property is not a representation
as to whether or• not there will be physical injury but rather that the deviation from the normal City
standards will not be injurious to neighboring properties. He further commented that California law is
clear that the City is immune from liability in damages for the City Council's discretionary acts. With
regard to Mr. Murphy's additional assertion that a councilmember at the previous meeting implied the he
should not have filed and appeal because the Planning Commission thoroughly scrutinized the application,
Mr. Jenkins stated that if such a comment was made, it is an individual Councilmember's opinion and
there is nothing detrimental about expressing an opinion; but in his opinion, that comment was not meant
to suggest that a person who feels aggrieved by the Planning Commission should not file an appeal. He
stated that everyone has a right to file an appeal.
In response to Councilmember Mirsch regarding Mr. Murphy's suggestion that neighboring properties in
escrow be notified of development projects, City Clerk Luce commented that public notice is mailed to
property owners within a 1,000 ft. radius of the property. City Attorney Jenkins further commented that
there are many opportunities for a potential buyer to become informed about a development project that
may be near the property they are considering, including requesting to be added to the notification list; but
the City does not have a way to ascertain what properties are in escrow.
Mayor Dieringer called for public comment. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1188 upholding the Planning
Commission's decision in Zoning Case No. 901 at 5 Pine Tree Lane. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the
motion, which carried without objection by a roll call vote.
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 TRW
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
M inutes
City Council Meeting
08-22-16
DRAFT
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).
Councilmember Pieper recused himself from consideration of this case due to the proximity of his
property to the subject property and left the dais.
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz reviewed
background and history on this case stating that this matter was last before the City Council on July 11,
2016 at which time the applicant was proposing a shorter retaining wall in the setback and requesting a
variance to allow a 2ft. rather than the 4ft. required walkway around house and the City Council at that
time, directed staff to prepare a resolution partially approving and partially denying the applicant's
previous request — specifically denying the request to allow a 2ft. rather than the 4ft. required walkway
around house. He commented that at a previous meeting the City Council indicated that they would
consider a proposal that included a higher retaining wall to encroach further into the side yard setback if
such construction resulted in a 4 ft. wide walkway around the addition. He stated that after the July 11`h
meeting, the applicant has submitted revised request. He further reviewed the current proposal before the
City Council, which includes a 32 ft. long and up to 7 ft. high retaining wall, which encroaches up to 12.5
ft. into the side yard setback for a short distance; and provides the minimum 4 ft. walkway around the
addition. He further commented that the Rolling Hills Community Association has granted the applicant a
license agreement to construct the wall in the side easement and the Architectural Committee has
approved the addition. He stated that staff has prepared a draft resolution granting approval of the
applicant's revised project for the City Council's consideration after the public hearing. He further
commented that a letter was received from Mr. Weinberg on behalf of the Nuccions at 18 Portuguese
Bend Road after the agenda packets were distributed and the letter has been placed on the dais.
Mayor Dieringer called for public comment.
Gary Wynn, Wynn Engineering addressed the City Council to further explain the applicant's revised
request and to request that the City Council adopt the Resolution approving the request.
In response to Councilmember Mirsch regarding the assertion on page 5 of Mr. Weinberg's letter that Mr.
Wynn had previously expressed an opinion that there may stability issues if the wall is moved further into
the setback, Mr. Wynn stated that a soils engineer has been retained and it has been ascertained that the
Minutes
City Council Meeting
08-22-16
DRAFT
wall can be built safely from an engineering standpoint and he is not concerned about the stability.
Discussion ensued regarding the location and construction of the wall and the slope stability.
Hearing no further public comment. Mayor Dieringer closed the public hearing.
With regard to the issues raised in Mr. Weinberg's letter, City Attorney Jenkins clarified that ordinarily
during discretionary review, the City does not delve into the soils or geotechnical condition issues and
those technical issues that are typically covered by the County of Los Angeles when it does its technical
review for issuance of permits. He stated that during the County's review, if there were existence of such a
condition, building permits would not be issued. He further stated that the City would typically only ask
for additional information or further study where there is knowledge of an instability issue in the vicinity
or on the property itself.
In response to the issues raised in Mr. Weinberg's letter regarding the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), City Attorney Jenkins stated that Mr. Weinberg asserts through hypothetical situations and
questions that the project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment, but submits no
evidence of such impact. Further, with regard to the issue raised regarding the project requiring Fire
Department review, City Attorney Jenkins commented that the project is not of such a scope to trigger the
requirement for review by the Fire Department. He stated that he has reviewed the letter and he does not
believe there is merit to the points raised in the letter. He further stated that the City Council's decision is
simply whether it can make the findings for a variance.
Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1189 granting approval of the
applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 880 -REVISED at 15 Portuguese Bend Road as presented.
Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection by a roll call vote.
Councilmember Pieper returned to the dais.
Recognizing that there were several members of the public present regarding Item 10B pertaining the draft
letter to California Water Service company regarding its water budget appeal process, Mayor Dieringer
suggested taking the matter out of order. Hearing no objection she so ordered and asked if any
representatives from Cal Water are present. Dan Armendariz, District Manager for Rancho Dominguez,
California Water Service Company identified himself as present.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A DRAFT LETTER TO CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
COMPANY REGARDING ITS WATER BUDGET APPEAL PROCESS.
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz reviewed the
background on water budgets and the water budget appeal process, He stated that based on direction given
at the last meeting, staff has prepared a draft letter to be sent to California Water Service Company (Cal
Water) regarding.the water budget appeal process for the City Council's consideration; and since the last
meeting, an e-mail was received from Cal Water which indicates that since the State has suspended its
mandates, Cal Water will not be considering any issues related to appeals. He reviewed the points raised
in the letter including the actions requested, which are as follows: utilizing prior customer water -usage
information in order to determine the base allocation for the parcels belonging to persons who came to
Minutes
City Council Meeting
08-22-16
0
DRAFT
reside in the City following January I, 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); and providing an
individualized water budget for these properties using aerial imagery and GIS analysis; and 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. He further stated
that the letter asks for a response by September 9`h and stated that if a response is not received, the City
may consider all courses of action available including submitting an appeal to the California Public
Utilities Commission. Mayor Dieringer further reviewed the issues related to the appeal process and
suggested including in the letter the issue regarding the inequities of the process and the fact that an unfair
standard was applied.
Mayor Dieringer called for public comment.
Ramona Ci, 46 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council stating that they purchased the property in 2014
but the standard used to set the water budget baseline was unfair. She stated that she would submit
documents in support of her complaint.
Alya Lucas, 4 Open Brand Road/22 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the City Council stating that they
too experienced an unfairness in setting their water budget and provided documents to staff in support of
their complaint.
Mayor Pro Tem Black asked Mr. Armendariz to respond to the public comment.
Dan Armendariz, District Manager, California Water Service Company stated that he did not come
prepared to address specific situations; but although the formal appeal process is closed, they want to hear
what's going on and do the best they can.
Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West expressed concern regarding the safety of the asbestos pipes that
California Water Service Company uses to supply water.
In response to Mr. Aichele, Mr. Armendariz stated that Cal Water would be willing to provide an
overview of its main replacement program at a future City Council meeting.
Following discussion concerning the content of the letter, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City
Council approve the letter to California Water Service Company regarding its water budget appeal process
and direct the City Manager to send the letter to Cal Water. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion,
which carried without objection. The City Council further directed staff to begin drafting the appeal to be
submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission regarding this issue in the event the City does not
receive a favorable response from California Water Service Company.
Mayor Dieringer suggested also taking Item l0A regarding the quarterly investment report out of order.
Hearing no objection she so ordered.
QUARTERLY SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING
JUNE 30, 2016.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
08-22-16
DRAFT
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Finance Director Shea reviewed the
investment report for the quarter ending June 30, 2016 stating that the current quarter's active deposits is
$6.86 million with a yield of .601%. He further stated that the balance in the City's CaIPERS CERBT
OPEB Irrevocable Trust is $513,094.
Following brief discussion concerning the City's OPEB investment and options for funding the City's
unfunded pension liability, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council receive and file the
investment report for the quarter ending June 30, 2016. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion,
which carried without objection. The City Council further directed staff to schedule a meeting with the
Finance/Budget/Audit Committee for the purpose of discussing options for funding the City's unfunded
pension liability.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
FOR AN APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for a report from the Personnel Committee.
Councilmember Pieper reported that that the Committee interviewed two capable candidates to fill the
Planning Commission vacancy and after lengthy deliberation on the matter, recommends the appointment
of Matt Seaburn.
Mayor Dieringer disclosed that she attended the Personnel Committee meetings but did not participate.
She expressed concern that because Mr. Seabum live close in proximity to an existing Planning
Commissioner, there may be an issue achieving a quorum in cases where the applicant's property is within
500 ft. of the two commissioners and both have to recuse themselves from the case.
Discussion ensued concerning the point raised by Mayor Dieringer. Councilmember Pieper commented
that he believes it is important that the Planning Commissioners continue to maintain the character of the
Community and the Committee believes that Mr. Seabum is the best candidate to achieve that objective.
He stated that he does not believe there will be many, if any cases for which both Commissioners would
have to recuse themselves. Further discussion ensued concerning the length of time the applicant's have
lived in the City. Mayor Dieringer further expressed concern that Mr. Seaburn has not lived in the City
very long. She further commented that she believes Dr. Schaye is a more long-term, engaged resident and
would provide better balance on the Commission. Councilmember Mirsch commented that during its
deliberation, the Personnel Committee discussed at length all of the issues being raised, and came to the
conclusion the Mr. Seabum is the best candidate to fill the position at this time.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
08-22-16
DRAFT
Following discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council appoint Matt Seaburn to serve
on the Rolling Hills Planning Commission for the remainder of the unexpired term. Councilmember
Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried by roll call vote with Mayor Pro Tem Black and Mayor
Dieringer opposed.
UPDATE ON THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA REGIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 11, 2016. (ORAL REPORT)
Mayor Dieringer provided an update from the August 11, 2016 Palos Verdes Peninsula Regional Law
Enforcement Committee meeting stating that there was a temporary adjustment made to the contract
because the motor deputy was promoted and the funds will be used for general patrol instead. She also
provided an update on the Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) camera project as well as a
recent trend in vehicle burglaries where an electronic device is being used to unlock locked vehicles and
mail theft.
DISCUSSION CONCERNING SCHEDULING A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE CITY
COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION. (ORAL REPORT)
City Clerk Luce reported that after polling the Planning Commissioners, the only dates for which all of the
City Council and Planning Commission are available for the joint meeting is Tuesday, November ls` or
Wednesday, November 2"d. Following brief discussion, the City Council directed staff to proceed with
scheduling the joint meeting for November Isi at 6:30 p.m.
OTHER MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Dierigner suggested that the City agendize a discussion regarding the Zoning Code requirement
that utilities be undergrounded when a property owner upgrades an electrical panel. The City Council
directed staff to agendize the matter for discussion at a future City Council meeting.
Councilmember Pieper reported that the proponents of the proposed view initiative are holding a town hall
meeting on September 14 .
Councilmember Mirsch suggested that the City Council agendize a discussion regarding the drains on
Crest Road (between Southfield Drive and Portuguese Bend Road) specifically, who is responsible for
them. The City Council directed staff to agendize the matter for discussion at a future City Council
meeting.
MATTERS FROM STAFF (continued)
CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE ASSOCIATE PLANNER POSITION TO
ASSISTANT PLANNER IN ORDER TO INITIATE RECRUITMENT FOR POSITION.
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz presented the
staff report pertaining to changing the Associate Planner position to Assistant Planner so that the
recruitment process can be initiated. He explained the challenges associated with the last recruitment and
Minutes
City Council Meeting
08-22-16
DRAFT
stated that changing the position to Assistant Planner and keeping the salary range the same will be more
attractive to prospective candidates. Mayor Pro Tem Black expressed concern that the staff report referred
to the City's benefits as mediocre and commented that the he believes that City provides good benefits to
its employees and has their long-term best interest in mind. Councilmember Pieper suggested that the City
continue to allocate the maximum allowed hours to the part-time planner position during the recruitment
process as well as during the training of the new Planning Assistant.
Following discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council approve changing the title of
the planning position to Assistant Planner. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried
without objection.
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 adjoumed the meeting at 9:07 p.m.
The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, September 12, 2016
beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills,
California.
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Luce
City Clerk
Approved,
Bea Dieringer
Mayor
Minutes
City Council Meeting
08-22-16
CHECK CHECK
NO. DATE
City affiny4/i
Agenda Item No: 4-B
Mtg. Date: 09/12/16
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
9/12/2016- CHECK RUN A CHECKS DATED 9/012016
PAYEE
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 3771521
FAX: (310) 377.7288
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
• 24463 09/012016 CALPERS- RETIREMENT -AUGUST 2016 5,574.51
• 24464 09/01/2016 DELTA DENTAL SEPT DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUM 681.72
• 24465 09/01/2016 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY SEPT INSURANCE PREMIUM 201.49
• 24466 09/012016 VISION SERVICE PLAN - (CA) SEPT VISION INSURANCE PREMIUM 80.95
Total
I, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, California cerrify that the above demands
are a and there is available in the General Fund a balance of S6,538.67 for the payment
of v ems.
Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager
• Previously Disbursed
S 6,538.67
6.538 67
Printed on Recycled Paper
::/ S
CHECK CHECK
NO DATE
24467
24468
24469
24470
24471
24472
24473
24474
24475
24476
24477
24478
24479
24480
24481
24482
24483
24484
24485
24486
24487
24488
24489
24490
24491
• PR LINK
* PR LIMO
Cite o/t€o/Lin, „Am
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
9/172016 - CHECK RUN B
PAYEE
09/12/2016 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO.
09/12/2016 CITY OF CLAREMONT
09/12/2016 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
09/122016 COMPUTER PALACE
09/12/2016 COSTCO MEMBERSHIP
09/122016 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
09/12/2016 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
09/12/2016 COX COMMUNICATIONS
09/12/2016 DAILY BREEZE
09/12/2016 EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC.
09/12/2016 FOUNTAINHEAD CONSULTING INC.
09/12/2016 GROUNDWORKS LANDSCAPE MC.
09/12/2016 HASLER
09/122016 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP
09/12/2016 PACIFIC COAST LANDSCAPE
09/12/2016 PENINSULA SEPTIC SERVICE, INC.
09/12/2016 PRINTING SYSTEMS, INC.
09/12/2016 REMOTE SATELLITE SYS INTL
09/12/2016 ROGERS, ANDERSON, MALODY
09/122016 ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
09/122016 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
09/122016 USCM
09/122016 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS -
09/122016 WILLDAN INC.
09/12/2016 XEROX CORPORATION
922016 PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING
9/2/2016 PR LINK - PAYROLL 16 & PR TAXES
Total
DESCRIPTION
WATER CHGS 07/27-08/24/16
PTAF LEGAL SHARING
RADAR UNIT MAINTENANCE
UPS BATTERY REPLACEMENT
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
JULY 2016 COYOTE CONTROL
JULY 2016 ANIMAL CONTROL
AUG 2016 INTERNET & PHONE
LEGAL ADVERTISING
AUGUST JANITORIAL SERVICE
SEPT MONTHLY COMPUTER CONSULT
DRIP EMITTERS FOR ROSES
POSTAGE
AUGUST 2016 ATTORNEY FEES
AUGUST LANDSCAPE MTC
SEPTIC TANK 3 -YEAR SERVICE
A/P LASER CHECK ORDER PRINTING
MONTHLY SERVICE
JULY MONTHLY ACCOUNTING SVC
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
AUG 2016 ELECTRICITY
DEFERRED COMP PROGRAM
DEFERRED COMP R. CRUZ
07/29/16 TRAFFIC ENGINEER
MONTHLY CHARGES
Processing Fee
Pay Period - August 17, 2016 Through August 30, 2016
I, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, Califo is certify that the above demands
are accurate and there is available in the General Fund a b ce of $59,424.50 for the payment
of above i
' Previously Disbursed
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 3777288
AMOUNT
1,034.27
57.00
11.74
191.85
55.00
4,365.87
206.94
763.47
404.46
582.00
516.00
402.00
41.31
10,359.60
565.00
480.00
189.05
97.90
6,855.00
10,297.95
1,759.68
1,380.00
182.00
736.25
37.00
48.45
17,804.71
$ 59,424.50
41.571.34
Printed on Recycled Paper
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH MARTIN &
CHAPMAN CO. FOR 2017 ELECTION SERVICES.
Agenda Item No: 4-C
Mtg. Date: 09/12/16
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERKQC
RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2016
ATTACHMENTS:
Professional Services Agreement w/Exhibit A
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached agreement for election
services with Martin & Chapman in an amount not to exceed $33,330.
BACKGROUND
Martin & Chapman is a well-known, experienced and highly rated election services
consulting • firm providing election services to cities throughout Los Angeles County
and beyond. The company has provided election services to Rolling Hills in the past
and is very familiar with the City's election needs. The services provided by a
consultant, such as Martin & Chapman cannot be covered by City staff. They are
knowledgeable of State laws governing elections, have the resources and abilities to
print all election materials, provide the forms and materials necessary for an election,
are easily .accessible for questions, and available to personally assist in the ballot
counting if desirable or necessary. There are very few, if any, consulting firms that
provide the experience, depth of knowledge and resources of Martin & Chapman.
0
DISCUSSION
The attached estimate includes the same level of election services that the City utilized
for its 2015 election including: consolidating the City's election with the Los Angeles
County Community College District; the use of ballot counters to tally the votes on
election night and providing the facsimile ballot in Spanish as required by State and
County law. It is recommended that the City utilize Martin & Chapman for preparation
and conducting its election on March 7, 2017.
FISCAL IMPACT
The FY 2016/17 budget includes an expenditure in the amount of $35,000 for the
municipal election. The estimated cost of the March 7, 2017 election is $30,300 based on
the City's 2015 election expenses plus two anticipated ballot measures. It is
recommended that the City Council approve the attached agreement in the amount not
to exceed $33,330 which includes a 10% contingency.
NOTIFICATION
Martin & Chapman has been advised of this contract being on the City Council agenda
for approval.
CONCLUSION
Martin & Chapman is the premier election services consulting firm and consistently
demonstrates their value in smooth -running election and election preparation. It is
recommended the City Council approve the attached agreement for their services in an
amount not to exceed $33,330.
HL
Election Agreement stnffreporl.docr
O
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 12th day of September, 2016 at City of
Rolling Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California, by and between the CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS, a California municipal corporation (hereinafter the "CITY" ), and Martin &
Chapman Co., 1951 Wright Circle, Anaheim, CA 92806 (hereinafter the "CONSULTANT").
1. RECITALS:
A. The CITY desires to retain the CONSULTANT for consulting on the March 7,
2017 general municipal election in the City of Rolling Hills.
B. CONSULTANT is well qualified by reason of education and experience to
perform such services; and
C. CONSULTANT is willing to render such professional services as hereinafter
defined.
Now, therefore, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein
contained, CITY hereby engages CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT agrees to perform the
services set forth in this Agreement.
2. SCOPE OF WORK
CONSULTANT shall perform all work necessary to complete in a manner satisfactory to
CITY the services set forth in the specifications or the scope of work attached as Exhibit A.
3. COST
The CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT for the completed work under this Agreement a
not to exceed amount of S33,330 based on the unit prices set forth in Exhibit A.
Any increase in contract amount or scope shall be by express written amendment
approved by the CITY and CONSULTANT.
4. METHOD OF PAYMENT
CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed upon completion of the work upon submitting an
invoice in duplicate and addressed to the CITY, c/o the City Clerk, 2 Portuguese Bend Road,
Rolling Hills, CA 90274.
•
5. SUBCONTRACTING
CONSULTANT shall not be permitted to subcontract any portion of this contract without
the express written consent of the CITY.
1 o
6. COMMENCEMENT OF WORK
CONSULTANT shall commence work under this agreement upon receipt of a notice to
proceed from the CITY.
7. ACCOUNTING RECORDS
CONSULTANT must maintain accounting records and other evidence pertaining to costs
incurred which records and documents shall be kept available at the CONSULTANT's
California office during the contract period and thereafter for five years from the date of final
payment.
8. OWNERSHIP OF DATA
All data, and other material collected or prepared under the contract shall become the
property of the CITY. CITY's reuse of such materials for a purpose other than the project which
is the subject of this Agreement shall be at CITY's sole risk.
9. TERM OF CONTRACT
This contract shall be valid until the earlier of June 30, 2017 or completion of the work.
10. TERMINATION
This contract may be terminated at any time for breach and the CITY may terminate
unilaterally and without cause upon seven (7) days written notice to the CONSULTANT. All
work satisfactorily performed pursuant to the contract and prior to the date of termination may be
claimed for reimbursement.
11. ASSIGNABILITY
CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer interest in this contract without the prior
written consent of the CITY.
12. AMENDMENT
It is mutually understood and agreed that no alteration or variation of the terms of this
contract, or any subcontract requiring the approval of the CITY, shall be valid unless made in
writing, signed by the parties hereto, and approved by all necessary parties.
13. NON -SOLICITATION CLAUSE
The CONSULTANT warrants that he or she has not employed or retained any company
or persons, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, any fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration, contingent upon or
resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the
CITY shall have the right to annul this contract without liability, or, in its discretion to deduct
from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee;
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
14. INDEMNITY
CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend with counsel approved by CITY, and hold
harmless CITY, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against all liability,
loss, damage, expense, cost (including without limitation reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees
and all other costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with and
to the extent of CONSULTANT's negligence or other wrongful conduct in CONSULTANT'S
performance of work hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in
this AGREEMENT, regardless of CITY'S passive negligence, but excepting such loss or damage
which is caused by the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY. Should CITY
in its sole discretion find CONSULTANT'S legal counsel unacceptable, then CONSULTANT
shall reimburse the CITY its costs of defense, including without limitation reasonable attorneys
fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation. The CONSULTANT shall promptly
pay any final judgment rendered against the CITY (and its officers, officials, employees and
volunteers) covered by this indemnity obligation. It is expressly understood and agreed that the
foregoing provisions are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the
State of California and will survive termination of this Agreement.
15. INSURANCE
A. Without limiting CONSULTANT'S obligations arising under paragraph 14 -
Indemnity, CONSULTANT shall not begin work under this Agreement until it obtains policies
of insurance required under this section. The insurance shall cover CONSULTANT, its agents,
representatives and employees in connection with the performance of work under this
Agreement, and shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Insurance coverage
shall be as follows:
i. Automobile Liability Insurance with minimum coverage of $300,000 for
property damage, $300,000 for injury to one person/single occurrence, and $300,000 for injury
to more than one person/single occurrence.
ii. Commercial General Liability and Property Damage insurance, insuring
CITY its elected and appointed officers, agents, and employees from claims for damages for
personal injury, including death, as well as from claims for property damage which may arise
from CONSULTANT'S actions under this Agreement, whether or not done by CONSULTANT
or anyone directly or indirectly employed by CONSULTANT. Such insurance shall have a
combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.
iii. Worker's Compensation Insurance for all CONSULTANT'S employees to
the extent required by the State of California.
3. 0
B. Deductibility Limits for policies referred to in subparagraphs A (i) (ii) and (iii)
shall not exceed $25,000 per occurrence.
C. Additional Insured. City, its elected and appointed officers, agents, and employees
shall be named as additional insured on policies referred to in subparagraphs A (i) and (ii).
D. Primary Insurance. The insurance required in paragraphs A (i) (ii) and (iii) shall
be primary and not excess coverage.
E. Evidence of Insurance. Consultant shall furnish CITY, prior to the execution of
this Agreement, satisfactory evidence of the insurance required, issued by an insurer authorized
to do business in California, and an endorsement to each such policy of insurance evidencing that
each carrier is required to give CITY at least 30 days prior written notice of the cancellation of
any policy during the effective period of the Agreement, I0 days written notice if cancellation is
due to nonpayment of premium. All required insurance policies are subject to approval of the
City Attorney. If Consultant, for any reason, fails to maintain insurance coverage, which is
required pursuant to this Agreement, the same shall be deemed a material breach of this
Agreement. City, at its sole option, may forthwith terminate this Agreement and obtain damages
from the Consultant resulting from said breach. Alternatively, City may purchase such required
insurance coverage, and without further notice to Consultant, City may deduct from sums due to
Consultant any premium costs advanced by City for such insurance.
16. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT
In the event that legal action is commenced to enforce or declare the rights created under
this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of costs and reasonable
attorney's fees in the amount to be determined by the court.
17. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
No member of the governing body of the CITY and no other officer, employee, or agent
of the CITY who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and
carrying out of the program, shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this
Agreement; and the CONSULTANT further covenants that in the performance of this
Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed.
18. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
The CONSULTANT is and shall at all times remain as to the CITY a wholly independent
consultant. Neither the CITY nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of the
CONSULTANT or any of the CONSULTANT's employees, except as herein set forth. The
CONSULTANT shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or
employees are in any manner agents or employees of the CITY.
4 0
19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES
This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing,
between the parties hereto with respect to the employment of CONSULTANT by CITY and
contains all the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect such employment in
any manner whatsoever. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations,
inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or
anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no other
agreement or amendment hereto shall be effective unless executed in writing and signed by both
CITY and CONSULTANT.
20. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of California, and all applicable federal statutes and regulations as amended.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year
first above written.
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS : CONSULTANT:
CITY MANAGER MARTIN ND CHAPM
RAYMOND R. CRUZ SCOTT 15 MARTIN
CITY MANAGER DATE: DATE: 05/42
ATTEST:
HEIDI LUCE
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MICHAEL JENKINS
CITY ATTORNEY
5.0
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
6-®
Martin & Chapman Co.
1951 Wright Circle' Anaheim, California 92806' 714/939-9866' Fax 714/939-9870
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
2 PORTUGUESE BEND RD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274-5171
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
March 7, 2017
Estimate based on '2 MEASURES; 20 PAGE SB / 20 PAGE DIGEST
Total Active Voters: 1700
PVBM Voters: 700
JULY 29, 2016
nti
Description
Subtotals
PRE -ELECTION SUPPLIES
S20.00
PROCESSING OF COUNTY VOTER FILES RECEIVED
$780.00
120 DAY VOTER ID REPORT
S178.06
NOMINATION SUPPLIES
$77.00
MILITARY AND OVERSEAS VOTER SUPPLIES
5206.50
PERMANENT VOTE -BY -MAIL VOTER LABELS
$255.25
VOTE -BY -MAIL BALLOT SUPPLIES
$1,601.35
BOXES, LABELS FOR VBM SUPPLIES
$13.10
VBM TRACKING SYSTEM
$925.53
PRECINCT SUPPLIES
$693.31
REPORTS
5156.31
SAMPLE BALLOTS / VOTER INFORMATION PAMPHLETS
$6,600.00
PVBM INSERTS / VOTER INFORMATION PAMPHLETS
$3,725.00
SAMPLE BALLOTS / VOTER INFORMATION PAMPHLETS / MAILING LABELS
$453.45
OFFICIAL BALLOTS AND SUPPLIES
$1,059.80
OFFICIAL BALLOTS / FOREIGN LANGUAGE FACSIMILES
$733.00
BALLOT COUNTING / ELECTION NIGHT SUPPLIES
85,068.00
SUBTOTAL
Subtotal / Taxable Items
$22,545.66
Sales Tax
52,029.11
S24,574.77
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES
$50.00
TRANSLATIONS
$450.00
MAILING SERVICES / SAMPLE BALLOTS
$1,616.50
POSTAGE ACTIVITY / SAMPLE BALLOTS
$108.25
MAILING SERVICES / VOTE -BY -MAIL BALLOTS
$929.50
CITY CLERK'S VBM'S FOR ISSUING
$133.00
PVBM's / 29 AND 15 DAY VOTERS
$2.25
Rolling Hills 2017 0307_Estimate
Quantity Description
Subtotals
DELIVERY SERVICES
$1,715.00
Total Nontaxable Items
$5,004.50
TOTAL OF THIS ELECTION
529,579.27
POSTAGE RECONCILIATION / SAMPLE BALLOTS
S538.57
POSTAGE RECONCILIATION / PERMANENT VOTE BY MAIL BALLOTS
$175.00
TOTAL OF POSTAGE DUE (OR CREDIT TO CITY)
$713.57
ESTIMATED COST FOR 2017 ELECTION
$30,292.84
Rolling Hills 2017 0307 Estimate
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No: 4-D
Mtg. Date: 09/12/16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF T
/HE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER 0i/'IJ
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN EXCHANGE AGREEMENT AND
ASSIGNMENT OF FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM - LOCAL (STP-L) FUNDS BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (LACMTA).
DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2016
ATTACHMENTS:
Exchange agreement
STP-L background information
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council authorize and direct the City Manager to sign
an agreement with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for
exchanging and assigning Federal Surface Transportation - Local (STP-L) funds for
flexible Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) local
transportation funds.
BACKGROUND
Federal Surface Transportation - Local (STP-L) funds, allocated by formula based on
population, are accumulated by the City through the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (LACMTA). The City is unable to use the funds and, from
time to time, the LACMTA offers an exchange of STP-L funds for other, more flexible,
funds. In 2013, the City exchanged $28,262 STP-L funds for LACMTA local
transportation funds. The City is able to use the LACMTA local transportation funds
for repaving the Civic Center parking lot with pervious asphalt to assist in the City's
stormwater management program.
DISCUSSION
Since 2013, the City has accumulated $33,604.16 in STP-L funds that will lapse if
unobligated. Per the attached agreement, the LACMTA has offered to again exchange
the funds for more flexible local transportation funds. It is recommended the City
exchange and assign the STP-L funds to the LACMTA for local transportation funds to
offset/cover the City's General Fund costs for repaving the Civic Center parking lot.
FISCAL IMPACT
Consistent with the exchange three -years ago, the LACMTA is charging a 2%
administrative fee for processing the City's exchange and assignment of STP-L funds.
As such, the City will receive $32,932.08 from the exchange. The funds received will be
deposited in the City's General Fund for repaving the Civic Center parking lot.
NOTIFICATION
The LACMTA has been advised that the agreement is being presented to the City
Council for approval.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council authorize and direct the City Manager to
execute the exchange and assignment of STP-L funds with the LACMTA for local
transportation funds to be used for for repaving the Civic Center parking lot with
pervious asphalt to assist in the City's stormwater management program.
RRC:hl
STP-1. staff report.docx
920000000STPL1613
EXCHANGE AGREEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT OF FEDERAL SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM — LOCAL FUNDS
This Exchange Agreement and Assignment of Federal Surface Transportation Program -Local
Funds ("AGREEMENT"), is made and entered into as of August 1, 2016, by and between the
City of Rolling Hills ("CITY") and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority ("LACMTA").
RECITALS:
A. CITY is eligible for and has available Federal Surface Transportation Program -Local
funds ("STP-L Funds").
B. CITY desires to exchange $33,604.16 of CITY's STP-L Funds for a like amount of
LACMTA Local Transportation Funds ("LACMTA Funds").
C. LACMTA is willing to exchange $33,604.16 in LACMTA Funds for a like amount of
CITY's STP-L Funds subject to the terms and conditions contained herein.
D. An exchange of CITY's STP-L Funds with LACMTA Funds is beneficial to and in the
general interest of CITY and LACMTA.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by CITY and
LACMTA, and of the promises contained herein, it is hereby agreed as follows:
AGREEMENT:
1. CITY hereby assigns to LACMTA $33,604.16 of CITY'S STP-L Funds. LACMTA
shall be authorized .to deduct such amount from CITY's STP-L Fund balance. This assignment
shall be automatically effective upon full execution of this AGREEMENT without the
necessity of the execution, delivery or recording of any further instrument whatsoever.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, at LACMTA's request, CITY shall execute and deliver such
documents and instruments as may be required to evidence such assignment of STP-L Funds.
2. LACMTA hereby accepts CITY's assignment of CITY's STP-L Funds for use on Federal -
aid -eligible project(s), to be determined by LACMTA in its sole and absolute discretion.
3. Upon receipt of (i) a fully executed AGREEMENT, (ii) CITY'S written
certification of the amount of CITY's STP-L Fund Balance, as defined herein, which CITY's
STP-L Fund Balance shows that CITY has sufficient STP-L Funds to meet its obligations
hereunder, and (iii) LACMTA's deduction of CITY's STP-L Funds as provided in paragraph 1
above, LACMTA shall pay CITY $32,932.08 of LACMTA Funds which includes the
deduction for the processing fee described in paragraph 5 below. For purposes of this
AGREEMENT, CITY's "STP-L Fund Balance" shall mean the amount of funds contained
in CITY's STP-L Fund account as of the date that this AGREEMENT is fully executed
920000000STPL1613
plus CITY'S FY16 apportionment share of STP-L Funds. If the STP-L Fund Balance is
insufficient to satisfy CITY's exchange obligations hereunder, CITY hereby authorizes
LACMTA to deduct from CITY's future STP-L Funds until LACMTA has in the aggregate
received the amount of CITY's STP-L Funds specified in paragraph 1 above.
4. CITY must complete an Automated Clearing House (ACH) form as provided in Exhibit A
to allow LACMTA to make disbursements electronically. Disbursements via ACH will be
made at no cost to CITY. If electronic disbursements are not the preferred method of
disbursement, CITY may request an exception in writing.
5. CITY shall pay LACMTA a two -percent (2%) processing and administrative fee ("the
Processing Fee") in connection with the exchange contemplated by this AGREEMENT.
The Processing Fee shall be assessed against the total amount of LACMTA Funds
payable to CITY. CITY hereby authorizes LACMTA to deduct the Processing Fee from the
amount LACMTA is to pay CITY hereunder.
6. CITY shall expend the LACMTA Funds on STP-L-Eligible Projects by the Lapsing
Date. For the purposes of this AGREEMENT, "the Lapsing Date" shall mean the date that is
five (5) years from the date that this AGREEMENT is fully executed. Any LACMTA Funds
not expended by the Lapsing Date shall lapse and be returned to LACMTA within thirty (30)
days of the Lapsing Date for further programming to third parties as LACMTA determines in
its sole discretion.
A. For the purposes of this AGREEMENT, the term "STP-L-Eligible Project" shall
mean any transportation capital improvement that would normally qualify for the
STP-L program, provided however, that any applicable federal regulations and
standards related to procurement and other project delivery issues may be substituted
with applicable state and local regulations, standards, and policies.
B. The term "expend" as used in Section 6 shall mean "encumbered by an awarded
contract".
C. If the LACMTA Funds have lapsed and CITY has not returned all or a portion of the
lapsed LACMTA Funds to LACMTA, then CITY shall be considered to be in default
and agrees that such outstanding payments shall be paid from CITY funds in the
following priority: first, from any of CITY's unobligated STP-L balance funds, then
from CITY's Proposition A local return funds, then from CITY's Proposition C local
return funds, and then from CITY's Measure R local return funds. If CITY is in
default hereunder, in addition to all rights and remedies available to LACMTA at law
or in equity and without further notice or ability to cure by CITY, CITY hereby
authorizes LACMTA to withhold the applicable STP-L funds or local return funds in
the amount needed to satisfy the outstanding amount of lapsed LACMTA Funds due
and owing to LACMTA prior to LACMTA transferring the balance of such local
return funds to the CITY in accordance with the applicable state laws or ordinances.
7. CITY must use the LACMTA Funds in the most cost-effective manner. If CITY intends
to use a consultant or contractor to implement all or part of the STP-L-Eligible Project,
LACMTA requires that such activities be procured in accordance with CITY's contracting
procedures and be consistent with State law as appropriate. CITY will also use the LACMTA
2
920000000STPL1613
Funds in the most cost-effective manner when the LACMTA Funds are used to pay "in-house"
staff time. CITY staff or consultants with project oversight roles may not award work to
companies in which they have a financial or personal interest. This effective use of funds
provision will be verified by LACMTA through on -going project monitoring and through any
LACMTA interim and final audits.
8. LACMTA, and/or its designee, shall have the right to conduct audits of CITY's use of
the LACMTA Funds, as deemed appropriate, such as financial and compliance audits; interim
audits; pre -award audits, performance audits, and final audits. CITY agrees to establish and
maintain proper accounting procedures and cash management records and documents in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). CITY's records shall
include, without limitation, any supporting evidence deemed necessary by LACMTA to
substantiate CITY's use of LACMTA Funds. These records must be retained by CITY for
five years following CITY's last use of the LACMTA Funds. CITY shall reimburse LACMTA
for any expenditure not in compliance with the Scope of Work and/or not in compliance with
other terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. The allowability of costs for CITY's own
expenditures submitted to LACMTA for the STP-L-Eligible Project shall be in compliance
with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87. The allowability of costs for
CITY's contractors, consultants, and suppliers expenditures submitted to LACMTA through
CITY's Monthly Progress Reports and Quarterly Expenditures shall be in compliance with
OMB Circular A-87 or Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 31 (whichever is
applicable). Findings of the LACMTA audit are final. When LACMTA audit findings require
CITY to retum monies to LACMTA, CITY agrees to return the monies within thirty (30) days
after the final audit is sent to CITY.
9. The terms of this AGREEMENT shall commence on the date that this AGREEMENT
is fully executed and shall terminate once CITY has expended all the LACMTA Funds and all
LACMTA audit and reporting requirements have been satisfied.
10. CITY shall fully indemnify, defend and hold LACMTA and its officers, agents, and
employees harmless from and against any liability and expenses, including, without limitation,
defend costs, any costs or liability on account of bodily injury, death or personal injury of
any person, or for damages of any nature whatsoever arising out of (i) a breach of CITY's
obligations under this AGREEMENT; or (ii) any act or omission of CITY or its officers, agents,
employees, contractors, or subcontractors in the use of the LACMTA Funds.
1 1. LACMTA shall fully indemnify, defend and hold CITY and its officers, agents, and
employees harmless from and against any liability and expenses, including, without limitation,
defend costs, any costs or liability on account of bodily injury, death or personal injury of
any person, or for damages to or loss of risk of property, any environmental obligations, any
legal fees and any claims for damages of any nature whatsoever arising out of (i) a breach of
LACMTA's obligations under this AGREEMENT; or (ii) any act or omission of LACMTA
or its officers, agents, employees, contractors, or subcontractors in the use of CITY's STP-L
Funds.
12. This AGREEMENT may be amended or modified only by mutual written consent of
3 O
920000000STPL1613
LACMTA and CITY.
13. Any correspondence, communication, or contact concerning this AGREEMENT shall
be directed to the following:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS:
Raymond R. Cruz
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills -
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
LACMTA:
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, California 90012
Attn: William Ridder
14. This AGREEMENT shall be interpreted and governed by the laws of the State of
California.
15. This AGREEMENT constitutes the entire understanding between the parties with respect
to the subject matter herein.
920000000STPL1613
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this AGREEMENT to be executed by
their respective officers as of the date stated below.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY
By: By:
Phillip A. Washington Raymond R. Cruz
Chief Executive Officer City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MARY C. WICKHAM
County Counsel
By:
By:
City Attorney
5
0
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Surface Transportation Program — Local (STPL) Funds
The Surface Transportation Program (STP) was established by the 1991 Federal
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) followed by TEA -21 and
continued with the passage of the Safe Accountable Flexible Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
The Surface Transportation Program — Local (STP-L) funds are flexible federal funds.
Projects programmed with STP-L funds must be part of the functional classified system
(Functional Classification Look -up tool can be found on the Caltrans web site at
http://www.dot.ca.aov/he/tsip/hpms/oaal.php. STPL funds allow agencies flexibility in
programming various types of transportation related projects.
Each FFY Metro apportions STPL funds to the 89 local agencies within Los Angeles
County based on population. Agencies have 3 years to obligate their funds or the funds
become subject to lapse. The following is a list of the most common type of projects
programmed with STP-L funds:
• Repaving/Reconstruction/Rehabilitation
• Transit Capital projects
• Bicycle and pedestrian facilities
• Safety improvements and hazard elimination and
• Transportation enhancement activities and control measures
• STPL funds can be utilized for bridges on any federal aid route or local street and
hence are eligible for this project.
Projects programmed with STPL funds in the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) are either part of a Group Project listing or individual STP-L projects. Agencies
are responsible to program STP-L projects in the ProgramMetro database (TIP database).
It is Metro's discretion to determine if a project is part of the Group Project listing or an
individual project. All projects in a Group Project listing must be exempt from air quality
conformity determination; these projects are listed in 40 CFR Part 93.126 and 127. Group
Project listings allow flexibility and facilitate the amendment process.
STP-L Amendment Process
STP-L funded projects that are in a Group Project listings may be amended at any time in
the ProgramMetro database. Unlike regular amendments which are processed within
scheduled deadlines the STP-L amendments can be processed and approved very quickly.
STP-L projects that are part of the Group Project listings (LA 11G1, LA11G2 LAI 1G2T,
LA 1 I G3, LA 1G4, LA I I G4T, and LA 1 1G5) are represented as unique entries in
ProgramMetro; however in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) the
only entries are LA1 IGI, LA1 102, LA11G2T, LA1103, LA1 104, LA 11G4T, and
LAI 1 G5. Metro submits a back-up project listing of the Group Projects to the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) and to Caltrans for reference. The
project listing is updated as needed and posted in the ProgramMetro database under
"News and Reference material" the listings are the reference source used by Caltrans
Local Assistance Division 7 when reviewing E-76 submittals.
gar al Raga grte
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item: 5-A
Mtg. Date: 09/1W16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIREC'IOR (,/) 7
THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2016-19. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A
SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR
GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A STABLE WITH COVERED PORCHES,
CORRAL, AND A RIDING RING, TO ENCROACH WITH THE RIDING RING INTO
THE FRONT SETBACK, AND TO EXCEED THE PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF
THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 904 AT 34 SADDLEBACK ROAD, (DELGADO).
REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide
other direction to staff.
2. The applicant, Ms. Delgado, is requesting a Site Plan Review, a Conditional Use
Permit and Variances for a 1,140 square foot single story stable with 1,032 square feet of
covered porches with 1,950 square foot adjacent corral, and 5,500 square feet riding
ring, 400 cubic yards of grading for the ring, to encroach with the riding ring into the
front setback by 2,150 square feet, and to exceed the already non -conforming
disturbance of the net lot area to 68.8% (max. permitted disturbance is 40% and existing
is at 63.3%).
3. During the proceedings, the Planning Commission recommended changes to the
project, which the applicant took under advisement and revised the project to address
the Commissioner's concerns. Following a second field trip, the Planning Commission
unanimously approved the project.
The Planning Commission found that the project furthers the goal of keeping the City
equestrian, and that the riding ring located
in the front reflects city's character. They
ZC NO. 904 - 34 Saddleback Road (1 1
found that the property will not appear overbuilt and that the location of the riding ring
will not be objectionable because it is maintained as open space. The Planning
Commission also found that due to the location of the house and guests house as well
as the location of an "unofficial trail" in the rear of the lot (the trail is popular with
equestrians) and the narrow nature of the lot, there isn't sufficient room in the rear to
construct a riding ring.
No one objected to the project and support for the project was heard from a neighbor.
BACKGROUND
4. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 2.71 acres. The net lot area
is 2.32 acres or 101,040 square feet. The property is currently developed with a 3,420
square foot residence, a 640 square foot garage, a 780 square foot swimming pool/spa,
50 square foot pool equipment, 663 square foot guest house, 510 square feet of attached
covered porches, 600 square feet of sheds (a 500 square foot storage shed and a 100
square foot shed), and a 350 square foot service yard. A 959 square foot addition to the
residence and a 35 square foot barbecue were approved administratively in October,
2015. With the addition, the residence will be 4,379 square feet. All existing structures
are legal and permitted.
5. In 1989 a Conditional Use Permit was granted to convert the then existing stable
into a guest house (Resolution 89-30) and area was set aside for the stable at that time
adjacent to the 6,200 square foot riding ring that exists today. The existing 500 sq.ft.
storage shed was approved and permitted in 1969 as a detached garage.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
6. This proposal is subject to the stable ordinance, adopted in 2011 which requires
that all new stables over 200 sq. ft. and corrals/riding rings over 550 sq. ft. require a
Conditional Use Permit and are subject to the requirements of Chapter 17.18 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed stable will be 1,140 square feet at a maximum height of 15' to the ridgeline.
The stable structure is proposed to be located where the riding ring currently is located.
The floor plan provides for 3 horse stalls, a feed room, muck room and a 300 square foot
tack room. 1,032 square feet of covered porches will extend from the stable. Access to the
stable will be provided from the existing driveway through a pathway, which will have a
D.G. surface.
The stable .structure will be located 40' from the guesthouse (as measured from the edge
of the guesthouse porch to the edge of the stable structure).
The stable structure will be developed with 73.7% agricultural uses and a 300 sq.ft. or
26.3% tack room.
ZC NO. 904 - 34 Saddleback Road
The 5,500 square foot riding ring is proposed to be located in the front of the lot and
encroach into the front setback by 2,150 square feet, thus the variance requests.
7. Pursuant to the zoning code requirements, the following is applicable to this
request:
REQUIREMENTS
Stable access -way minimum 6' wide with
roughened surface
Stable, corral, riding ring not to be located on
slopes greater than 4:1
Stable, corral, riding ring - not in front yard; min.
35 ' from side prop line; may be located up to 25'
in rear setback.
Stable, riding ring, turnout min. 35' from any
residential structure
Stable building to be designed for rural and
agricultural uses only, but may include storage
for vehicles, household items
Stable size to include the entire footprint
including loft, if any
PROPOSED
A short 6'wide minimum access -way exists
joining existing driveway and will be
lengthened to the stable.
Grading includes 400 c.y. total (200 c.y. cut
and 200 c.y. fill for the riding ring).
Riding ring requires a variance for front
setback encroachment. Stable is towards the
rear of the property and not in any setbacks
Distances from nearest residential structure
(guest house): Stable 40'; Riding ring: 75' to
the residence)
Stable is proposed to be for horse keeping
and associated uses.
1,140 square foot stable is comprised of 3
horse stalls, tack room, muck room, and a
feed room.
Agricultural spaces, incl. stalls, muck room,
and feed room comprise 73.7%
Tack use area comprises 300 square feet or
26.3%.
Condition of approval. However, neither is
being proposed at this time.
Allowed, but not shown currently
Entry doors conforming to the code; will be
a condition of approval.
No loft is proposed.
No loft is proposed.
Dirt or D.G. (condition of approval)
1,950 sq.ft. corral & 5,500 sq.ft. riding ring
Stable minimum of 60% shall be maintained for
agricultural uses
Stable maximum of 40% not to exceed 800 s.f.
may be maintained for a tack room use
Stable tack area may have sanitary and kitchen
amenities
Stable tack area may have glazed openings
Stable agricultural space entry doors to be min.
4'wide & 8' high; appearance of a stable door
Stable loft permitted
Stable loft plate height may not exceed 7'
Stable exterior area may not be paved
Corral minimum 550 sf.; fenced and contiguous
to stable. (Planning Commission may determine
the size of a corral)
Stable access slope not to exceed 25%
Commercial uses or sleeping is not allowed
ZC NO. 904- 34 Saddleback Road
0
Compliant stable access exists.
Applicant is not proposing any commercial
uses or sleeping in the stable
The applicant will be required to comply with all other requirements of Chapter 17.18 of
the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to stables, and riding rings as well as to all other
regulations including, but not be limited to undergrounding of utility lines to the
structure, lighting, roof material, Fire Department requirements and others.
8. Grading in the amount of 400 cubic yard (200 c.y. cut and 200 c.y. fill) is proposed,
for the riding ring.
9. Currently the lot is disturbed at 63.3%, which is legal non -conforming. Additional
disturbance is required for the riding ring, for a total disturbance of the net lot area of
68.8%, requiring a variance.
10. There are two building pads on the property (not in setbacks): one for or the
existing home (28,000 square feet) and the other for the proposed stable (11,640 square
feet). The residential building pad coverage will remain at 28.6%, and the proposed
stable pad coverage will be 18.7%.
11. The structural lot coverage is proposed at 10,179 sf. or 10.1% of the net lot area,
(20% permitted); and the total lot coverage including the structures and paved areas is
proposed to be 23,599 square feet, or 23.4%, (35% permitted).
12. The following table lists stables /sizes approved since 2011.
Location
Square Feet/ No. of Stories
11 Blackwater Cyn. Rd.
890 sq. ft. one story
5 Buggy Whip
890 sq. ft. one story
0 Chestnut
900 sq. ft. one story
9 Chuckwagon Rd.
1,296 sq. ft. first floor / 792 sq. ft. loft
2,088 sq.ft. total
10 Crest Rd. W.
735 sq. ft. first floor / 453 sq. ft. loft
1,188 sq.ft. total
49 Eastfield
600 sq. ft. one story
12 Johns Cyn. Rd.
735 sq. ft. one story
3 Meadowlark
480 sf. first floor / 360 sf. loft
840 sq.ft. total
29 Middleridge Rd. S.
2,160 sq. ft. first floor / 800 sf. loft with
center aisle; 2,960 sq.ft. total
6 Portuguese Bend Rd.
450 sq. ft. one story
77 Crest Rd. E
3,456 sq. ft. first floor/ 235 sq.ft. loft witY
center isle; 3,691 sq.ft. total
1 Pine Tree Lane
2,976 sq. ft. one story
11 Saddleback
2,415 sq. ft. with 625 sq. ft. loft with
center isle; 3,040 sq.ft. total
ZC NO. 904 - 34 Saddleback Road
O
5 Pine Tree Lane
23 Crest Rd. E.
34 Saddleback Rd.
1,810 sq. ft. with 611 sq. ft. loft;
2,421 sq.ft total
Proposed: 1,300 sq.ft. first story; 782
sq.ft. loft; 2,082 sq.ft. total
Proposed 1,140 sq.ft. - one story
13. When reviewing a stable development application the Planning Commission
considers whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit,
Site Plan Review and Variance and Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning Code pertaining to
stable requirements and must find that the use is consistent with General Plan policies
and goals such as maintenance of the City's rural environment and open space, complies
with the specific applicable development standards of the Municipal Code, and also
determine that the use, with appropriate conditions, will not adversely affect adjacent or
nearby properties.
14. Other required approvals include the RHCA (Architectural Committee), and
ultimately Building and Safety plan checking for building permits.
15. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines, Sec.15303).
ASE NO 904
SITE PLAN REVIEW
EXISTING
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED
RA -S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE, GARAGE,
GUEST HOUSE, POOL
STABLE, RIDING RING,
CORRAL
Front: 50 ft. from roadway
easement line .
Sides: 20 ft. from side property
line; (Stable 25' from side line)
Rear: 50 ft. from rear property
line
Residence
4379 sq.ft.
Residence
4379 sq.ft.
Garages
Pool/spa
Pool equip.
Stable
Att. porch
Service yard
Guesthouse
Sheds
BBQ
640 sq.ft.
780 sq.ft.
50 sq.ft.
0 sq. ft.
510 sq. ft.
350 sq.ft.
663 sq.ft.
600 sq.ft.
35 sq.ft
Garages
Pool/spa
Pool equip.
Stable
Attach. porch
Service yard
Guesthouse
Sheds
BBQ
640 sq.ft.
780 sq.ft.
50 sq.ft.
1,140 sq.ft.
1,542 sq.ft.
350 sq.ft.
663 sq.ft.
600 sq.ft.
35 sq ft.
TOTAL
8,007 sq.ft.
TOTAL
10,179 sq. ft.
GRADING
N/A
400 cubic yards
(200 cy. cut, 200 cy.fill)
balanced on -site
200 cy. for new riding ring, &
200 cy. for riding ring
Site Plan Review required for
grading. Must be balanced on-
site.
ZC NO. 904 - 34 Saddleback Road
STRUCTURAL LOT
7.9%
10.1% or 10,179 sf of 101,040
s.f. net lot area
COVERAGE •
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
20.3%
23.4% or 23,599 sq.ft. of
101,040 sq.ft. net lot area
(35% maximum)
BUILDING PAD COVERAGE
28.6%
N/A
28.6% of 28,000 sq.ft. pad
18.7% of 11,640 sq.ft. pad
(30% maximum -guideline)
Residential
Stable
DISTURBED AREA (40%
63.3% (legal
nonconforming)
68.8% - requires Variance
maximum; any graded
building pad area, any
remedial grading (temporary
disturbance), any graded
slopes and building pad areas,
and any non -graded area
where impervious surfaces
exist.)
STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT.
N/A
1,140 sq.ft & 1,950 sq.ft. corral
& 550 SO.FT. CORRAL)
STABLE ACCESS
Existing
Existing
RIDING RING (CUP
6,200
5,500 sq. ft. partially in front
setback
Required)
ROADWAY ACCESS
Existing driveway
approach
Existing driveway approach
VIEWS
N/A
Planning Commission
condition
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
N/A
Planning Commission
condition
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;
ZC NO. 904 - 34 Saddleback Road
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.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
11.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit.
The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit
application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is
consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the
provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find
that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards:
A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan;
B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and
structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be
materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures;
C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to
accommodate the use and buildings proposed;
D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development
standards of the zone district;
E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for
hazardous waste facilities;
F. That the proposed conditional uses observes the spirit and intent of this title.
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal)
must make the following findings:
ZC NO. 904 - 34 Saddleback Road
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone;
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied
the property in question;
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling
Hills.
SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance
ZC NO. 904 - 34 Saddleback Road
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR GRADING AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A STABLE WITH COVERED PORCHES,
CORRAL, AND A RIDING RING, TO ENCROACH WITH THE RIDING
RING INTO THE FRONT SETBACK, AND TO EXCEED THE
PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 904
AT 34 SADDLEBACK ROAD, (DELGADO).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A revised application was duly filed by Ms. Eddy Delgado, to
request a Site Plan Review, a Conditional Use Permit and Variances for a 1,140 square
foot single story stable with 1,032 square feet of covered porches with 1,950 square foot
adjacent corral, and 5,500 square foot riding ring, 400 cubic yards of grading for the
ring, to encroach with the riding ring into the front setback by 2,150 square feet, and to
exceed the already non -conforming disturbance of the net lot area to 68.8% (max.
permitted disturbance is 40% and existing is at 63.3%).
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings
to consider the application at their regular meeting on May 17, 2016, in the field and at
their regular meeting on June 21, 2016, and again in the field and at their regular
meeting on July 19, 2016. Neighbors within 1,000 -foot radius were notified of the public
hearings and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on May 5, 2016 and in the
Daily Breeze on July 8, 2016. The applicants and their agents were notified of the public
hearings in writing by first class mail and the applicants and their agents were in
attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons
interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff. Three
residents visited the site during the noticed field trip on June 21, 2016 and one resident
on July 19, 2016. One resident attended the public hearing during the evening of July
19, 2016 to express her support for the project as it supports equestrian uses in the City.
During the first field trip, Commissioners expressed concerns about the proposed stable
and it's proximity to the guesthouse. The applicant's responded with a revised plan to
relocate and reconfigure the stable and to request a 5,500 square foot riding ring that
partially encroaches into the front setback. The Planning Commission has reviewed,
analyzed and studied said proposal.
Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 2.71 acres.
The net lot area is 2.32 acres or 101,040 square feet. The property is currently developed
with a 3,420 square foot residence, a 640 square foot garage, a 780 square foot
swimming pool/spa, 50 square foot pool equipment, 663 square foot guest house, 510
square feet of attached covered porches, 600 square feet of sheds (a 500 square foot
Reso. 2016-19 1
34 Saddleback Rd.
storage shed and a 100 square foot shed), and a 350 square foot service yard. A 959
square foot addition to the residence and a 35 square foot barbecue were approved
administratively in October, 2015 and the addition is currently under construction.
With the addition, the residence will be 4,379 square feet. All existing structures are
legal and permitted.
In 1989 a Conditional Use Permit was granted to convert the then existing stable
into a guest house (Resolution 89-30) and area was set aside for the stable at that time
adjacent to the 6,200 square foot riding ring that exists today. The existing 500 sq.ft.
storage shed was approved and permitted in 1969 as a detached garage.
Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 (new
construction of single family residence and accessory structures), and section
15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption) of the CEQA guidelines.
Section 5. Section 17.18.040E of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits
approval of a stable over 200 square feet, a corral over 550 square feet, and a riding ring
with a Conditional Use Permit provided the uses are not located in the front yard or in
any setbacks. A portion of the riding ring is proposed to be located in the front yard
area of the lot. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning
Commission finds as follows:
A. Conditionally permitted uses are not outright permitted by the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code. The Commission must consider applications for 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, and riding
ring 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
except for the location of the riding ring, meet all the applicable code development
standards for a stable, corral, and riding ring, and the proposed uses are located on
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 development
would be constructed in furtherance of the General Plan goal of promoting and
encouraging equestrian uses.
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 stable/corral, and
riding ring orientation are not towards neighbors and their general location is of
Reso. 2016-19 2
34 Saddleback Rd.
sufficient distance from nearby residences so as to not impact the view or privacy of
surrounding neighbors. The proposed stable is to be located next to the corral and a
path designated for equestrian uses runs from the stable/corral to the driveway. The
riding ring would be located in an area of the lot that is not in proximity to any
residents.
D. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural
terrain, and surrounding residences because the stable/corral, and riding ring 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 2.32 acres net in size and is sufficiently large to accommodate the proposed uses.
E. The proposed conditional use, other than the riding ring being proposed
in the front yard area, complies with all applicable development standards of the zone
district and requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Sections 17.18.090 and
17.18.100 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 6. 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.
With respect to the Site Plan grading and the proposed structures the Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the
Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with
the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with
sufficient open space between surrounding structures and maintaining sufficient
setbacks to provide buffers between residential uses. Although the disturbed area
exceeds the maximum permitted amount of 40%, it was already legal non -conforming
at 63.3% and it will increase to 68.8%. The configuration of the lot is narrow and long
and a horse trail is located on the rear portion of the lot, accessible by the public with
the property owner's consent, making this portion of the lot unusable by the property
owner. The stable, corral, and riding ring promote the rural, equestrian aesthetic of
Rolling Hills. While 2,150 square feet of the riding ring is in the front setback, the
equestrian use is promoted in the City.
Reso. 201649
34 Saddleback Rd.
3e
The project conforms with Zoning Code lot coverage requirements, except for
disturbance. The net lot area of the lot is 101,040 square feet. The structural net lot
coverage is proposed at 10.07%, which includes all of the structures, with allowance for
permitted deductions, (20% max. permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed,
including the stable would be 23.4%, (35% max. permitted). The disturbed area of the
lot is proposed to increase from 63.3% which already exceeds the maximum permitted
of 40% and is legal nonconforming, to 68.8% due to the 400 cubic yards of grading
required for the riding ring (200 cubic yards of cut and 200 cubic yards of fill).
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 stable/corral will be constructed entirely on an
existing building pad of the currently developed lot where the corral currently is and
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 permit the owners to
enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding
property owners. The stable, corral, and riding ring will be developed on areas of the
lot that do not currently have structures.
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 equestrian uses in the vicinity of said lot. The proposed stable is 1,140 square
feet and the average size of the last 15 stables approved since 2011 is 1,583 square feet.
D. The development plan will introduce additional landscaping, which is
compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community.
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation, for pedestrians and vehicles because the
applicants will continue to utilize the existing driveway to the residence and the stable,
and the riding ring will be accessed from the main driveway for heavier vehicles
ingress/egress. The stable access from the driveway will be entirely decomposed
granite.
F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section 15303 of the CEQA guidelines.
Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Code permit approval of
a variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when, due to
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable
to other similar properties in the same zone, strict application of the Code would deny
the property owner substantial property rights enjoyed by other properties in the same
Reso. 2016-19 4
34 Saddleback Rd.
vicinity and zone. The applicant seeks a variance from the requirement 17.18.100.3. that a
riding ring not be located in the front yard, and from 17.16.070B. that disturbance is
limited to 40% of the net lot area. The 5,500 square foot riding ring is being proposed in
the front yard, 2,150 square feet is in the front setback and the disturbance of the lot will
be 68.8%. With respect to this request for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as
follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other
property or class of use in the same zone because a horse trail used by the public crosses
the rear of property making a portion of the lot unusable by the property owner. The
disturbance of the lot already exceeds the maximum permitted and in order to locate the
riding ring it is necessary to slightly grade an area that is currently undulated. This will
cause the disturbed area to increase to 68.8%.
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, but
which is denied to the property in question because of the long and narrow lot, and
Saddleback Trail being located on the rear of the property. The residential building pad
is largely developed already, and there is no other option for locating the riding ring
other than the front yard area. There were no concerns voiced by neighbors about where
the proposed stable/corral and riding ring will be located. •The exceedance of the
disturbance is due to the riding ring.
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 because the proposed riding ring enhances the equestrian
aesthetic and therefore would not affect property values. The riding ring will remain as
open space, therefore not causing the lot to be overdeveloped.
D. 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.
E. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed
project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies,
general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and will uphold the City's
goals to protect and promote construction that is rural in nature.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves Zoning Case No. 904 a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits and
Variances to construct a 1,140 square foot single story stable with 1,032 square feet of
covered porches with 1,950 square foot adjacent corral, and 5,500 square feet riding ring,
400 cubic yards of grading for the ring (200 cubic yards of cut and 200 cubic yards of fill),
to encroach with the riding ring into the front setback by 2,150 square feet, and to exceed
Reso. 2016-19 5
34 Saddleback Rd.
the already non -conforming disturbance of the net lot area to 68.8% (max. permitted
disturbance is 40% and existing is at 63.3%) subject to the following conditions:
A. The Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and Variances approvals shall expire
within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080,
17.42.070 and 17.38.070, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these
sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of this approval that if any conditions
thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted
thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease
such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has
been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of
thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination.
C. All requirements of the Buildings 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 13, 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
Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, 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.
E. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to the Building and Safety
Department for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted
to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans
approved by the Planning Commission.
F. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for
Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform
in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth
therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance.
Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this project
shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed
according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith.
Reso. 2016-19
34 Saddleback Rd.
6 8
G. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 10,179 square feet or
10.07% 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
23,599 square feet or 23.4%, of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage
limitations (35% max).
H. Grading for this project shall consist of 200 cubic yards of cut and 200 cubic
yards of fill. The disturbed area of the lot, including the approved stable and corral shall
not exceed 68.8%.
I. The residential building pad shall remain 28,000 square feet and has
coverage of 28.6%. The stable pad shall be 11,640 square feet and will have coverage of
18.7%.
J. The riding may not have lights anywhere within it or around it. Should a
mirror be installed in the future in the ring, and if reflection of the sun off the mirror
causes glare on adjoining properties, it shall be the responsibility of the property owner
or installer to mitigate this problem in a timely manner.
K. 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 is otherwise required by the Fire Department.
L. 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.
M. 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.
N. All utility lines to stable shall be placed underground, subject to all
applicable standards and requirements.
O. 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.
Reso. 2016-19 7
34 Saddleback Rd.
P. All graded slopes outside of the riding ring shall be landscaped. A
landscaping plan shall be submitted to the City in conformance with Fire Department
Fuel Modification requirements and graded slopes. Prior to finaling the project, trees
and shrubs shall be planted to screen the project from the neighbors. The landscaping
shall not form a hedge like screen but be offset. The height of the trees and shrubs shall
not at any time exceed the ridgeline of the roof of the structure. The landscaping plan
shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and are
consistent with the rural character of the community.
If landscaping of 5,000 square foot area or greater is introduced or redeveloped,
the landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance.
Q. A three rail fence is required around the riding ring.
R. The setback lines and roadway easement line in the vicinity of the
construction for this project shall remain staked throughout the construction. A
construction fence may be required.
S. 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.
T. Minimum of 50% of any construction materials must be recycled and
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.
U. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district
requirements, stormwater pollution prevent -ion 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.
V. During construction, all parking shall take place on the project site, on the
driveway or motorcourt, and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within
the unimproved roadway easements on the east side of Saddleback 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.
W. 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
Reso. 2016-19
34 Saddleback Rd.
equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential
environment of the City of Rolling Hills.
X. 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:
httpjwww.wrh.noaa.gov/lou/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard definitions#FIR
E. 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.
Y. 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), if applicable. Further the property owners shall be required to conform to the
County Health Department requirements for a septic system.
Z. Prior to finaling of the project an "as graded" and an "as constructed"
plans and certifications, including certifications of ridgelines of the stable 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.
AA. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of
this permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. The
affidavit shall . e reco • • together with the resolution.
PASS
ELF,
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
D THIS 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016.
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.
Reso. 2016-19
34 Saddleback Rd.
9 ®
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-19 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR GRADING AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A STABLE WITH COVERED PORCHES,
CORRAL, AND A RIDING RING, TO ENCROACH WITH THE RIDING
RING INTO THE FRONT SETBACK, AND TO EXCEED THE
PERMIT I'ED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 904
AT 34 SADDLEBACK ROAD, (DELGADO).
was approved and adopted at regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
August 16, 2016 by the following roll call vote:
=AYES:- - — -Commissioners Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick and Chairman Chelf._
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Reso. 2016-19 10
34 Saddleback Rd.
ear aic Z1149 geek
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 5-B
Mtg. Date: 09/12/16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
��
THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER I"C"U
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2016-20. 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 WITHOBASEMENT, GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, SWIMMING
POOL WITH A SPA, RETAINING WALLS AND NEW DRIVEWAY; AND REQUEST
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE AND STABLE
WITH LOFT AND CORRAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 902 AT 23 CREST ROAD EAST,
(LOT 132A -MS), (HYNES).
AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE
DRIVEWAY APRON.
RECOMMENDATION, REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide
other direction to staff.
2. The applicants request a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 11,100
square foot residence and 11,100 square foot basement, two attached garages totaling
1,540 square feet, 2,654 square feet of covered porches for the house and stable, a new
pool and spa totaling 864 square feet with a 50 square foot pool equipment area, a 96
square foot service yard, a 270 square foot outdoor kitchen, a 400 square foot trellis near
the 800 square foot guesthouse, a two-story stable with 1,300 square foot on the first
level and a 792 square foot loft, a new driveway and turnaround access. Grading will
entail a total of 51,625 cubic yards of dirt (12,455 c.y. cut and 11,670 c.y. fill; and 13,750
c.y. over -excavation and 13,750 c.y. re -compaction) with 785 cubic yards to be exported.
ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E.
U
3. The Planning Commission held several public hearings and made two field trips
to the site. Following recommendation from the Planning Commissioners, the applicants
revised the submittal and removed all requests for variances. In addition, they scaled
down the project and relocated the garages to be closer to the residence and shortened
the driveway. They eliminated a tennis court proposal on the lower pad and removed all
fill from the lower pad by reconfiguring the proposed structures on the pad. They added
two cisterns on the lower level to better address the run-off from that area of the lot.
4. At the August 16, 2016 meeting the Planning Commission approved the project
by unanimous vote. The Planning Commission found that the project "fits" on the
property, is located far enough from the road so that not to be obtrusive to neighbors as
well as walkers or drivers. They found that the project meets all of City's development
standards and with the proposed construction of the cistern, have satisfied the issues
with run-off.
Together with standard findings of facts and conditions of approval, conditions specific
to this project have been included in the Resolution, such as:
• The LA County Department of Building and Safety, LA County GMED Division,
and other LA County divisions as required, shall be the reviewing agencies for
this project
• All utility lines to be placed underground
• Provide landscaping and irrigation plan prior to obtaining a grading permit
• Trees/shrubs not to grow into a hedge like screen, be no higher than the ridge of
structures
• The project is subject to the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Low
Impact Development Ordinance
5. During the Planning Commission proceedings, several residents expressed
concerns regarding stability, erosion and water run-off from the proposed project and
its impact, if any, on the downhill properties. All the correspondence is included with
this report. The Planning Commission requested that the City's grading/drainage
engineers be present at one of their meetings. On May 17, 2016, the City's
grading/ drainage engineer and a building engineer from LA County Public Works
Dept. visited the site and attended the evening meeting. They addressed grading and
drainage in general and specifically for this project. They described the process of
reviewing applications and advised that the Building Dept/Public Works Dept. staff
would review the project and assess the plans once they had been submitted to them to
ensure that the proposed stormwater devices, whether dissipaters, biofiltration, cisterns
or other method would meet the building codes and show that the proposed project
does not generate more sheet flow or storm water run-off than exists at present day on
the vacant lot. They would also review the applicants' geotechnical reports.
ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E.
O
6. Following one of the meetings, in response to additional questions from the
Planning Commission regarding the handling of the run-off from the property and
retention of the water on site, the applicants' engineer prepared a hydrology analysis
for the proposed method of storage system (cisterns) for 1 year storm, 2 year storm, 5
year storm, 10 year storm 25 year storm, 50 year storm and 100 year storm. The
proposed storage system is designed for a 25 -year storm to store the difference in
stormwater runoff volume between the pre and post development conditions.
According to the applicants' engineer, the project will retain more run-off on site post
construction than what is draining currently.
The hydrology analysis for 23 Crest Rd W. is included. The engineers have also
provided a Summary of Hydrologic Procedures and Analysis for Projects in LA County,
which provides some basic background on Hydrology and terminology and
calculations for designing retention systems based on the LA County Building Codes.
The applicants' attorney also submitted a letter to the Planning Commission, which is
attached.
BACKGROUND
7. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 7.05 acres. The net lot area
for development purposes is 6.02 acres or 262,368 square feet. The existing property is
currently vacant and has never been developed.
8. In 2015 the applicant requested to subdivide the existing vacant lot known as 23
Crest Road East, totaling 7.055 acres (gross) into 2 parcels. In February 2016 the
applicant withdrew an application for a subdivision.
9. A natural drainage course is located along the western portion of the lot and a
blue line stream, which is a part of the Klondike Canyon System, is located
approximately 200 feet south of the southern property line of the lot. The lot is also
located in proximity to the Geotechnical Hazardous area of the City, known as the
Flying Triangle. A geotechnical and geological report prepared for the subdivision
states that the crown of a landslide (Flying Triangle) is about 230 feet west of the
southwestern portion of the lot.
10. The single-family residence on the lot as it is currently proposed is categorically
exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 3.
However, the Planning Commission and/or City Council may require additional
information to aid them in the decision -making process and place conditions on the
development, which are site specific.
ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E.
0
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
11. The new residence is proposed at 11,100 square feet and the first floor level will
be about 13-15' below Crest Road East. The proposed residence will have a maximum
ridge height of 18.5' above the finished floor, plus chimneys. The attached garages will
have a maximum ridge height of 13' from finished floor. The basement is proposed to
be 11,100 square feet and be contained entirely within the footprint of the new residence
and will be 14' in depth. Per the applicant, the residence is proposed on the shallowest
sloped area with a basement being added to increase the residence size while reducing
the footprint. None of the proposed structures are in setbacks.
12. The lot drains to the southwest and south east of the property and the run-off
from the residential (upper building pad) is proposed to be collected and stored in two
cisterns that are 50' long and 10' in diameter and located on the upper northeast portion
of the lot 'under the driveway and two smaller cisterns located on the lower pad.
Dissipaters are proposed just southeast of the cisterns to help filter stormwater from the
building pads.
The cistern storage method stores the difference in stormwater runoff volume between
the pre and post construction conditions. The run-off would first pass through a pre-
treatment system and then enter into the cisterns storage barrels. Both barrels, on each
pad, will be connected by a pipe to distribute the runoff between the two of them. The
runoff will then enter a manhole containing a pump. The pump will turn on when the
runoff reaches a specified (overflow) level and it will pump the excess volume out for
irrigation. When the storm volume exceed the storage capacity of the tanks, the water
will flow through an overflow pipe and be slowly discharged through the dissipaters.
In the previously proposed request to subdivide the lot (since withdrawn), the
applicants proposed containment cisterns as a method of controlling water run-off.
Willdan Engineering, City's contracted engineering firm, reviewed the proposed
containment system and deemed it adequate to protect the down hill properties from
water run-off from the site. At that time only one set of cisterns was proposed at the
upper pad of the lot.
As stated, LA County grading/drainage engineer and the building official were present
at the Planning Commission meeting on 5/17 and answered questions. The proposed
drainage method will have to meet building code requirements. This project is subject
to the City's Low Impact Development Ordinance, due to land development activities
for construction of a new single-family residence where one acre or more of land is
disturbed, and where the project adds 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface.
(Chapter 8.32 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code).
13. The applicant also proposes a new driveway off of Crest Road East. Per the Fire
Department requirement, the driveway will be 20' wide and include a turn -around area
ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E.
to accommodate fire truck access. The Traffic Commission reviewed the proposed
apron on July 28, 2016 and recommended approval.
A not to exceed 3' high retaining wall with a swale is proposed along the north and east
sides of the driveway. A 600 square foot parking pad in front of the residence, and
adjacent to the driveway is proposed to accommodate guest parking. Both, the
driveway and the parking pad location and size meet the zoning code provisions.
14. A stable with 1,300 square feet on the first floor and a 792 square foot loft with a
264 square foot covered porch and 2,250 square foot corral is proposed as part of the
guesthouse building pad that will be accessed by both a 10' wide stable access on a 25%
slope, accessed from Crest Road. A proposed (for pedestrians) 780 square foot stairway
with 3' high maximum walls joins the residence pad and the guesthouse pad. A 3' high
retaining wall is required just north of the stable and will have a swale behind it to
collect drainage.
Pursuant to the zoning code requirements the following is applicable to this request:
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Minimum 6' wide access with roughened
surface
10 'wide access -way from Crest Road with
roughened surface (not paved)
Stable, corral not to be located on slopes
greater than 4:1
Grading with 3' retaining wall; 2,500 cubic yards
cut , 0 cubic yards fill, 750 cubic yards over -
excavation and 750 cubic yards recompaction.
Not in front yard or side or front setback.
May be located up to 25' in rear setback.
Not proposed in any setback
Stable min. 35' from any residential structure
Proposed stable more than 35' from any
residential structure.
Stable building to be designed for rural and
agricultural uses only, but may include storage
for vehicles, household items
Stable is proposed with 4 stalls, 400 sf of
agricultural storage, 73 sf feed room, and tack
space in the loft (792 sf) which is 37.9% of the
structure
Size to include the entire footprint including
loft, if any
Ground floor (1,300 sf.): 593 sf stalls, 234 sf center
aisle, 73 sf feed room, 400 sf agricultural storage;
Loft (792 sf is tack room)
Minimum of 60% shall be maintained for
agricultural uses
Agricultural uses:1,300 sf (ground floor) 62.1 %
Maximum of 40% not to exceed 800 s.f. may be
maintained for a tack room use
Tack use area comprises 792 sf. or 37.9%
Includes tack room/storage & bathroom
Tack area may have sanitary and kitchen
amenities
Bathroom proposed; no kitchen
Tack area may have glazed openings
Condition of approval.
Agricultural space entry doors to be min.
4'wide & 7.5' high; appearance of a stable doo.
Condition of approval.
Loft is permitted
Loft; proposed for tack room purposes
ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E.
Loft plate height may not exceed 7'
The total height of the structure at its highest peak
is proposed to be 21' with a 7' plate height shown
for the loft. (Plate heights per condition of
approval.)
Exterior area of stables may not to be paved
Dirt or D.G. (condition of approval)
Corral minimum 550 sf.; fenced and contiguou
to stable. (Planning Commission may
determine the size of a corral)
Proposed 2,250 sq. ft. corral enclosed with 3' high
wall on north side
Access slope not to exceed 25%
From main driveway and Crest Road with 25%
maximum slope
Commercial uses or sleeping is not allowed
Applicant is not proposing any commercial uses o
sleeping in the stable
The applicant must comply with all other requirements of Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to stables, as well as to all other regulations including, but not be
limited to undergrounding of utility lines to the structures, lighting, roof material, Fire
Department requirements and others.
The following table lists stables /sizes approved since 2011.
LOCATION
SQUARE FEET/NO. OF STORIES
11 Blackwater Cyn. Rd.
890 sq. ft. one story
5 Buggy Whip
890 sq. ft. one story
0 Chestnut
900 sq. ft. one story
9 Chuckwagon Rd.
1,296 sq. ft. first floor / 792 sq. ft. loft
2,088 sq.ft. total
10 Crest Rd. W.
735 sq. ft. first floor / 453 sq. ft. loft
1,188 sq.ft. total
49 Eastfield
600 sq. ft. one story
12 Johns Cyn. Rd.
735 sq. ft. one story
3 Meadowlark
480 sf. first floor / 360 sf. loft
840 sq.ft. total
29 Middleridge Rd. S.
2,160 sq. ft. first floor / 800 sf. loft with center aisle;
2,960 sq.ft. total
6 Portuguese Bend Rd.
450 sq. ft. one story
77 Crest Rd. E
3,456 sq. ft. first floor/ 235 sq.ft. loft with center isle;
3,691 sq.ft. total
1 Pine Tree Lane
2,976 sq. ft. one story
11 Saddleback
2,415 sq. ft. with 625 sq. ft. loft with center isle; 3,040
sq.ft. total
5 Pine Tree Lane
1,810 sq. ft. with 611 sq. ft. loft;
2,421 sq.f.t total
34 Saddleback Rd.
Proposed 1,140 sq.ft. - one story
23 Crest Rd. E. Proposed
1,300 sq.ft. with 792 sq.ft. loft;
total - 2,092 sq.ft.
ZC NO.902, 23 Crest E.
e
15. An 800 square foot guesthouse is proposed with a 14.6' high maximum ridgeline
plus chimneys. Section 17.16.210 (A)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for
a guesthouse, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. These conditions, listed
below, are intended to ensure that such structures are ancillary uses, do not eliminate
an existing or future development for a stable and are not converted to other than
permitted uses.
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED
Shall not exceed eight hundred square feet
An 800 square foot guesthouse is
proposed.
•
Shall not be located in the front yard or any
setback.
The guesthouse is not proposed
to be in the front yard or any
setback.
A kitchenette and sanitary facility consisting of
a shower, sink and toilet shall be permitted.
Applicant proposes a kitchenette
and a sanitary facility
No vehicular access or paved parking area shall
be developed within fifty feet of the guesthouse.
The driveway is more than fifty
feet away.
Occupancy of the guesthouse shall be limited to
persons employed on the premises, the
immediate family of the occupants of the main
residence or by the temporary guests of the
occupants of the main residence. No temporary
guest may remain in occupancy for more than
thirty days in any six-month period.
This is a standard condition of
approval.
Renting of a guesthouse is prohibited.
This is a standard condition of
approval.
16. The proposed disturbed area of the lot will be 101,090 square feet or 38.53%, of
the net lot area which at the maximum allowed disturbance of 40% (Municipal Code
17.16.070B). Grading for this project is proposed to be 12,455 cubic yards of cut and
11,670 cubic yards of fill, 13,750 cubic yards of over -excavation, and 13,750 cubic yards
of re -compaction, for a total of 51,625 cubic yards of dirt and with 785 cubic yards to be
exported. The cut/excavation will occur at the driveway, yard areas, and 4,800 cubic
yards from the basement excavation. The fill will primarily be placed at the south side
of the residential pad with 10,800 cubic yards accounting for yard areas, and 13,000
cubic yards re -compaction. The guest house pad requires a cut of 3,250 cubic yards and
fill of 750 cubic yards for re -compaction. There is no fill on this lower pad. Maximum
cut will be 16.75' for the basement excavation, 11.25' for the north driveway, 11' for the
northeast corner, 11.25' for the northwest portion of the corral, and 11.5' for the
northwest stable.
17. Two building pads are proposed. The residential building pad is proposed at
47,325 square feet and will have coverage of 15,405 square feet or 32.55% with allowed
ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E.
deductions, (30% max. guideline). This pad includes all the structures minus the
guesthouse, stable and trellis. Pad 2 for the guesthouse and stable is proposed at 11,100
square feet with 2,389 square feet of coverage or 21.5% with allowed deductions for the
trellis.
18. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 19,074 square feet or 7.3%, and
with allowed deductions would be 18,554 or 7.1%, (20% max. permitted); and the total
lot coverage including the structures and all hardscape and flatwork will be 36,684
square feet or 14.0% (35% max. permitted) excluding allowable deductions.
19. It will be required that the utility lines to the residence and garages be placed
underground.
20. Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date.
21. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission must
consider whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review, and
Conditional Use Permit, and must find that the proposed uses are consistent with the
General Plan and development standards of the City, including provision for open
space and maintaining rural environment and that the uses will not adversely affect
adjacent properties.
ZC NO. 902 NEARBY PROPERTIES
For information onl
Address
House size
in sq.ft.
Lot Area
(gross acres)
16 Crest Road E.
5,460*
1.51
17 Crest Road E.
8,796* (under
construction)
9.64
18 Crest Road E.
6,700*
3.84
22 Crest Road E.
10,367*
5.34
26 Crest Road E.
3,904
4.76
29 Crest Road E.
4,766*
6.57
30 Crest Road E.
6,572*
4.72
34 Crest Road E.
6,387
4.87
56 Portuguese Bend Road
2,270
3.21
58 Portuguese Bend Road
2,166
6.96
Average
5,739
5.14
23 Crest Road. E
11,100 Proposed
7.05
NOTE: The above do not include garages, basements or accessory structures.
SOURCES: Assessors' records * City records
ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
11.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit.
The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use
permit application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the
project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and
meets the provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the
hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with the following
principles and standards:
A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan;
13. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings
and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be
materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures;
C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and
shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed;
D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable
development standards of the zone district;
E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for
hazardous waste facilities;
F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this
title.
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
11.46.010 Purpose.
The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of
certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed
project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and
aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is
compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the
immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills.
11.46.050 Required findings.
A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application.
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
ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E.
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.
ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E.
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-20
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
BASEMENT, GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, SWIMMING POOL
WITH A SPA, RETAINING WALLS AND NEW DRIVEWAY; AND
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A
GUEST HOUSE AND STABLE WITH LOFT AND CORRAL IN ZONING
CASE NO. 902 AT 23 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 132A -MS), (HYNES).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. James Hynes to
request a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 11,100 square foot residence
and 11,100 square foot basement, two attached garages totaling 1,540 square feet, 2,654
square feet of covered porches including for the stable (264 sq.ft.) and guest house (105
sq.ft.), a new pool and spa totaling 864 square feet with a 50 square foot pool equipment
area, a 96 square foot service yard, a 270 square foot outdoor kitchen, a 400 square foot
trellis near the 800 square foot guesthouse, a two-story stable with 1,300 square foot on
the first level and a 792 square foot loft, a new driveway and turnaround access.
Grading will entail a total of 51,625 cubic yards of dirt (12,455 c.y. cut and 11,670 c.y. fill;
and 13,750 c.y. over -excavation and 13,750 c.y. recompaction) with 785 cubic yards to be
exported.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings
to consider the application at their regular meeting on April 19, 2016, May 17, 2016, June
21, 2016 and July 19, 2016 and in the field on May 17, 2016 and July 19, 2016. Neighbors
within 1,000 -foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published
in the Peninsula News on April 7, 2016 and June 9, 2016. The applicants and their agents
were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and the applicants and
agents were in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard and presented from all
persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff.
Section 3. During the proceedings the Planning Commission and several
neighbors expressed concerns regarding drainage and water run-off from the proposed
project and its impact on the downhill properties, the length and massing of the
residence, the long driveway, the grading required for the project, the fill required for
the tennis court on a lower level of the lot and the impact and aesthetics of the overall
development on Crest Road East properties.
The applicants revised the project and decreased the size of the residence and length of
the development by attaching the two garages to the residence, reduced the driveway
and moved a portion of the driveway out of the front setback, removed all variances
previously requested and construction of a tennis court, reduced limits of grading,
Reso. 2016-20
23 Crest Rd. E.
eliminated all slope fill on the lower pad and made other reductions to several small
amenities.
Section 4. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 7.05 acres.
The net lot area for development purposes is 6.02 acres or 262,368 square feet. The
existing property is currently vacant. A natural drainage course is located along the
western portion of the lot and a blue line stream, which is a part of the Klondike
Canyon System, is located approximately 200 feet south of the southern property line of
the lot. The lot is also located in proximity to the Geotechnical Hazardous area of the
City, known as the Flying Triangle. A geotechnical and geological report prepared for
the lot states that the crown of a landslide (Flying Triangle) is about 230 feet west of the
southwestern portion of the lot.
Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (new
construction of single family residence and accessory structures), and Section
15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption) of the CEQA guidelines.
Section 6. 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 development and the new structures
require Site Plan Review. The pool/spa requires a Site Plan Review due to the grading
and the size (over 800 sq.ft. surface water area), and the dissipater retaining wall require
a Site Plan Review due to its height of 5'.
With respect to the Site Plan for the development the Planning Commission makes the
following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the
Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with
the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with
sufficient open space between surrounding structures and maintaining sufficient
setbacks to provide buffers between residential uses. The net lot area of the lot is over 6
acres and the lot is adjacent to other large lots along Crest Road East, where most of the
development will take place. The stable and corral promote the rural, equestrian
character of Rolling Hills. None of the structures are in setbacks.
The project conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements, including lot
disturbance. The net lot area of the lot is 262,368 square feet. The structural net lot
coverage is proposed at 18,554 square feet or 7.1%, 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 36,684 square feet or 14.0%, (35%
max. permitted). The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 38.5%.
Reso. 2016-20
23 Crest Rd. E.
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
undulated (not steep) area of the lot, will be the least intrusive to surrounding
properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, is of sufficient
distance from nearby residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of
surrounding neighbors, and will allow the owners to enjoy their property without
deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. The proposed
project would be located on a gender slope of the property and leaving the steeper and
more densely vegetated areas in their natural state to the south, 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 new residences in the vicinity of said lot. The development plan takes into
consideration the views from Crest Road East and the development will be sunk and
moved back from Crest Road East, so that views from the road will not be blocked. 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.
Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The project will be screened
from the road and all neighbors. During the review process, at suggestions from the
Planning Commission and addressing the neighbors' concerns, the applicant scaled
down the grading areas and the project in general to retain as much of the natural
terrain as possible and not greatly affect the lower building pad.
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 safe 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, so all visitor parking will be contained on site. An
adequate driveway is proposed to safely accommodate horse trailers to the stable and
corral area.
Reso. 2016-20
23 Crest Rd. E.
F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 7. 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 1,300 square foot stable with 792 square
foot loft and corral comply with all requirements of these sections. An 800 square foot
guesthouse is proposed. Section 17.16.210 (A)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance contains
conditions for a guesthouse, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. All of the
detached structures comply with the provisions and conditions for such structures.
With respect to this request for Conditional Use Permits, the Planning Commission
finds as follows:
A. Conditionally permitted uses are not outright permitted by the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code. The Commission must consider applications for a Conditional
Use Permit and may, with such conditions as are deemed necessary, approve a
conditional use which will not jeopardize, adversely affect, endanger or to otherwise
constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare or be materially
detrimental to the property of other persons located in the vicinity of such use.
B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the stable, corral 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 such uses 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 proposed guesthouse is 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,
and guest house) are located in the middle of a 6.0 acre lot and their general location is
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 road above is
separate from the other outdoor living areas on the property and will be comprised of
decomposed granite.
D. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural
terrain, and surrounding residences because the proposed uses comply 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 6.0
acres net in size and is sufficiently large to accommodate the proposed uses.
Reso. 2016-20 4
23 Crest Rd. E.
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 with the corral will promote open space on the pad.
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 enjoy.
E. The proposed conditional uses comply with all applicable development
standards of the zone district and requires Conditional Use Permits pursuant to
Sections 17.18.060, 17.18.090, 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 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves Zoning Case No. 901 request for a Site Plan Review for the construction
of a new 11,100 square foot residence and 11,100 square foot basement, two attached
garages totaling 1,540 square feet, 2,654 square feet of covered porches including for the
stable (264 sq.ft.) and guest house (105 sq.ft.), a new pool and spa totaling 864 square feet
with a 50 square foot pool equipment area, a 96 square foot service yard, a 270 square
foot outdoor kitchen, a 400 square foot trellis near the 800 square foot guesthouse, a two-
story stable with 1,300 square foot on the first level and a 792 square foot loft, a new
driveway and turnaround access and access to the stable. Grading will entail a total of
51,625 cubic yards of dirt (12,455 c.y. cut and 11,670 c.y. fill; and 13,750 c.y. over -
excavation and 13,750 c.y. recompaction) with 785 cubic yards to be exported, subject to
the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan and Conditional Use Permits approvals shall expire within
two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080, 17.42.070,
and 17.38.070 unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of this approval that if any conditions
thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted
thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease
such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has
been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of
thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination.
C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning
Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied
with unless otherwise set forth in this permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan.
Reso. 2016-20
23 Crest Rd. E.
5 15
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with
the site plan on file dated July 11, 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 and Conditional Use Permit approvals shall be incorporated into the
building permit working drawings, and where applicable complied with prior to issuance
of a grading or building permit from the building department.
The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto building plans
submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times.
Any modifications and/ or changes to the approved project, including resulting from field
conditions, shall be discussed and approved by staff prior to implementing the changes.
E. The Plans shall be submitted to the LA County Building and Safety
Department for review, issuance of permits and inspections. Prior to submittal of final
working drawings to Building and Safety Department for issuance of building permits,
the plans for the project shall be submitted to City staff for verification that the final plans
are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission.
F. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for
Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform
in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth
therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance.
Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this project
shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed
according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith.
G. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 19,074 square feet or 7.3%
of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations, and with the permitted
allowances 7.1% coverage, (20% maximum).
The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork, shall not
exceed 36,684 square feet or 14.0%, of the net lot area, with allowable deductions, in
conformance with lot coverage limitations (35% maximum).
H. The disturbed area of the lot, including the approved stable and corral shall
not exceed 38.5%; over 101,090 square feet surface area. Grading for this project shall not
exceed 12,455 cubic yards of cut and 11,670 cubic yards of fill, 13,750 cubic yards of over -
excavation, and 13,750 cubic yards of recompaction with 785 cubic yards exported.
I. The residential building pad is proposed at 47,325 square feet and shall not
exceed coverage of 15,405 square feet or 32.5% with allowed deductions. The stable pad is
proposed at 11,100 square feet and shall not exceed 2,389 square feet of coverage or
21.5%.
Reso. 2016-20
23 Crest Rd. E.
J. A new driveway shall be provided per the Fire Department requirements
and the apron of the driveway shall be roughened and the first 20 feet of the driveway
shall not exceed 7% in slope.
K. Access to the stable and to the corral shall be decomposed granite or like
100% pervious roughened material.
L. Per Section 17.16.210(A)(5)(c) of the zoning ordinance, only one sanitary
facility consisting of a shower, sink, and a toilet and a kitchenette is permitted in the
guesthouse; there shall be no parking area within 50 -feet of the guest house; no renting
of the guest house is permitted.
M. A minimum of five-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, and stable shall be placed
underground, subject to all applicable standards and requirements.
R. Hydrology, soils, geology and other reports, as required by the LA County
Building and Public Works Departments, and as may be required by the Building
Official, shall be prepared.
S. Prior to issuance of a final construction approval of the project, all graded
slopes shall be landscaped. Prior to issuance of building permit, a landscaping plan shall
be submitted to the City in conformance with Fire Department Fuel Modification
requirements and graded slopes. 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
Reso. 2016-20 7
23 Crest Rd. E.
are screening. In order to preserve the sightline of the view from Crest Road, the height of
any landscaping planted on the property along the Crest Road roadway easement shall
be maintained so as not to exceed three (3) feet from the road elevation. 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 13.18 of the RHMC).
T. The dissipaters and pool equipment area shall be screened with
landscaping. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound from
the pool equipment area and the pool pump. The project shall utilize the most quiet and
technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound.
13. The setback lines and roadway easement lines in the vicinity of the
construction for this project shall remain staked throughout the construction. A
construction fence may be required.
V. 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.
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. 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.
Y. 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 easement on the south side of Crest Road East adjacent to project
site only, and shall not obstruct neighboring driveways or pedestrian and equestrian
passage. During construction, to the maximum extent feasible, employees of the
contractor shall car-pool into the City.
Z. 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.
Reso. 2016-20
23 Crest Rd. E.
8 IQ
AA. 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.
AB. 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, cisterns, 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.
AC. 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.
AD. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of
this permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. The
affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution.
PASSED, PT . D THIS 16th DAY OF AUGUST 2016.
ELF,
ATTEST:
) /
ti��
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.
Reso. 2016-20
23 Crest Rd. E.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-20 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT,
GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA,
RETAINING WALLS AND NEW DRIVEWAY; AND REQUEST FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE AND STABLE
WITH LOFT AND CORRAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 902 AT 23 CREST ROAD
EAST, (LOT 132A -MS), (HYNES).
was approved and adopted at regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
August 16, 2016 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, -Gray, Kirkpatrick andChairmanChelf.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
4194
Ugh
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Reso. 2016-20
23 Crest Rd. E.
10 n
SPIERER1 WOODWARD ICORBALIS1 GOLDBERG
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
0 PLEASE RESPOND TO.
707 TORRANCE BOULEVARD
SUITE 200
REDONDO BEACH. CALIFORNIA 90277-3400
TELEPHONE (310) 540-3199
TELECOPIER (310) 316.1823
July 14, 2016
www.practIcallawyer.com
ORIGINAL VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
COPY VIA EMAIL (WHERE INDICATED)
James Hynes
20252 Bancroft Circle
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Email: jimphynes@gmail.com
Rolling Hills Community Association
Attn: Board of Directors/ Architectural
Committee, Kristen Raig, Mgr.
1 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Email: kraig@rhca.net
Willdan Engineering
13191 Crossroads Parkway N., Suite 405
Industry, CA 91746-3443
Email: ekiepke@willdan.com
Anthony Inferrera and Associates
401 E. Ocean Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90802
RECEIVED
JUL 14 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
Re: 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California
Greetings,
❑ PLEASE RESPOND TO:
2 INVERNESS DRIVE EAST
SUITE 200
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80112
TELEPHONE (303) 792-3456
TELECOPIER (303) 792-9092
Raindl Ivncs
(160841102)
Bolton Engineering
25834 Narbonne Ave. Suite 210
Lomita, CA 90717
Email: office@boltonengineering.com
City of Rolling Hills
ATTN: Planning Commission/ City Council
Planning Director, Yolanda Schwartz
City Manager, Ray Cruz
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Email: ys@cityofrh.net; rcruz@cityofrh.net
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
1641 Border Avenue
Torrance, CA 90501
Email: information@Hamilton-Associates.net
Ann L. Johnson
461 W. 6ih St. Suite 300
San Pedro, CA 90731
We are the attorneys for Charlie and Pia Raine, Lucy Agid, Joseph and Erna Johnson, Paige
Lademan, John and Heidi Mackenbach, Randa Marin, Duncan and Michelle McBride, Paul
Mitchell, Catherine Neel; Robert O'Shea; Damoder and Soumitri Reddy, Terry and Lynne
James Hynes, et al.
Re: Charlie and Pia Raine, et al.
July 14, 2016
Page 2 of 5
Rhodes, Gordon and Carmen Schaye. Constance Schwartzman, Greg and Heidi Stager. Ali
Tashakori. and Mark and Paula Thomas, with respect to the proposed development of the
property located at 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California (hereinafter referred to as the
Subject Property).
Those parties have engaged this law office to protect and perhaps later to redress rights which
they have. and rights which they may acquire in the future, against the City of Rolling Hills,
against the owners of the Subject Property (hereinafter referred to as "Ownership"). against their
advisors, experts. advocates, representatives and against any other potentially responsible parties
or entities with respect to Ownership's intentions to attempt construction, to conduct water
management, to engage in debris management or to perform any earth movement or any other
activity that may result. directly or indirectly, in property damage and physical injury.
The Flying Triangle Landslide was first visible in 1980 as a small crack on Portuguese Bend
Road immediately below what is now the Mackenbach home. The most likely trigger of the
Flying Triangle Landslide was the 1980 construction of a new home at 62 Portuguese Bend
Road. directly below the "crack" in the road. This home required grading of 775 cubic yards of
earth. What eventually followed was a devastation of the neighborhood, both in financial terms
and in the huge emotional toll on those whose homes were affected and whose lives were
dislocated. Enclosed is a map that will help everyone understand the geography.
The landslide eventually affected all but a few homes in the Flying Triangle. Four of the as yet
unaffected homes lie directly below or adjacent to the proposed construction project at the
Subject Property.
Grading decisions and water management choices have proven to be the actions that, together
with inherent geologic conditions, triggered the Flying Triangle Landslide.
The proposal for development at the Subject Property calls for 51,625 cubic yards of grading
(compared with the 775 cubic yards that collapsed The Flying Triangle in the first place). This
grading would occur all directly above an active landslide.
During grading, "benching" the lot will require a redistribution of weight, directly above a home
with no movement but whose rear and west side yard are severely affected by the slide. If the
Mackenbach home moves. the two others. with no historic movement, that share its slide
affected driveway may or may not be accessible. You will be held responsible for making
decisions that may damage or destroy their homes or prevent access to them.
The Little Klondike Canyon watershed is fed mainly by a drain at the foot of 18 Crest Road East,
collecting water from other properties on the North side of Crest Road East as well as the road
itself. That drain continues to lubricate the slide and needs to be removed. Little Klondike
Canyon is the only natural drainage course for the Subject Property, but the canyon does not
flow to the ocean. It is blocked just below the Mackenbach property due to slide debris. More
James Hynes, et al.
Re: Charlie and Pia Raine. et al.
July 14, 2016
Page 3 of 5
water in the canyon is begging for disaster. You must be certain that no drainage contributions
will be made into the landslide area in any proposed plans.
The decisions you make in the approval process for this home can have catastrophic results on
those living below. Every square foot of lot coverage adds additional concentrations of water to
other parts of the property. Every cubic yard of soil moved for this project adds to the possibility
that unintended consequences may affect nearby homeowners.
In hindsight, with knowledge today of an active landslide, would your predecessors have chosen
to reject the approval of some of the homes in the Flying Triangle or would they have chosen to
minimize the impact on the land through less grading, smaller structures and careful
consideration of drainage? Of course they would. Their decisions were made without the
knowledge you now possess; That below the proposed development you are faced with an active
landslide that encompasses 70 acres and affects the homes of 27 families whose geologic
instability and unpredictability has been tragically proven.
Responsible development would necessarily entail minimal earth movement and no contribution
of water to the properties below, including those already affected by land movement. We know
that. as good people, you will want to do that. For our clients' part, we will settle for nothing
less.
The following excerpts are from a manual titled "Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan" published
November 2nd, 2004 as an emergency preparedness manual for the city and are offered to assist
in decision -making.
Landslide Conditions: Landslides are often triggered by periods of heavy rainfall.
Earthquakes, subterranean water flow and excavations may also trigger landslide.
Certain geologic formations are more susceptible to landslide than others. Human
activities, including locating development near steep slopes, can increase
susceptibility to landslide events. Landslides on steep slopes are more dangerous
because movements can be rapid. Although landslides are a natural geologic
process, the incidence of landslide and their impacts on people can be exacerbated
by human activities. Grading for road construction and development can increase
slope steepness. Grading and construction can decrease the stability of a hill slope
by adding weight to the top of the slope, removing support at the base of the slope,
and increasing water content. Other human activities effecting landslide include:
excavation. drainage and groundwater alterations, and changes in vegetation.
Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (11/04), Page 104.
What is a Debris Flow? A debris or mud flow is a river of rock, earth and other
materials, including vegetation that is saturated with water. This high percentage of
water gives the debris flow a very rapid rate of movement down a slope. Debris
Flows often with speeds greater than 20 mile per hour, and can often move much
faster. This high rate of speed makes debris flows extremely dangerous to people
James Hynes, et al.
Re: Charlie and Pia Raine. et al.
July 14, 2016
Page 4 of 5
and property in its path. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (11/04), Page 103. (This
provision is cited in regards to any future flow in Little Klondike, directly above the
Lademan. Stager and Raine properties.
Slope modification during grading can render slopes unstable. Slope instability
occurs when bedding planes intersect the slope face of either natural slopes or
designed cut slopes. Site specific investigations are necessary to determine potential
slope instability problems at specific sites. Landslide are considered "potentially
active". meaning they could be reactivated in the future, either by excessive rainfall,
introduction of artificial water in the slope (landscaping irrigation/broken water or
septic systems), or improper site design or grading practices. Grading activities
must consider these geologic constraints as a condition of project approval. Natural
Hazards Mitigation Plan (11/04), Page 106.
All of the clients represented by this law office in this matter are determined to do two things: 1)
They intend to be good neighbors and to participate in good faith in support of allowing the
owners of the Subject Property to utilize their property in a completely responsible way, and 2)
They intend to hold responsible all parties who proceed in any manner that results or may result
in property damage or physical injury.
Actions taken on the Subject Property could have significant and potentially catastrophic
consequences for our clients. The current lack of a responsible and specific water management
plan for the proposed improvements on the Subject Property combined with 51,625 cubic yards
of grading is irresponsible and unnecessarily puts our clients at risk. The purpose of this letter is
to place its recipients on notice of some of the risks and responsibilities they undertake if any
change in the Subject Property results in property damage or personal injury of any kind, to
anyone, anywhere, anytime.
Sincerely.
SPIERER. WOODWARD, CORBALIS & GOLDBERG
Attorney/ at
A Profissf "al Corporation
S,
SFS:bjw
Enclosure
cc: Charlie and Pia Raine
Lucy Agid
Joseph and Erna Johnson
Robert O'Shea
Damoder and Soumitri Reddy
Terry and Lynne Rhodes
James Hynes, et al.
Re: Charlie and Pia Raine. et al.
July 14, 2016
Page 5 of 5
Paige Lademan
John and Heidi Mackenbach
Randa Marin
Duncan and Michelle McBride
Paul Mitchell
Catherine Neel
Gordon and Carmen Schaye
Constance Schwartzman
Greg and Heidi Stager
Ali Tashakori
Mark and Paula Thomas
j*isEty ^
rain under
shared driveway
RHO
Pinnto Road
crack In road s i9i�9als start
of the rdslide 9
oga Little Klondike Bloekage
Li ttieCondi ke tanY°
^.. Big Klondiket
Represented
esent
432,
kVA
The Weinberg Law Group
RECEIVED
JUL 19 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
July 19, 2016
Via Email
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Re: Zoning Case 902; Site Plan Review for
construction of a new 11,100 square foot residence
23 Crest Road East (the "Project")
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Our firm represents the James Hynes and the Hynes Family Trust, the owners of 23 Crest
Road East and the applicant for approval of the Project. The Project was last reviewed by the
Planning Commission at the hearing on June 21, 2016. At that time, the Planning Commission
directed staff to arrange for a site visit to the Hynes property and a further hearing before the
Planning Commission.
We have received a letter dated July 14, 2016 from Steven Spierer of Spierer, Woodward,
Crobalis and Goldberg. Apparently, this letter was also delivered to the Planning Commission.
In his letter, Mr. Spierer states that he represents a number of land owners (the "Neighbors") who
live westerly and downhill of the 23 Crest Road property.
Although the Spierer letter does not contain any substantial evidence upon which the
Planning Commission can rely, we thought it important to provide a formal response to the
Spierer letter, because it contains allegations of liability and threats of litigation.
As the Planning Commission well knows, when considering a discretionary approval
such as the application submitted by the Hynes family for approval of the Project, the Planning
Commission acts in a quasi-adjudicatory role and accepts evidence during the public hearing
process to determine whether the requested Project meets the requirements of the zoning code.
In this case, the proposed Hynes Project fits squarely within all of the applicable development
standards for a single family home, the Project does not require any variances or administrative
waivers, and the Project has been designed with keen attention to the two sensitive issues in this
matter — namely hydrology and geology.
2550 Via Tejon 1 Suite 28 1
Palos Verdes 1 CA 1 90274 1
310.363.7775 1 howard@wcinberglaw.la 1
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
July 19, 2016
Page 2
In the extensive file in this matter, the Planning Commission has received numerous
expert reports, maps, graphs, charts, and testimony of experts. In particular, we would ask that
the Commissioners review the following expert evidence in the file:
I. The Geotechnical and Geological Report prepared by Hamilton Associates, that
reviews the proposed cut and fill grading that will be required to construct the Project
on the Hynes' property. This report concludes that the proposed grading activity will
comply with all applicable codes and will result in safe and stable building pads on
which may be constructed the proposed home and related out buildings.
2. The Hydrology Reports by Bolton Engineering Corp. that review and analyze the
proposed cistern system to be installed as part of the Project to capture storm water
runoff and hold it to be dissipated after the storm period. Importantly, these reports
conclude that construction of the proposed home will result in NO additional storm
water runoff from the property down Little Klondike Canyon that would be in excess
of the water runoff that now flows from the property during storms, while the
property is in an undeveloped state.
3. Wildan Engineering (the City's contracted, independent, and highly regarded
engineering firm) has testified that they reviewed in detail the proposed water
containment and management system for the prior Hynes lot -split project. Wildan
found the cistern water -capture system to be more than adequate to protect all down-
hill properties from excess storm water runoff.
4. In addition, to the foregoing, Tavisha Nicholson of Bolton Engineering will, during
the site visit and subsequent public hearing on July 19, 2016, provide additional
explanation and clarification of the hydrology information, confirming again, and in a
different format, that the water retention system to be installed as part of the Project
will result in NO ADDITIONAL STORM WATER RUNOFF from the Hynes
property into Little Klondike Canyon (or anywhere else for that matter).
All of the foregoing reports and testimony are expert testimony and so-called "substantial
evidence" upon which the Planning Commission can and should rely to conclude that the Project
complies with the development standards in the City's zoning code and that the proposed Project
can and should be approved.
As a challenge to all of this expert evidence before the Planning Commission, Charlie
Raine has spoken at prior hearings and has suggested, opined, and speculated, that the Project, if
constructed, could create a catastrophic flow of water downhill toward his property. However,
Mr. Raine's opinions and speculation cannot be considered "substantial evidence" of any
problem or of a valid challenge to the expert evidence provided by the Hynes.
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
July 19, 2016
Page 3
Now, in a final attempt to derail the approval of the Hynes Project, Mr. Raine (and the
other Neighbors) have hired an attorney, Steven Spierer, to press their case. In the July 14, 2016
letter from Steven Spierer, the Planning Commission receives an attorney's opinions and
speculation about the potential effect of grading and water flow from the Project. Although Mr.
Spierer expresses dramatic concern that the construction of the Hynes Project will result in
catastrophic failure of the Flying Triangle slide area, his anxiety is not based on science or expert
opinion. To the contrary, Mr. Spierer's speculation about the effect of grading activity and storm
water flow are the exact opposite of the expert opinions of certified geologists and hydrologists.
Moreover, the County's own independent experts have peer reviewed the work of the Hynes'
geologists and hydrologists and the County's experts have testified that they agree with the
conclusion reached by the geologists and hydrologists.
While we are sympathetic to the uneasy state in which the downhill Neighbors live, due
to their extraordinary unfortunate experience with the prior Flying Triangle slide problem, we do
not agree that their fear of the future (not based in evidence) should guide the conclusion of the
Planning Commission. The Neighbors, Mr. Raine, and Mr. Spierer are asking the Planning
Commission to speculate along with them that some undefinable bad thing may happen if the
Project is approved. This is not the job of the Planning Commission, and would be wholly
inappropriate as a conclusion to this zoning matter. The tens of thousands of dollars paid by the
Hynes family to its experts resulted in strong expert evidence — all of which points to a
conclusion that the Project will not have a substantial negative effect, either from grading or
water flows. The conclusions of those experts, that the Project should be approved as designed,
are not diminished or countered by any of the speculation or opinions of the Neighbors or Mr.
Spierer.
Also, we are always disappointed when an attorney includes in his challenge letter a
threat that the Neighbors intend to sue the City if the Project is approved and then some further
slide activity occurs. We fully expect that Mr. Raine would sue everyone in sight if a further
slide occurred, regardless of whether the Hynes Project is constructed or not. The threat of
litigation against a city for exercising their zoning powers is the most cynical kind of argument
that can be made. The Planning Commission and the City are not exposed to liability for
fulfilling their duties to consider zoning cases and approve those that meet the criteria for
approval. "A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by the issuance, denial, suspension
or revocation of, or by the failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke, any permit,
license, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization where the public entity or an
employee of the public entity is authorized by enactment to determine whether or not such
authorization should be issued, denied, suspended or revoked." (Government Code §818.4).
Moreover, when the City makes the findings that the Hynes' proposed Project meets the Site
Plan Review requirements, it is axiomatic that the City will have been deliberate and careful in
their consideration of the potential impacts of the Project.
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
July 19, 2016
Page 4
In this case, the Hynes' proposed Project meets all of the required development standards
for a single family home on their property. They have provided substantial evidence that the
Planning Commission can comfortably rely upon to make all of the findings required to approve
their Site Plan Review and the Conditional Use Permits.
In summary, we request that the City approve the Project based on the existing evidence
in the file, the site visit that will occur, and the further deliberation of the Planning Commission
that will occur at the hearing scheduled for July 19, 2016.
The Weinberg Law Group
C: James and Lore Hynes
Yolanta Schwartz
Michael Jenkins, City Attorney
RECEIVED
Water
23 Crest Road East
July 19, 2016
JUL 192016
Bys it o 111ynrills
From awl& Romer
Water generated from Crest Road itself and attributed to 23 Crest- 6,000sf impermeable
Water generated on site: 37,000sf of impermeable coverage
43,000sf directs flow to two 33,000 gallon cisterns
Calculations assume saturated soil/hardscape and soil retention of 1/6th inch of rain per hour.
The cisterns are designed to hold a 25 year storm calculation of 5 inches of rain in a 24 hour
period. 5 inches of rain (per calculations below) generates 134,000 gallons of water.
After capacity is reached, additional water is then directed to a discharge pipe.
Capacity of the two tanks: 66,000 gallons
43,000sf /12 equals 3,583 cubic feet of water. Each cubic foot of water is 7.48 gallons. 3,583cu x
7.48= 26,800 gallons of water captured per inch of rain and a total of 134,000 for 5 inches of
rain. Storage capacity of the cisterns is reached with 2.5 inches of rain or in other words, 40
percent utilization with each inch of rain. The "other" 66,000 gallons goes where? Little
Klondike Canyon and directly into the slide plane.
Barn and Guest House:
3,000sf/ 12 equals 250 cubic feet of water. Each cubic foot of water is 7.48 gallons. 250 cu x
7.48= 1,870 gallons discharged per inch of rain. In a 25 year storm calculation assuming 5 inches
of rain in 24 hours the total discharged is 9,350 gallons of water. The destination? Little
Klondike Canyon and into the slide plane.
The Problem:
ANY discharge that adds to the flow into Little Klondike Canyon is too much. The utilized 25
Year Storm calculations project approximately 75,000 gallons of water directed, across already
saturated surfaces, into Little Klondike Canyon and the active Flying Triangle landslide area.
Page 1 of 2
The Solution:
Less captured water achieved by significantly smaller impermeable surfaces via smaller
footprints of living area, outbuildings and hardscape. Water from ALL impermeable surfaces
must be contained on site and percolated as far as possible from the landslide below, including
runoff generated from the barn and guest house, should they be approved.
Additionally:
We request an independent hydrology report and analysis by appropriate entities and experts
determining that the disturbance and redistribution of such vast quantities of soil and
redistribution and addition of huge quantities of water will have NO negative affect on the
active landslide or residents below, as well as the time for us to have our own experts review
and approve or challenge such reports.
Page 2 of 2
Charlie Raine
SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC
PROCEDURES AND ANALYSIS
FOR PROJECTS IN LA COUNTY
Date: July 11, 2016
RECEIVE pared for: Rolling Hills Planning Commission
Prepared by: Bolton Engineering
JUL 11 2016 TNicholson@boltonengineering.com
City of Rolling Hills
By
�3)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ef
Contents
Introduction 2
Recurrence Intervals 2
Rainfall and Design Storm Characteristics 3
Rainfall Intensity -Duration -Frequency 3
Rainfall lsohyets 3
Rainfall Losses and Runoff Production 4
Infiltration 4
MODIFIED RATIONAL LOSS CALCULATIONS 4
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 5
Developed Soil Runoff Coefficient Curves (CD) 5
Burned Soil Runoff Coefficient Curves (Cba) 5
MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD 6
Time of Concentration 6
BUILDING AND SAFETY DNISION 6
Hydrology Review Includes: 6
Hydraulics Review Includes: 7
Grading Review Includes: 7
References 7
Appendix A 8
Lectures Notes from Western Washington University Solis & Geology Class 8
• 1(Page
INTRODUCTION
In order to provide some basic background on Hydrology and soil characteristics, Bolton Engineering has
put together a brief summary of the more relevant items from the current LA County Hydrology Manual
(2006), and the United States Geology Survey (USGS) website. We are also including, as an Appendices a
set of slides prepared by a Solis & Geology Professor at Westem Washington University. Our hope Is
that the information provided within this document helps to educate the Planning Commission on some
of the terminologies and methodologies being discussed with regard to Soil and Geology. All information
is taken directly from the Hydrology Manual and USGS website; we have not included any additional
narrative within this document.
RECURRENCE INTERVALS
Recurrence intervals and probabilities of occurrences
Recurrence Interval, in Probability of occurrence in Percent chance of occurrence in any
years any given year given year
100 1'in100 1
50 1 in 50 2
25. 1 in 25 4
10 1 in 10 10
5 1in5 20
2 1 in.2 50
"Statistical techniques, through a process called frequency analysis, are used to estimate the probability
of the occurrence of a given precipitation event. The recurrence interval Is based on the probability that
the given event will be equaled or exceeded in any given year. For example, assume there is a 1 in 50
chance that 6.60 inches of rain will fall in a certain area in a 24 -hour period during any given year. Thus,
a rainfall total of 6.60 Inches In a consecutive 24 -hour period Is said to have a SO -year recurrence
interval. Likewise, using a frequency analysis (Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1982)
there is a 1 in 100 chance that a streamflow of 15,000 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) will occur during any
year at a certain streamflow-measurement site. Thus, a peak flow of 15,000 ft3/s at the site is said to
have a 100 -year recurrence interval. Rainfall recurrence intervals are based on both the magnitude and
the duration of a rainfall event, whereas streamflow recurrence intervals are based solely on the
magnitude of the annual peak flow.
Ten or more years of data are required to perform a frequency analysis for the determination of
recurrence intervals. Of course, the more years of historical data the better —a hydrologist will have
more confidence on an analysis of a river with 30 years of record than one based on 10 years of record.
Recurrence intervals for the annual peak streamflow at a given location change Ifthere are significant
changes In the flow pattems at that location, possibly caused by an impoundment or diversion of flow.
The effects of development (conversion of land from forested or agricultural uses to commercial,
residential. or Industrial uses) on peak flows Is generally much greater forlow-recurrence Interval
floods than for high -recurrence interval floods. such as 25- SO- or 100 -year floods. During these larger
floods. the soil is saturated and does not havethe capacity to abscrb additional rainfall. Under these
2JPage
conditions, essentially all of the rain that falls, whether on paved surfaces or on saturated soil. runs
off and becomes streamflow." (USGS)
"AII drainage facilities in developed areas not covered under the Capital Flood protection conditions
must meet the Urban Flood level of protection. The Urban Flood is runoff from a 25 -year frequency
design storm falling on a saturated watershed. A 25 -year frequency design storm has a probability of
1/25 of being equaled or exceeded in any year." (LA County Hydrology Manual 2006)
RAINFALL AND DESIGN STORM CHARACTERISTICS
"The Department of Public Works' hydrologic method uses a design storm derived from historic rainfall
data. Observed major extratropical storms in the Los Angeles region provided a pattem for the design
storm. The storm does not represent an actual event but Is an idealized series of precipitation data that
fits a specific design objective. The design storm is a composite determined by analysis of regional
rainfall patterns. Three components deflne the design storm: an Intensity -Duration -Frequency (IDF)
equation, a temporal distribution, and a spatial rainfall distribution. Public Works developed the rainfall
distribution and design storms In 2002. A network of approximately 250 rain gages allowed an accurate
definition of the spatial and temporal variability of rainfall over the county. The average historic record
length for these gages Is 75 years
Data analysis provided the three components needed for the design storm. Analysis of rainfall data
within the county provided the IDF equation, which is a relationship between rainfall intensity, duration,
and frequency. Then a 24 -hour temporal distribution was established using the IDF relationship. The 24 -
hour temporal distribution Is represented by the unit hyetograph, which plots rainfall intensity versus
time. Finally, a set of isohyets was established for the county. The isohyets represent rainfall depths for
a specific duration and frequency and are applied to the unit hyetograph. The result is a hyetograph for
a given location and recurrence interval, which is the design storm for a specific subarea." (LA County
Hydrology Manual 2006)
RAINFALL INTENSITY -DURATION -FREQUENCY
"The fundamental unit of rainfall is depth. Rain gages directly measure depth. Measuring depth and
time provides intensity. Intensity Is the amount of rain that has fallen per unit of time. The average
Intensity Is calculated by dividing a rainfall depth by the duration, the time over which the rainfall
accumulated. The average Intensity Is:
Intensity Duration
The peak intensity produces the largest runoff rate. If rainfall were constant throughout a storm, any
duration less than the storm duration would produce the same intensity. However, rainfall is rarely
constant for the storm duration and Intensity varies." (LA County Hydrology Manual 2006)
RAINFALL ISOHYETS
"Historical data indicates that spatial distribution of precipitation across the county is not uniform
during stonn events. To account for this spatial variability of rainfall, Public Works developed rainfall
isohyetal maps for the County of Los Angeles.
Isohyetal maps show the 24 -hour rainfall depths expected for the 50 -year storm frequency. The rainfall
pattem depicted on these maps shows the influence of topography on rainfall.
The isohyetal maps incorporate information from Public Works' rain gages and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) gridded rainfall maps of the area. The process used NOAA's Atlas
Rain Depth
3IPage
2, 2 -year, 24 -hour Isohyetal data to provide the spatial rainfall pattern. NOM is a widely accepted
source for meteorological data, and NOAA Atlas 21s a recognized standard for spatial rainfall
distribution data." (LA County Hydrology Manual 2006)
RAINFALL LOSSES AND RUNOFF PRODUCTION
"Rainfall becomes runoff when all loss processes are satisfied. Runoff results from rainfall not lost to
infiltration, interception, depression storage, and evaporation.
"Infiltration is the process of water penetrating the ground surface into the soil.", Interception loss
occurs when water is retained on vegetation and other surfaces. Intercepted water may evaporate or
infiltrate. Loss due to depression storage occurs when water accumulates in depressions of all sizes that
are not connected to a flow path. Evapotranspiration, a dominant force in the hydrologic cycle, proceeds
slowly during a storm.
Different methods have been developed to model rainfall losses. These Include runoff coefficients,
constant loss parameters, the Horton method, exponential loss calculations, and Green-Ampt losses.
The Modified Rational Method uses runoff coefficients. The following sections discuss infiltration and
loss methods used within the County of Los Angeles." (LA County Hydrology Manual 2006)
INFILTRATION
"Infiltration losses have the greatest effect on surface runoff. The rate of infiltration is a function of the
state of the soil and is highly heterogeneous over space and time. Hydraulic conductivity is a measure of
the ease with which water can travel through the soil and is a measure of the infiltration rate when the
soil is saturated. Similar soils generally have similar hydraulic conductivities. However, the infiltration
rate is also affected by the degree of soil saturation. Dry soil allows more infiltration than wet soil.
Factors such as ground cover or recent fires within the watershed affect the soil surface and infiltration
rates.
Public Works' hydrologic standards assume that watersheds sublectto design rainfall are at a field
capacity soil moisture condition. This condition is also referrettio as a saturated condition. At field
capacity, the forces due to gravity and the surface tension on a drop of water In the soil column are in
balance. At this point, no water Is draining from the soil. Adding water to the soil forces downward
movement and allows infiltration to begin.' (LA County Hydrology Manual 2006)
MODIFIED RATIONAL LOSS CALCULATIONS
"The modified rational method (MODRAT) uses a runoff coefficient that is a function of the rainfall
intensity. The runoff coefficient reflects the fraction of rainfall that does not infiltrate and is based on
the rainfall Intensity for a given time period.
The Modified Rational Method uses the following equation at each time step:
Q=C'I'A
Where: Q= Volumetric flow rate in cfs
C = Runoff coefflcent, dimensionless
I = Rainfall Intensity at a given point In time in in/hr
A = Watershed area in acres
The following sections describe development of the unbumed soil runoff coefficient, Co, the developed
soil runoff coefficient, Co, and the burned soil runoff coefficient, Cl.. The appropriate coefficient
represents runoff for different watershed conditions.' (LA County Hydrology Manual 2006)
41 Page
UNDEVELOPED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT (Cu)
"MODRAT uses runoff coefficient curves to model the runoff response of the soil to changing intensity.
The 179 undeveloped runoff coefficient curves, plotted In Appendix C, correspond to different soil types
within the County of Los Angeles.
A series of runoff coefficient -Intensity pairs compose each runoff coefficient curve. Each of the curves
has a minimum coefficient (C0 of 0.1 indicating that there is some runoff even at the smallest rainfall
intensities. Appendix C contains the runoff coefficient curves for all the soils within the County of Los
Angeles.
MODRAT requires assigning a single soil type for each subarea modeled. If a subarea contains more than
one soil type, the predominant soil type in the subarea Is used? (LA County Hydrology Manual 2006)
DEVELOPED SOIL RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CURVES (Co)
'Each undeveloped runoff coefficient curve represents natural soil conditions. When precipitation
occurs over a developed watershed, the rain falls on directly connected impervious areas and pervious
areas. Runoff from pervious areas only occurs during heavy rainfall. Directly connected impervious area
always produces direct runoff. As impervious area increases, the amount of direct runoff increases. The
runoff coefficient curve must be modified to match the developed condition. Equation 6.3.2 accounts
for the effects of development based on the undeveloped runoff coefficient and the amount of
impervious area.
Cd = (0.9 • IMP) + (1— IMP) sCu (Equation 6.3.2)
Where: Cd = Developed area runoff coefficient
IMP = Percent impervious
Cu = Undeveloped area runoff coefficient
The 0.9 in the equation represents the general assumption that no development is completely
impervious. This assumption also accounts for initial abstraction losses in developed areas.
Imperviousness is assigned based on the land use types present in a subarea. Land use information
requires existing and/or planned development pattems. If more than one type of development is
present within a subarea, a composite impervious value must be determined using an area -weighted
average.
Representative proportion Impervious values have been developed by measuring sample areas for each
land use type. Appendix D has a table of these values. For undeveloped rural areas, 1% of the area is
assumed impervious.' (LA County Hydrology Manual 2006)
BURNED SOIL RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CURVES (CM)
"Wildfires frequently bum undeveloped watersheds within the County of Los Angeles. Infiltrometer
tests conducted In burned chaparral -covered mountain watersheds Indicate that these watersheds
suffer from a decreased infiltration rate after a fire. The decrease results from calcification caused by
intense heat, plugging of the soil pores by ash or other fines, and other chemical reactions that produce
a hydrophobic condition. A lack of surface cover also promotes the formation of a crust of fine soil due
to the impact of raindrops. This crust further impedes infiltration.
Burned area runoff cakulatlons use a runoff coefficient curve adjusted for the burned watershed
condition. For burned watersheds, the rational equation becomes QM= CsIA, in which Qs CS are
respectively the peak runoff from a burned area and the statistically adjusted burned soil runoff
coefficient. The burned runoff coefficient is adjusted using a fire factor. The fire factor is an index
between the natural and completely bumed watershed conditions, which ranges from 0 to 1
SIPage
respectively. An analysis of historic fires in the major watersheds within the County of Los Angeles
provided design fire factors for undeveloped watersheds.
Fires increase runoff and debris production. Higher runoff rates entrain more debris and bumed
watersheds have more debris available for entrainment.
Peak flows from burned watersheds are "bulked" to account for volume changes caused by debris
entrainment. Debris basins remove the sediment so that downstream flows are equal to flows from
bumed watershed. For more information on debris production, bulking flows, sediment transport, and
design of debris retaining structures and basins, see the Department of Public Works Sedimentation
Manual." (LA County Hydrology Manual 2006)
MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD
'The modified rational method (MODRAT) uses a design storm and a time of concentration to calculate
runoff at different times throughout the storm. Section 5.2 describes the temporal distribution of the
design storm. Section 5.3 describes the spatial distribution of design storm rainfall within the County of
Los Angeles.
Calculating flows based on the rainfall distribution results In a runoff hydrograph. The volume of runoff
equals the area under the hydrograph curve. MODRAT allows users to route hydrographs generated In
each subarea through conveyances and combine hydrographs based on time. MODRAT produces peak
flows equal to or lower than flows calculated using the rational method. The reduction in peak results
from attenuation, channel storage, and combining flows that peak at different times." (LA County
Hydrology Manual 2006)
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
"The time of concentration (Tc) Is the time it takes for rain in the most hydrologically remote part of the
watershed to reach the outlet. Using a rainfall duration equal to the Tc ensures that the runoff from the
entire subarea Is contributing flow at the outlet. MODRAT requires a time of concentration in order to
calculate intensities for use with the rational equation." (LA County Hydrology Manual 2006)
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
"The primary function of Building & Safety is the enforcement of Los Angeles County Building, Plumbing,
Mechanical, and Electrical Codes, as well as other local and State requirements relevant to the
construction and occupancy of public and private structures. The Division provides this enforcement
through plan checking and inspection of new commercial and residential construction. The County's
unincorporated area and 21 contracted cities are served by 25 branch or city Inspection offices and a
central administrative office. The Drainage and Grading Section provides the following services related
to hydrology and hydraulics:
HYDROLOGY REVIEW INCLUDES:
• Reviewing hydrologic studies for single lot residential and commercial protects based on Public Works'
standards. The review Identifies food hazards due to inundation, overflow, or debris, and verifies that
the appropriate levels of protection exist against these hazards.
• Verifying single lot residential and commercial project compliance with the Department's National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, including the enforcement of Standard
Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) compliance.
6IPage
• Verifying that post -development flow rates in watercourses adjacent to the development are no
greater than pre -development flow rates.
HYDRAULICS REVIEW INCLUDES:
• Reviewing proposed drainage facilities and stone drains for capacity, appropriate levels of protection,
and negative impacts on existing drainage systems.
• Checking pre- and post -development flows, velodtles, and flow areas at the upstream and
downstream of proposed single lot residential and commercial projects to verify that no negative
impacts, including diversions, are created.
• Enforcing compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), including FEMA and County
floodplain and floodway regulations.
• Reviewing hydraulic models of floodway and flood plain encroachments to determine development
requirements and effects to upstream and downstream properties.
GRADING REVIEW INCLUDES:
• Verifying that grading plans for single lot residential and commercial projects do not affect off-slte
areas negatively in terms of hydrology or debris production.
• Verifying compliance with the Department's NPDES permit by reviewing grading plans and inspecting
the installation of required BMP's." (LA County Hydrology Manual 2006)
REFERENCES
Wolfe, Donald L., Chris Conkle, and Janelle Moyer. Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works: Hydrology Manual. Alhambra: Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Works, 2006. Print.
"Floods: Recurrence Intervals and 100 -year Floods (USGS)." Floods: Recurrence Intervals and
100 -year Floods. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 July 2016.
7IPage
Appendix A
LECTURES NOTES FROM WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SOILS & GEOLOGY CLASS
8IPage
Hydrology is the science that examines the occurrence and
movement of atmospheric, surface and groundwater.
A Watershed is the area of land that drains to a single outlet and
is separated from other watersheds by a topographic divide.
Also known as a catchment, river basin, or drainage basin
Soil is an unconsolidated aggregate of mineral and rock
fragments ranging in size from clay, silt, sand, to gravel.
Some soils (near surface) also contain organic matter.
Soil
Rock
Soil type (or classification) is determined by fragment
(clast) size and distribution of clast sizes.
3116
0
116
2/16
Soil classification can get more descriptive, but for
hydrology purposes we use clast size.
wit
Q Hoe= n composed method cmprt aa.S meek°
dsyya.da 6mrpa'q hpaL titS. a. TI. color
d the bad hdMp deal biome oblate
~Hee inn es earixeed WO consul end agree Wraith The
� blp Nod d b born kdda3•dated a he S Pod"
d b d ae mabay, a dairy Faith mem,. br a.acesbn d
gemedoceee maw Wed; mien . A.. A haaae and cocoa dee
adds aoadd mob a.. ad(Akita b da Ebert/ea.
E. Han L teepees] d lgb<ab.d ecieech easy bee d& V
and kw io lawn larions Thed ohr, cokes; norm"
F beau teethe condo* he newel leaches
a Sew
B. Hooters erected w. ebb live named I. km c.elyhg baua..Haeon Fauna
as d aarebece
C. Pto= is cawaad d fete* Sod t.adla.db mere newt
rod a down has to the eke carte d<b S Ad b ream.
Wanes serneb h da a e.....evb 1M baba day be dead
need* ewe atdoa
A Ihn..bad (wane' pored corbel.
•
surface run If.
rs
groundwater recharge
Infiltration (and runoff) is controlled by soil type, thickness,
original water content, and precipitation characteristics
runoff
Moist soils produce more runoff than dry soils
sandy soils allow water to infiltrate
silt and clay soils have slow
infiltration rates, hence more
surface runoff
The degree of infiltration and runoff depends on the soil type
mo\so Cif
40, ,.11, 1.--
30 d-. l• , \ben
--,;SC
20;
IC. •T1+t•is . :lap yf bm ,. v0
0e4°"'�'L— silts have low infiltration rates
:W Y0 H.1 70 MI 511 DJ ]0 90 10
sands have high Send (mend
infiltration rates
Ggndue2cN Puy Paine Ila Es
USDA Soil Texture Classification
Soil storage is the amount of water the soil can hold. It is
controlled by the soil type, thickness, and porosity.
Grain -size distribution controls the magnitude of porosity
uniform grain sizes
porosity = 40%
mixture of grain sizes
porosity = 25%
sandy soils
Hydrograph
Q attenuated response
attenuate;
Time
59 -
silt and day soils
Hydrograph
Q A
rapid' high peak' response
Time
Impervious surfaces in urban
settings don't allow any infiltration,
hence very rapid surface runoff
Q
.J
Hydrograph
very rapid 'high pear' response
it
Time
thin soils saturate quicker, hence produce
more runoff
Q
Time
soils near saturation produce more runoff
Q
Time
water can flow through the soils toward a stream
Hydrograph
Time
SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS
23 CREST ROAD EAST
JUL 11 2015
City of Rolling Hills
ROLLING HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION
ED BY: BOLTON ENGINEERING
DATE: JULY 9, 2016
By
STORMWATER RUNOFF
CALCULATION SUMMARY
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROWNG HILLS, CA 90274
CIIron,:
JAMES P. HYNES LIVING TRUST
4147 MARITIME ROAD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA 90274
Bolton tr glnosAng Carp.
25834 Narbonne Avenue Ste. 21C
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Phone: (310) 325-5550
Fax (310) 325-5581
Maily 2010
Cub: MI MOM.
Oran: ,MI
Me lal5
54m 1 OP
J. \13315_Hynes\dwg\C—Site PIan.2016_G.dwg 7/8/2016 2.28:43 PM
Et?
ROOF RUNOFF COLLECTED
CUTTERS AND INTO DOWNSPOU
TRIUM DRNN TO
COLLECT RUNOFF
AT BASE Cr BERM
Irma
THEN BERN 10 PREVENT WATER
FROM GOING OVER FILL SOPS
UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE UNE
ALL GRATES AND DOWNSPOUTS
CONNECT TO THIS.
EW RESIDENCE
FINISHED
RUNOFF COLLECTED IN
GUTTERS AND INTO DOWNSPOUTS
RIWWAY CATCH BASIN. COLLECTS
DRIVEWAY MD PARKING PAD RUNOFF
PRETREATMENT
SYSTEM — MANHOLES
v
CONNECTING PIP
10'0 UNDERGROND a CURET TO PUN
EACH 58 LONG
ZIRNP MANHOLE BON CISTERNS
CONNECT TO THIS AND OUTLET IS
RIGAIIDN ER OVER APPROVED
DISCHARGE
YERROW PPE SUNG
GRADE
OVERFLOW PIPE TO
CUTLET STRUCTURE
DON CONTROL
OUTLET STRUCTURE
FOR OVERFLOW.
STING
CRADE
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
STORMWATER RUNOFF
20 CHEST ROAD EAST
ROLLING Hats, G902)1
J111116_Flynuidap)Gfib W&_2010 ORap 111 V20168G9:10 AM
JAMES P. HYNES LIVING TRUST
4141 MARRINE ROAD
RANCHO PJLLOS VERDES. CA 90271
Boston Erglnwdrq Cap. L.as was
29311 Nato= Aram BY 210 res.,
tars. CA 9071)
Pfc.%(310)325 5
FEE (310)325-5511 ..., a.
` 14:- "ES_T ROAD -_
I
s D
'
c.
o V—V `i
Q
e
e
(
? ; t
`'�'-_ = �
%„ ;�• —= � ////,%/i/111,// ` c‘.. ., \-
Ba , - - I. / ItT:;::::;1;71,1/71,:„2/11/1/71111/17 .;
r 8 r51 as �ttill�I�I (. �'l.i, :\
N J u�i; 1.
1 I
'I
;'I1,, l
/1/22,711
,u, 14:;h(
six
INNA
,
504
5
g
COY
S
l
a
ratzas,mi Fog ; 4,4 I u
f,81 it
r s
/ n♦i
I 12 pingfilliqi iiiiiiiildligq I
i . illObilidal drills 14 Ai
ilighill 10 AA 11 IIIP
11 144
q PP1 i 10
:11
lilb
IIIJj d4k 8II'11UI141 II
11/11/;1 i1 i;il gill Ia $ k
4EWag iliiihi iI
Iii 1 it; dil 111
S A On • 4.4 t e5 e
E1
p 1 sr.ills 31 v 9
h .2
91;;5;9
al
STO RAGE AVA ILASILRY PER
DIAMETER
i.O.AA
iGSS
FS}ilt
G
Iligifi
;59ia¢lar
Ph
c
Hydrology 8 Hydraulics: 25 Year Storm
lMds abped Lot
Pmpoesd Dawlognam
Nova
Lot Am (e1)
507,314
302,514
Andre Emhe Ste
LotAree (aaoa)
7.066
7.093
Dswbped Area Watershed (sr.)
307.314
307,314
Metro Entry Sib
Dewbpod Nos MUSS (acres)
7.0550
7.0860
Sbsteaapg
0
1&074
Hodson* DM
8,1203
24.133
a Portion of Cral Road on Property
Total Structural ♦ ttetdscepe
&Cm
43.204
2npenbz (%)
1.95%
14.08%
•
Row Pat (1p
950
122D
Longest raw path for nrne b reach
cmwryerca point of two carmen streams
bond/ popct sib.
Chap in Ebweon (e)
245
246
SL1po C%)
25.79%
20.06%
Cu
08490
OHMS
Undeveloped Rune Caatecient
Cd
08509
08470
Developed RwtICoolbobrt
To Den)
7
8
Tenn of Cane ntreten
Flow Role OW
13.42
11.87
Vane (83)
3&706
1 44,582
hombre In flow pedi big) darr000e In
slop ad low rate
baease In Flow Rate (ds)
-156
honer in Winne (89)
7.944
-
STORAGETANKNEEDSTO
STORE AMINIMUMOF
7,844 FT3 OF RUNOFF
-
5&61.3 GAL OF RUNOFF
•
CONTECH URRANGREEN SRPE CISTERN SLUNG Option 1
PIPE DWETER (80 LENGTH OF PIPE (FT)
MJM3ER OF PIPES
AVALVBIE STORAGE PER LF.(Cf4/LF)
PROVIDE() STORAISE CAPACffY (GAL)
120 58
2
586.87
65,838
CHECK:
85,589
< 158,873
OK
CONTECH URBANOREEN SRPE CISTERN 8l NG Option 2
PIPE DOMETER (M)
LENGTH OF PPE (FT)
SUNDER OF PPES
AVALIA8LE STORAGE PER L.F. (GAL/LF)
PROVIDED STORAGE CAPACITY (GAL)
84
58
4
2/5.74
64,083
CHECK:
69,668
< 158,873
OK
Rain Event
Storm(Year)
Undeveloped
Developed
Pre vs Post
% 01U tern )(lied It
Only Storing
Difference in Pre Vs.
Prnr Vnlu,nn
lborvalurtx
(Difference of Pre vs
Post) Stored by
f4rnme
Additional Volume Stored
(Above Difference In Pre vs
Port) Cubic Feet
Flow Rate (ds)
24 Hr Volume (ft3)
Flow Rate (ds)
24 Hr Volume (ft3)
Flow Rate (cfs)
24Hr Volume (ft3)
1
16
6,139
L5583
9,350
40417
3,211
36.40%
180%
5,611
2
3.01
9,675
28384
13,917
41716
4,242
48.0816
10(7%
4,580
5
6.47
18,486
6
24,424
-0.47
5,938
67.31%
10036
2,884
10
9.202
25,769
8377
32,653
-0.825
4884
78.03%
10336
1,933
25
13.42
36,708
11.87
44,552
-155
7,844
8891%
WO%
978
50
15.53
46411
14.56
54,525
497
8,414
9537%
103%
408
100 .
19.2
56,642
18546
.65,456
-2.654
8,814
99.91%
100% •
8
500
26.84
87,959
24.466
92,492
-2.374
9,533
1($06%
92.54%
0
CALCULATION SUMMARY
STORMWATER RUNOF
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HtIS. CA 60274
513315_$in ds9t.8 PYn,JO14_O.dog Marne 2^113, PH
LW FS P. HYNES LIVING TRUST
4147 %ANNE ROAD
RANCHO PALOS VERSES, CA 90274
Calton tagtoasnea Corp.
1834 NeOmw Awns 61.210
L0914 O. Will
RCM (310) 3256580
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
Fle loatton: JJ13315 Hynes/DocumentsMydrology_En11re Site/23 CroSt Road East - Un-oovelope0-25 Year w road.pdf
Version: HydroCatc 0.3.1 -beta
Input Parameters
Project Name
Subarea ID
Area (ac)
Flow Path Length (ft)
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft)
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)
Percent Impervious
Soil Type
Design Storm Frequency
Fire Factor
LID
23 Crest Road East
Un-Developed_25 Year
7.055
950.0
0.2579
5.0
0.0195
2
25-yr
0
False
Output Results
Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in)
Peak Intensity in/hr)
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)
Time of Concentration (min)
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Bumed Peak Flow Rate (cfs
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume ac -ft
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume cu -ft;
4.39
2.2361 .
0.8499
0.8509
7.0
13.4229
13.4229
0.8427
36707.9728
14
12
• 10
t- e
is 0
4
2-
0
0
Hydrograph (23 Crest Road East: Un-Developed_25 Year)
200
400 600 800 1000
Time (minutes)
1200
1400 1600
Tllle:
UN —DEVELOPED 25 YEAR
CALCULATION SUMMARY
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROWNG HILLS, CA 90274
JAMES P. HYNES LMNG TRUST
4147 MARITIME ROAD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA 90274
.k \13315J1ynes\dwg\C—Slte Plan_2016_G.dwg 7/8/2016 2:29:13 PM
tn4
allaLy O. any
Soften tnglnecAng Corp
25834 Narbonne Avenue Ste. 214 ^sMOM
Lamlto, Co. 90717
Phone: (310) 325-5580
ralr_(310) 323-5581 •
or..n: TIM
Mc 133,5
ass I op t
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: JJ13315_ w Hynes/Do ments/Hydrdogy_Enwo Site/23 Crest Road East - Deverpee 25 Year_w road.pol
Version: HydroCele 0.3.1 -bete
Input Parameters
Project Name
Subarea ID
Area (ac)
Flow Path Length (ft)
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft)
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)
Percent Impervious
Soil Type
Design Storm Frequency
Fire Factor
LID
23 Crest Road.East
Developed_25 Year
7.055
1220.0
0.2008
5.0
0.1406
2
25-yr
0
False
Output Results
Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in)
Peak Intensity (in/hr)
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)
Time of Concentration (min)
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Bumed Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume ((ac -ft)
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume cu -ft)
4.39
'1.987
0.8383
0.847
9.0
11.8728
11.8728
1.0228
44551.967
12
10
8
g 6
LL
4
2
Hydrograph (23 Crest Road East: Oeveloped_25 Year)
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (minutes)
1200 1400 1800
nu.:
DEVELOPED 25 YEAR STORM
CALCULATIONS
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
Cllenl:
JAMES P. HYNES UMNG TRUST
4147 MARITIME ROAD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90274
J \13315J-lynes\dwg\C—Slte Plan_2016_G.dwg 7/8/2016 229:08 PM
kl
%Salton Engineering Corp.
25834 Narbmne Mettle Ste 21r
Lomita Ca 90717
Phone (310) 325-5580
Fax (3101325-5581
ottM4 mu
sur: AS SHOW
Crow m+
Yh 13315
Mast 1 Cif
4.1
1{
,
Dti
•
fIROJECT SITE f —
•
I, .
1 !,, 61_U.NFK'.nO‘
\NF 1
7.2
It %INF U3
DPA-6 ;"""
ll
•Z
,009
• �I .
—, YE . Vic•'
L
F
" 1J.
4
•
SAN PEDRO I -H7.2
0
4
hw«. .
i..
•
610
I 'I•II•1
1
4!r
., .1 t.
25 -YEAR 24 -HOUR ISOHYF.T REDUCTION FACTOR: e.970
10 -YEAR 24 1 OUR ISOIIYVT REDUCTION FACTOR: 0.714
TORRANCE
50 -YEAR 24 -HOUR ISOHYET
2 Mho
1-H1.4
33.4.'00"
I
T „e
HYDROLOGIC MAP
CALCULATION SUMMARY
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
f Cnenl
JAMES P. HYNES UVING TRUST
4147 MARITIME ROAD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90274
Bolton Engineering Cones
25834 Narbonne Avonue Ste. 21(s°"°
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Phone: (310) 325-5580
Fat (310) 325-5581
01�Ju1y° �D1°
As 9HQYJ
Drum t >t•1
. ,u,°
a.. , DF,
\13315) lyres\dwg\C—Site Plan_2016_G.dwg 7/8/2016 2: 29:18 PM /
al• 43. 90"
DPA 6
TORRANCE 1-H1.3
• e 1
•
•
I �
17-•
is , 11
s r... Q •
t-
. C
•
DPA-70 _ ''0 4t'
r
r
Y
• I r
33.3T 3Y"
uaic,
\NI ,
H• 1: J L Itun/41.1.
- IMJllt11
0 1
2 Mlles
2K -YEAR 24 -HOUR ISOHYET REDUCTION FACTOR: 0.878
10 -YEAR 24 -HOUR ISODYFT REDUCTION FACTOR: 0.714
SAN PEDRO 1-111.2
50 -YEAR 24 -HOUR ISOHYET
HYDROLOGIC MAP
CALCULATION SUMMARY
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS. CA 90274
C oenl
JAMES P. HYNES UVING TRUST
4147 MARITIME ROAD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90274
Illit Bolton Engineering Corp.
25834 Narbonne Avenue Ste. 21(
Lomita, Co. 90717 _
Phone: (310) 325-5580
For (310) 325-5581
Wm/0.'1y 0, 2010
Srrt: AS sr+OYw
Drmmtl Tit.
Job. 13315
Red 1 OFI
J: \13315_1-{ynes\dwg\C—Site Plan_2016_G.dwg 7/8/2016 2:29:28 PM
2
V
W
U
LL
0
9)
u.
0
0
z
ct
0
W
0-
O
J
Id
O
z
Co = (0.9' IMP) + (1.0 . IMP)' Cu `-r-u
Where: Co = Developed Runoff Coeffident t =
!'
IMP =Proportion Impervious immixirons.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
1.0
Cu = Undeveloped runoff coefficient a`:'^e`"'•
""�
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CURVE
SOIL TYPE NO. 002
---
•----
I
-
. ._.__.___._—_
i
0.9
1
0.8
_1
I,
i.
1
0.7
-
1.
•
1
0.6
1•
0.5
f
;.
I
I
0.4
I
0.3
I
j
D.2
7
I
_
—
If
11
0.0
___. .
1
�..
. .. .._
_.1 -
_ .._...
..._.. .
l
00 20 40 60 80 10.0 12.0 14.0
RAINFALL INTENSITY (I) INCHES/HOUR
File:BoiI Curve Data and Graphs 0-24 Tab:GN2 HYDROLOGY APPENDIX C
16.0
18.0
BJW: 06/14/2004
20.0
1 Year Storm
Storage of Pre Vs. Post
3,211; 36%
5,611; 64%
% of Cistern Filled if Only Storing
Difference in Pre Vs. Post Volume
Additional Volume Stored (Above
Difference in Pre vs Post) Cubic
Feet
2 Year Storm
Storage of Pre Vs. Post
% of Cistern Filled if Only Storing
Difference in Pre Vs. Post Volume
4,580; 52%
4,242; 48%
Additional Volume Stored (Above
Difference in Pre vs Post) Cubic
Feet
5 Year Storm
Storage of Pre Vs. Post
1
et
1
2,884; 3396
% of Cistern Filled if Only Storing
Difference in Pre Vs. Post Volume
5,938; 67%
Additional Volume Stored (Above
Difference in Pre vs Post) Cubic
Feet
10 Year Storm
Storage of Pre Vs. Post
1,938; 22%
% of Cistern Filled if Only Storing
Difference in Pre Vs. Post Volume
Additional Volume Stored (Above
Difference in Pre vs Post) Cubic
Feet
6,884; 78%
25 Year Storm
Storage of Pre Vs. Post
978; 11%
% of Cistern Filled if Only Storing
Difference in Pre Vs. Post Volume
7,844; 89%
Additional Volume Stored (Above
Difference in Pre vs Post) Cubic
Feet
50 Year Storm
Storage of Pre Vs. Post
408; 5%
% of Cistern Filled if Only Storing
Difference in Pre Vs. Post Volume
Additional Volume Stored (Above
Difference in Pre vs Post) Cubic
Feet
8,414; 95%
100 Year Storm
Storage of Pre Vs. Post
8; 0.09% _ _ ...
% of Cistern Filled if Only Storing
Difference in Pre Vs. Post Volume
Additional Volume Stored (Above
Difference in Pre vs Post) Cubic
Feet
8,814; 99.91%
500 Year Storm
0;0%
Storage of Pre Vs. Post
% of Cistern Filled if Only Storing
Difference in Pre Vs. Post Volume
Additional Volume Stored (Above
Difference in Pre vs Post) Cubic
Feet
9,533; 100%
DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT
GENERATED
DRAINAGE
REQUIREMENTS
DRAINAGE LAW SAYS A PROJECT
MAY NOT ADD, NOR
CONCENTRATE DRAINAGE TO
THEIR NEIGHBOR.
THEREFORE, "ADDITIONAL
DRAINAGE" FROM THE
DEVELOPMENT MUST BE
MITIGATED IN SOME FASHION
"ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE" IS THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
PREDEVELOPMENT AND
POST -DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONS DUE TO ANY
ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS AREA.
LOW IMPACT
DEVELOPMENT (LID)
REQUIREMENTS
A PROJECT THAT PROPOSES
10,000 SQ.FT. OR MORE OF NEW
IMPERVIOUS AREA MUST RETAIN
THE RUNOFF FROM THE DESIGN
"WATER QUALITY STORM".
RETENTION CAN BE ACHIEVED
THROUGH INFILTRATION OR
STORAGE FOR SUBSEQUENT USE
ONSITE.
IF IT IS TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE
TO RETAIN ON THE PROJECT
SITE,THEN THE PROJECT MUST
DETAIN 1.5 TIMES THE WATER
QUALITY STORM, BY ONSITE
BIOFILTRATION.
A SINGLE SOLUTION MAY BE DESIGNED TO
COMPLY WITH BOTH REQUIREMENTS IN
CONJUNCTION WITH GEOTECHNICAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
r•
1
pm.-
! i mi
;I
q
{`
I
_'
i
i
V
r
frPt"P {
I Y s eujt
P
q
ill
t
i
I
l
l
f
e
I
1
I
KLODIKE CANYON RUNOFF EXHIBIT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 0 23 CREST ROAD EAST
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90270
'JAMES P HYNES LIVING TRUST
0107 MARITME ROAD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90274
Baton Engineering Copp
04Eo...o.da_.
ram stream .M.. aft 210
oa310325-5590 F.:31pysmn
i
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: 09/12/16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR S
THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER i j �7
SUBJECT: REPORT AND DISCUSSION REGARDING ZONING CODE
REQUIREMENT THAT UTILITY LINES BE UNDERGROUNDED
UPON RELOCATING OR INCREASING THE ELECTRICAL PANEL
SERVICING A BUILDING OR PARCEL.
DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2016
ATTACHMENTS:
RHMC 17.27.030
EXCERPT FROM AUGUST 8, 1983 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Mayor Dieringer requested that the topic of requiring to underground utility lines when
electric panel is upgraded or relocated be agendized for discussion.
Section 17.27.030 of the Rolling Hills Zoning Code, attached, adopted by Ordinance No.
280 in 2000, requires undergrounding of all utility lines to the structure in question
when there is any new construction, when adding square footage to a residence or
accessory structure, when lengthening the utility lines or upgrading or relocating
electrical service panel. In May of 1983 a similar provision was codified in the City's
Electrical Code and a policy clarifying the provision was adopted by minute order on
August 8, 1983, also attached.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
On May 9, 1983 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 199, adopting by reference the
Los Angeles County Building Codes, including electrical code with an amendment to
the County electrical code regarding undergrounding of utility lines. The provision
adopted at that time read as follows:
Section 15.16.040, Section 83-1 (Installation, amended.), of the City's Electrical Code
reads as follows:
"Section 83-1 of the Electrical Code of the City of Rolling Hills is subject to the
following exceptions:
A. Overhead service shall not be installed except to supply temporary service
used for construction purposes only.
B. The wiring between the serving electrical power and communications
utilities systems and the premises served and the wiring between separate buildings
shall be installed underground.
C. Underground services may be installed in rigid, nonmetallic conduit or armored
cable approved for underground installations and shall conform to Public Utilities
Requirements and Standards and as approved by the Chief Electrical Inspector."
Following the adoption of this ordinance, due to a resident inquiry, staff requested a
clarification of the ordinance and in August of 1983, the City Council adopted by a
minute order a policy that was mirrored after the Rolling Hills Estate's policy. The RHE
policy required undergrounding of utility lines when the residence was enlarged or the
footprint of a building was altered, or if there was a need to lengthen lines; but not
when a new panel was installed. An excerpt from the minutes from the August 8, 1983
meeting is enclosed.
In April of 2000 a joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission was
held. Following discussion regarding the undergrounding of utilities, the City Council
requested that the Planning Commission prepare an ordinance to codify the policy on
undergrounding of utilities in the City of Rolling Hills. At that meeting it was reported
by staff that several property owners disputed the policy.
During the public hearing proceedings to adopt the undergrounding of utility lines
ordinance, in a June 26, 2000 staff report to the City Council it has been reported that
since the 1983 minute order "staff has been requiring utilities to be undergrounded
when upgraded electrical service is requested".
Following Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, Ordinance No. 280
was adopted on August 14th 2000 and is effective currently, including the requirement
to underground all utility lines when relocating or increasing the electrical panel. With
this ordinance, the 1983 provision that was added to the Electrical Code of the City in
1983 was deleted.
In the past, the City Attorney has ruled that the only way one can be relived from the
requirement to underground is to apply for a Variance from the Zoning Code
requirement, if there exists a basis for a Variance. In the past 15 years only one Variance
was granted to not to underground when an addition was made to a residence, due to
the topography of the lot and very rocky soil.
It is staff's understanding that the goal of the City Council, (past and present) has
always been to eliminate as many overhead utility lines as possible in hopes that in time
all utility lines in the City would be placed underground to promote beautification of
the City and provide safety from fires and downed power lines.
In order to change the City's current ordinance a zoning code amendment would need'
to be processed and public hearings held before the Planning Commission and City
Council.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council discuss the existing provisions and provide
direction to staff if the current provision should be amended.
YS:hl
Underground Utility lines-historical.docx
17.27.030 - Undergrounding of utilities.
All utilities servicing the building in question on any residentially zoned parcel shall be installed
underground upon:
A. Construction of any new primary or accessory building;
B. Remodeling of a primary or accessory building which entails enlargement of the structure or
alteration of the building footprint;
C. Lengthening or adding electrical lines servicing a building or parcel;
D. Relocating or increasing the electrical panel servicing a building or parcel; or
E. Inclusion of a parcel in an underground utility assessment district, in which event new or
replacement utility poles are prohibited.
(Ord. 280 §2, 2000).
419
1
August 8, 1983
NOTICE OF VIOLATION, 38 CREST ROAD EAST 1395
The City Manager reported that funds for undergrounding utilities
have been deposited with Southern California Edison Company by Mr.
Emmanuel David, owner of property at 38 Crest Road, but no funds have
been deposited with the telephone company. The Manager recommended
that the matter be held on the agenda until the next meeting, and the
Mayor so ordered.
PROPOSED BURGLAR ALARM ORDINANCE 1403
A proposed ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to bill users
for Sheriff's time spent responding to false burglar alarms was presented
to the Council. In discussing the matter members of the Council agreed
that their intent was to assess all owners for response by the Sheriff, •
not to charge for false alarms only in excess of three false alarms in
a twelve month period. The City Attorney was requested to modify the
proposed ordinance and the matter was held on the agenda for future
consideration.
MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
. Councilman Pernell reported that he and Mayor Murdock met recently
with two members of the Flying Triangle Homeowners' Association and one
representative of the Board of Directors of the Rolling Hills Community
Association to discuss.problems in the Flying Triangle.and-proposed
remedies. Councilman Pernell said the discussions are ongoing. Mayor
Murdock reported that following that meeting she, the City.Manager and
Dr. Richard Hoffman representing the'Flying Triangle Homeowners, met
'with Councilman Ken Dyda of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to discuss
possible formation of a hazard abatement district.
MATTERS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The Manager reported that in response to a request from .a:resident.
for clarification of.the City's requirement for undergrounding utilities,
he discussed the matter with Bill Magill, LOS 'Angeles County•Building
Inspector, and was advised that in the City of Rolling Hills Estates.a
policy requires that if a residence is enlarged or the footprint of the
building is altered, or if there is a need to lengthen lines which pro-
vide residential service, utilities serving the residence must be placed
underground; if installation of a new panel does not require lengthening
the lines, and if the residence is not enlarged the existing overhead
installation can remain, even when a new panel board is installed. Mr..
Smith said Dr. Frudenfeld, 1 Buckboard Lane, is planning to install an
air conditioning systemwhich will require a new'board, but is not plan-
ning to make any other changes in the service, nor to add on to his home
and he asked that the requirements for placing all utilities serving .his
home underground be waived.
•
Following discussion members of the Council present agreed that the
policy developed by Rolling Hills Estates should be adopted by the City
of Rolling Hills, and the City Manager was authorized to so inform the
Department of Building and Safety of the County Engineer, and Dr. Karl
Frudenfeld.
SOUND SYSTEM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The City Manager reported that in response to complaints about the
inadequacy of the amplification system in the Council Chambers he has
investigated various means of improving the system. Mr. Smith said the
amplification can be improved slightly by addition of individual trans-
formers on each microphone at a cost of $27 per microphone, but the need
to project directly into the microphone will continue. Individual clip -
on microphones which would project the individual voices to the audience
would cost $125 each, and eight to ten would be needed, he said.
Councilman Pernell said it has been determined that the mixer now
in use picks up voices of members of the Council and persons who speak
418
MINUTES OF A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
August 8, 1983
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills
was called to order at the Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend
Road, Rolling Hills, California by Mayor Murdock at 7:30 P.M. Monday,
August 8, 1983.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Pernell
Mayor Murdock
Councilwoman Swanson (arrived at 8:10 P.M.)
Ronald Smith
Michael Jenkins
L. D. Courtright
June Cunningham
Richard Esposito
City Manager
City Attorney
City Treasurer
Deputy City Clerk
Palos Verdes Peninsula News
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Staff requested that the minutes of the meeting of July 27, 1983
be amended on page 5, Closure of Roads and Trails to Pedestrians and
Cyclists, to reflect that roads and trails will be closed for 24 hours
on August 13,1983 to non-resident pedestrians and cyclists, and that
the Sheriff has been notified and will assist in the temporary closure.
The minutes as amended were approved and accepted on a motion made
by. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh, seconded by Councilman Pernell and carried
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: _Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Pernell
Mayor Murdock
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilwoman Swanson
PAYMENT OF BILLS
Councilman Heinsheimer moved that Demands'No. 11263 through.11285
in the amount of $27,774.63 be approved for payment from the General
Fund. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh and carried
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Pernell
Mayor Murdock
NOES:
ABSENT:
None
Councilwoman Swanson
PURCHASE OF COMPUTER ACCOUNTING SYSTEM 1373
Following discussion of a proposal to purchase a computer account-
ing system to be shared by the City and Community Association, Council-
man Heinsheimer moved that the City Treasurer be authorized to negotiate
for the purchase of the necessary equipment at a price not to exceed
$8,000. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pernell and carried by
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Pernell
Mayor Murdock
None
Councilwoman Swanson
1