City Council Agenda 10-10-2016MINUTES OF
A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF' ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 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 7:10 p.m; in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
'The delay in starting was to allow the City Council time w review the correspondence that was submitted after the agenda packets were prepared.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Black, Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Dieringer.
Councilmembers Absent: None.
Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager.
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director.
Mike Jenkins, City Attorney.
Heidi Luce, City Clerk.
William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane.
Dan Bolton, Bolton Engineering.
Jim Partridge, 67 Portuguese Bend Road.
Terry Rhodes, 63 Portuguese Bend Road.
Tom Hynes, 23 Crest Road East (property owner).
Heidi and John Mackenbach, 56 Portuguese Bend Road.
Robert O'Shea, 3 Running Brand Road.
Howard Weinberg, Attomcy (23 Crest Road East).
OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane addressed the City Council to express concern regarding grading of
the area around the pool at 18 Portuguese Bend Road and provided photographs of the area. City Manager
Cruz stated that staff would provide the City Council with a memo in response to the concern raised.
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 September 12, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
B. Payment of Bills.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
C. Allied Recycling Tonnage Report for August, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as
presented. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
COMMISSION ITEMS
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-21. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A
COVERED PORCH WITH AN OUT -OF -GRADE CONDITION AND ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES, AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH A SET ASIDE AREA FOR A
STABLE AND CORRAL INTO THE SIDE SETBACK, INCLUDING WITH A PORTION OF
AN EXISTING SHED IN ZONING CASE NO. 909 AT 7 SOUTHFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 4 -SF),
ROLLING HILLS, CA (KLERMAN).
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz briefly
reviewed the applicant's request to construct 700 sq. fi. porch, a portion of which is to be constructed out
43
of grade. She stated that the applicant is also requesting a variance to create a set aside area for a future
stable and corral in the side setback; and to legalize and retain a previously constructed shed. She further
stated that the Planning Commission approved the applicant's request. Councilmember Mirsch noted that
she attended the site visit and the meeting regarding this case.
Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No.
2016-21 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 909 at 7 Southfield Drive.
Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZONING CASE NO. 902. REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 11,100 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE, WITH 11,100 SQUARE
FOOT BASEMENT, 1,540 SQUARE FEET ATTACHED GARAGES, 2,654 SQUARE FEET
COVERED PORCHES, 864 SQUARE FOOT SWIMMING POOL AND SPA, TRELLISES,
NEW DRIVEWAY AND AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN AND GRADING FOR A TOTAL OF
51,625 CUBIC YARDS OF DIRT, WHICH INCLUDES OVER -EXCAVATION AND RE -
COMPACTION; CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT AN 800 SQUARE FOOT
GUEST HOUSE, AND A 1,300 SQUARE FOOT STABLE; IN ZONING CASE NO. 902, AT 23
CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 132A -MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (HYNES). THE PROJECT IS
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 EXEMPTION GUIDELINES.
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz
reviewed the applicant's request to construct a new home on a vacant lot at 23 Crest Road East and stated
that the City Council visited the site on October 4, 2016 to view the proposed project. She noted that
Councilmember Mirsch visited the site separately with staff and the applicant's representatives.
Ms. Schwartz further reviewed the proposed grading stating that the upper pad is proposed to be lowered
by approximately 2-3 ft. from what exists currently. She stated that there has been considerable discussion
previously regarding the drainage and soils, geology and stability of the lot which is above the Flying
Triangle. She stated that in the field, there was some discussion regarding soils and geology; and the
location of the bedrock. She reviewed the geology map which shows the bedrock at approximately 3 ft.
where the development is proposed. She stated that in response to concerns raised by the neighbors below
the proposed project, the City Council asked that the County Engineers be present at the site visit which
Lisa Naslund attended, but they are unable to attend this evening. She further stated that at the request of
the City Council during the field trip, Ms. Naslund provided a response to the statements made in the letter
from Mr. Partridge (Smith Emery Company) dated September 12, 2016. She stated that Ms. Naslund's
response is included with the staff report; and in summary, states that the project engineer will design
drainage and grading plan, the County will serve as the reviewing agency for compliance with County
codes. Ms. Schwartz further reviewed the correspondence that was received since the agenda packet was
delivered and stated that the additional correspondence has been placed on the dais for the City Council's
review and consideration; including a correspondence from Mr. Raine (4 Pinto Road) regarding the
drainage and Bolton Engineering's response to Mr. Raine's correspondence.
Mayor Dieringer asked for questions from the City Council for staff. In response to Councilmember
Mirsch, City Attorney Jenkins stated that the engineers from the County or Willdan Engineering are
impartial agents working for the City and would not reflect the views of either the property owner or the
neighbors.
Mayor Dieringer asked for questions from the City Council for the applicant's engineer. In response to
Councilmember Wilson, Dan Bolton, Bolton Engineering stated that he would expect the cisterns to be
fabricated from reinforced concrete or fiberglass and that the life expectancy would be in the range of 75-
100 years. Mr. Bolton further explained that the plans arc typically submitted in conceptual form for the
entitling body's review and more detailed specifications are provided when the plans are submitted to the
County for plan check and would be likely be subject to a maintenance covenant by the County. Mr.
Bolton further explained the drainage system.
Jim Partridge, 67 Portuguese Bend Road inquired as to the expense of installing such a drainage system.
Mr. Bolton estimated the expense to be somewhere between $50,000-$100,000. In response to
Councilmember Mirsch regarding maintenance of the system, Mr. Bolton explained that system would be
subject to regular maintenance as would any such type of system.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-10-16
Mayor Dieringer asked for clarification with regard to the design of the system being for the pre- versus
post -development runoff from the 25 -year storm versus the I00 -years storm and what happens to the
runoff when the tanks are full. Mr. Bolton explained that the way the system is designed, it has enough
capacity for the 100 -year storm. Mayor Dieringer expressed concern regarding the discharge form
subsequent storms and that the discharge is directed to only one outlet. She further suggested that the
discharge be directed to multiple outlets rather than just one. Mr. Bolton stated that they would accept
such a condition. Mayor Dieringer further suggested that the cisterns be sized for the 100 -year storm. Mr.
Bolton suggested that the system be designed to store the 25 -year storm and that the discharge be placed
such that there is surge capacity to leave the tank in 1-2 days so that there is capacity for a future storm.
Discussion ensued concerning retaining the water and the requirement to reduce runoff to the pre -
development level. Further discussion ensued concerning the outlet structures, gray water systems and
maintenance of the system.
Mayor Dieringer called for public comment.
Jim Partridge, 67 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the City Council to express general concern regarding
the drainage in that area of the City. He suggested that the City install a drainpipe to address the drainage
issues in that area.
Terry Rhodes, 63 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the City Council to express concern regarding the
drainage and to further suggest that an independent hydrology study be done to assess the risks.
Tom Hynes, 23 Crest Road East (property owner) addressed the City Council stating that he does not
disagree that there arc general drainage issues that need to be addressed; but that the proposed project
meets the post development drainage requirements and should not be delayed in order to address the other
drainage issues in the area.
Heidi Mackenbach, 56 Portuguese Bend Road addressed, the City Council to express concern regarding
the long term impact that the proposed project will have on the properties below it.
John Mackenbach, 56 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the City Council to express concern regarding the
amount of grading and that the grading will affect the stability on the lot. He suggested a third -party
evaluation.
Robert O'Shea, 3 Running Brand Road addressed the City Council to suggest that the City Council
conduct a third -party independent analysis to ensure that the properties below are protected.
Dan Bolton, Bolton Engineering addressed the City Council in response to the comments regarding a
third -party independent review stating that he believes the County will provide the appropriate level
review. He further commented that if the City wishes to construct some sort of drainpipe as suggested by
Mr. Partridge that the project not be delayed for that reason since the project will not increase the runoff
compared to the pre -development condition and any other drainage issues are from a different soured.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Dieringer called for comments from the City Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Black commented that having visited the site, he recognized the challenges associated
with development of this property. He commented that he is not opposed to development of the site in
general, but he is concerned regarding the amount of 2:1 slopes and the amount of grading necessary to
create the pad necessary to build the house. He further commented that the proposed project does not
utilize the natural topography and looks unnatural. He expressed further concem regarding the mass of the
projcct.
Councilmember Wilson expressed concern regarding the drainage and hydrology and suggested that an
independent study be done.
Councilmember Pieper commented that he is also concerned about the drainage but he does not agree that
the applicant should be required to solve all of the drainage issues in the area below the proposed
development.' -
Mayor Dieringer commented that she is concerned about the impact the development may have on the
Minutes -
City Council Meeting
10-10-16 '
properties below and although she too would like to have a third party study done on the hydrology, she
understands that it is not within the City Council's purview during the Site Plan Review process to require
such a study and the County will review the proposal to ensure that the code requirements are being
complied with.
In response to Mayor Dieringer's comments, City Attomcy Jenkins stated that during the discretionary
review process is not the appropriate time to address the details and technical aspects of hyrolology. He
stated that those details will be addressed by the County during its review of the hydrology plans. He
stated the project is conditioned upon compliance with the building code and on not generating more
stormwater run off than in generates pre -development. He further noted that there have been no studies
presented to contest the hydrology reports that were submitted by two experts on behalf of the applicant
and in the absence of any contradictory evidence in the record the City Council should rely on the
evidence submitted. He stated that the question before the City Council is whether or not thc project
complies with the City's Zoning Code, specifically the criteria listed in Section 17.46.050. He stated that
it is incumbent upon the City Council to provide specific suggestions as to how this project could be made
approvablc based on the criteria set forth in the Zoning Code.
Councilmember Mirsch commented that in reviewing the criteria for approval, she has difficulty making
the following required finding: that the grading has been designed to follow the natural contours of the site
and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; and that the project is
harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural tcrrain and the surrounding residences. She
suggested that the applicant review the proposal to determine if there is a better way to design the project
to be more in line with those findings. She commented that she is more concerned about the grading than
the drainage.
Councilmember Pieper commented that he believes that there have been some improvements made to the
drainage in response to the concern raised by the Planning Commission and City Council and the proposal
is acceptable to him. He commented that if the City Council wants to suggest further changes, that those
suggestions be very specific so that the applicant is clear as to what the concems are and what the
direction is. Discussion ensued concerning the grading, the steepness of the slopes, the size of the
basement and the footprint of the house. Mayor Pro Tem Black commented that the mass of the project is
one of thc areas that concerns him and he would like to see the mass reduced.
Mayor Dieringer asked the applicant if they have been provided with sufficient direction to address thc
concerns raised.
Howard Weinberg, Attorney addressed the City Council on behalf of the applicant stating that the
applicant would like to be provided with a project scope that the City Council believes is appropriate.
Discussion ensued concerning the areas of concern including, the mass and scale of project, the grading
and the runoff. City Attomcy Jenkins commented that another option would be for the City Council to
appoint an ad hoc committee to work with the applicant to address the concerns raised.
Councilmember Wilson expressed continued concern regarding the hydrology. In response to
Councilmember Wilson with regard to the City Council's authority to require an independent hydrology
study, City Attorney Jenkins stated that there is a difference between the approval of a subdivision and the
approval of a single-family home on a single-family lot..\ He stated that when there is a buildable legal
lot, there is a right to build on the lot; but there is no right to subdivide a lot into multiple lots. He further
clarified that the criteria for a subdivision are not the same as the criteria for a single-family home and that
is what enabled the City Council to further consider hydrology when the subdivision was presented for
consideration. He noted that the City's legal authority is different when considering a single-family home
than when considering a subdivision.
Following further discussion, Mayor Dieringer moved that the City Council appoint Mayor Pro Tem
Black and Councilmember Pieper to serve on an ad hoc committee to confer with the applicant in order to
address the concerns raised including the mass of the project and the grading associated with the project
and to continue the public hearing to the November 14, 2016 meeting of the City Council. Councilmember
Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. The public hearing was continued to the
November 14, 2016 meeting of the City Council.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-10-16
NEW BUSINESS
CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 347 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MOVING THE DATE OF THE CITY'S GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION FROM THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY IN
MARCH OF EVERY ODD -NUMBERED YEAR TO THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE
FIRST MONDAY IN NOVEMBER OF EVERY EVEN -NUMBERED YEAR BEGINNING IN
NOVEMBER 2020.
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. City Clerk Luce stated that before
the City Council is a DRAFT ordinance, which would change the City's General Municipal Election from
March of odd years as it is currently, to November of even years beginning in 2020. She stated that this
change is proposed in response to a bill that was passed by the State Legislature in 2015 requiring cities
that don't meet certain voter turnout thresholds to change their election date to coincide with statewide
general elections. She further stated that although the City has very high voter turnout, the numbers don't
meet the criteria set by the legislature and the City is being required to change its election date. She stated
that if adopted, the change would be effective in 2020. The City would proceed as normal with its March
2017 and March 2019 elections and the terms of the Councilmember elected in those elections will be
reduced by four months. She stated that staff recommends that the City Council introduce the ordinance
and waive full reading. The ordinance would then be brought back to the City Council for second reading
and adoption at the October 24ih meeting.
Discussion ensued conceming the voter turnout numbers and the option for waiting until after the City's
March 2017 election.
Following brief discussion, Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council introduce Ordinance No.
347 moving the date of the City's General Municipal Election to the first Tuesday after the first Monday
in November beginning in November 2020 for first reading and waive full reading. Councilmember Pieper
seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AND PROPOSITION A ASSIGNMENT
AGREEMENT FOR AN EXCHANGE OF $75,000 IN PROPOSITION A
TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION PROJECT RELATED FUNDS WITH THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES FOR $56,250 OF GENERAL FUNDS TO PLACED IN THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS' GENERAL FUND; AND A RESOLUTION AND PROPOSITION
C/MEASURE R ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR GIFTING OF PROPOSITION C AND
MEASURE R FUNDS TO THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES TO CONSTRUCT
TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT BENEFIT THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS'
RESIDENTS.
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. City Manager Cruz stated that
annually the City receives an allocation of Proposition A, Proposition C and Measure R funds from the
County to be used for transportation and transit -related purposes. He stated that these funds, however, arc
not eligible for use in Rolling Hills due to the roads within the City being privately owned and maintained
and the City typically accumulates the funds until there is a substantial balance that can be exchanged for
General Fund monies or gifted towards other transit -related purposes, as allowed by law, with another
public agency. He stated that a letter was sent to the neighboring cities to ascertain their interest in
exchanging or receiving these funds and as a result, letters of interest were received form the neighboring
cities. He stated that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes expressed interest in an exchange of Proposition A
funds in the amount of 75 cents on the dollar and staff recommends approving the exchange. With regard
to the Proposition C and Measure R funds, he stated that staff recommends gifting the funds to Rolling
Hills Estates to complete the previous commitment for the traffic signal improvement project and to
repave the section of Palos Verdes Drive North between Rolling Hills Road and Dapplegray Lane.
Brief discussion ensued concerning the varying exchange rates for the Proposition A funds and the
potential for facilitating an exchange of funds to be used on Rolling Hills Road between Crenshaw and
Palos Verdes Drive North.
Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1190 and approve an
assignment agreement with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for an exchange of the City's Proposition A
Funds AND that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1191 and approve an assignment agreement with
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-10-16
the City of Rolling Hills Estates for a gifting of the City's Proposition C/Measure R Funds. Mayor Pro
Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
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 13. (ORAL REPORT)
The ad hoc committee reported that it is still considering placing a measure on the ballot to repeal
Measure B at the City's General Municipal Election scheduled for Tuesday, March 7, 2017 but a
definitive decision has not yet been reached because they are still trying to come up with a compromise
with the other members of the ad hoc committee. Following discussion concerning the options being
considered, the Committee was asked to report again at the October 24, 2016 City Council meeting.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
CONSIDERATION OF OPTIONS PERTAINING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 7, 2017 —
OPTION I: CONDUCT A STAND-ALONE ELECTION TO 13E CONSOLIDATED WITH THE
CITY OF LOS ANGELES LACCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS ELECTION (STATUS QUO)
RUNNING CONCURRENTLY WITH THE COUNTY'S SPECIAL ELECTION; OPTION 2:
CONDUCT A CONSOLIDATED ELECTION WITH THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES WITH
SPECIFIED SERVICES TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY.
Mayor Dicringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Clerk Luce presented the staff
report stating that the City has been provided an additional option for conducting its March 2017 election.
She stated that normally, the City conducts a stand -alone -election at which the voters also vote on the Los
Angeles Community College Districts Board member seats that are up for election and election costs arc
shared with the City of Los Angeles.
She stated that this year, it is possible that the County Board of Supervisors will be taking a ballot measure
to the voters on March 7th as well. In doing so, the County is proposing to conduct a consolidated election
to include the City elections along with the County's ballot measure. The intent of conducting a
consolidated election is to reduce the voter confusion and eliminate the duplicate efforts involved in
conducting concurrent elections. At this time, the Board of Supervisors has not yet voted to place a
measure on the ballot, but recognizing that cities need to make decisions regarding their elections, the
County has committed to conducting the elections whether or not the County puts a measure on the ballot;
and for that effort to be cost neutral for the cities involved and has quoted the City $12,550 to conduct the
City's election.
Ms. Luce stated that the options before the City Council are to proceed as normal conducting a stand-
alone election or conducting a consolidated election to be run by the County. She further stated that an
additional option to reduce voter confusion, if the City decides to proceed with a consolidated election
would be to use the City 's election consultant to prepare and mail a Voter Information Guide specific to
the City election at a cost of approximately $5,000.
Following brief discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council direct staff to proceed
with the preparation necessary for conducting a consolidated election with the County of Los Angeles on
March 7, 2017 at a cost of $12,550. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without
objection.
Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council also direct staff to contract with Martin & Chapman
for preparation of a Voter Information Guide to be mailed to all Rolling Hills voters with specific
information regarding the Rolling Hills election at an estimated cost of $5,000. Mayor Pro Tem Black
seconded the motion which carried without objection.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-10-16
CLOSED SESSION
None.
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Hcaring no further business before the City Council, Mayor Dieringer adjourned the meeting at 10:32 p.m.
to a regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, October 24, 2016 beginning at
7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
Respectfully submitted,
01.4c1 1,Vb
Heidi Luce
City Clerk
Approved,
ea Dienngcr
Mayor
M inutes
City Council Meeting
10-10-16
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am a citizen of the United States. 1 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 7'" day of October, 2016, I serve the within
City Council Meeting - 10/10/2016
a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, and the person, or persons, named
below were emailed or mailed the agenda:
E -MAILED MAILED . DropBox
Interested City Attorney
RH Web site listSery Parties CouncilMembers
Interested parties 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 7'" day of October, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California.
Ewa Nikodem
Administrative Assistant
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2016 7:00 P.M.
Next Resolution No. 1190 Next Ordnance No. 347
ear a/ Zalla9 qefa
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding the items on the
consent calendar or items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take
place on any items not on the agenda.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may
request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council
Actions.
A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of September 12, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
B. Payment of Bills.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
C. Allied Recycling Tonnage Report for August, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
5. COMMISSION ITEMS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-21. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR A COVERED PORCH WITH AN OUT -OF -GRADE CONDITION
AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH A
SET ASIDE AREA FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL INTO THE SIDE SETBACK,
INCLUDING WITH A PORTION OF AN EXISTING SHED IN ZONING CASE NO.
909 AT 7 SOUTHFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 4 -SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (KLERMAN).
Page 1 of 3
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ZONING CASE NO. 902. REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 11,100 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE, WITH 11,100
SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT, 1,540 SQUARE FEET ATTACHED GARAGES, 2,654
SQUARE FEET COVERED PORCHES, 864 SQUARE FOOT SWIMMING POOL
AND SPA, TRELLISES, NEW DRIVEWAY AND AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN AND
GRADING FOR A TOTAL OF 51,625 CUBIC YARDS OF DIRT, WHICH INCLUDES
OVER -EXCAVATION AND RE -COMPACTION; CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
TO CONSTRUCT AN 800 SQUARE FOOT GUEST HOUSE, AND A 1,300 SQUARE
FOOT STABLE; IN ZONING CASE NO. 902, AT 23 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT
132A -MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (HYNES). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO
SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 EXEMPTION GUIDELINES.
7. OLD BUSINESS
NONE.
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MOVING THE DATE OF THE
CITY'S GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION FROM THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER
THE FIRST MONDAY IN MARCH OF EVERY ODD -NUMBERED YEAR TO THE
FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY IN NOVEMBER OF EVERY
EVEN -NUMBERED YEAR BEGINNING IN NOVEMBER 2020.
RECOMMENDATION: Introduce ordinance and waive full reading.
B. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AND PROPOSITION A ASSIGNMENT
AGREEMENT FOR AN EXCHANGE OF $75,000 IN PROPOSITION A
TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION PROJECT RELATED FUNDS WITH THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES FOR $56,250 OF GENERAL FUNDS TO PLACED IN
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS' GENERAL FUND; AND A RESOLUTION AND
PROPOSITION C/MEASURE R ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR GIFTING OF
PROPOSITION C AND MEASURE R FUNDS TO THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES TO CONSTRUCT TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT
BENEFIT THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS' RESIDENTS.
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)
City Council Agenda
10/10/16 Page 2 of
10. MATTERS FROM STAFF
A. CONSIDERATION OF OPTIONS PERTAINING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION SCHEDULED FOR
MARCH 7, 2017 — OPTION 1: CONDUCT A STAND-ALONE ELECTION TO BE
CONSOLIDATED WITH THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES LACCD BOARD OF
DIRECTORS ELECTION (STATUS QUO) RUNNING CONCURRENTLY WITH
THE COUNTY'S SPECIAL ELECTION; OPTION 2: CONDUCT A CONSOLIDATED
ELECTION WITH THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES WITH SPECIFIED SERVICES
TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY.
11. CLOSED SESSION
NONE.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: Monday, October 24, 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
10/10/16 Page 3 of 3
DRAFT
Agenda Item No. 4-A
Meeting Date: 10/10/16
MINUTES OF
A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 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.
Councilmembers Absent: None.
Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager.
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director.
Mike Jenkins, City Attorney.
Heidi Luce, City Clerk.
James Aichele, 14 Crest Road West.
Spencer Karpf, 8 Maverick Lane.
Arvel Witte, 5 Quail Ridge Road South.
Clint Patterson, 22 Georgeff Road.
Ed Smith, 85 Eastfield Drive.
OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council to express concern that the Municipal Code
refers to the Gate Attendants as "Gate Guards" and as such may limit their authority. He suggested that the
Ordinance be changed. The City Council asked Mr. Aichele to provide staff with the specific sections of
the Municipal Code he is referring to so that the matter can be looked into.
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.
O
DRAFT
Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council approve the remaining items on the consent calendar
as presented. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion; which carried without objection.
COMMISSION ITEMS
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).
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz
reviewed the applicant's request to construct a 1,140 sq. ft. stable, corral and 5,550 sq. ft. riding ring in
Zoning Case No. 904 at 34 Saddleback Road and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site
twice and approved the project after the project was revised to address the Planning Commission's initial
concerns. She commented that there is an undesignated trail on the property that is used by the equestrian
community and the applicant plans to keep the trail open.
Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No.
2016-19 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 904 at 34 Saddleback Road.
Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion. In response to a suggestion by Mayor Dieringer that the
Resolution includes a condition that the bridle trail be preserved, City Attorney stated that the City
Council would need to take the matter under jurisdiction in order to make an substantive changes.
Following brief discussion, the motion to receive and file Resolution No. 2016-19 carried without
objection.
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.
Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz
reviewed the applicant's request to construct a new 11,1000 sq. ft. residence with an 11,100 sq. ft.
basement; two, two -car garages; covered porches in Zoning Case No. 902 at 23 Crest Road East. She
noted that the approximately 6 acre lot is currently vacant. She further reviewed the applicant's request
stating that the applicant also proposes to construct a pool and spa as well as a guest house and stable and
Minutes
City Council Meeting
09-12-16
DRAFT
corral She noted that a table showing a summary of the proposed project and the development standards
has been placed on the dais for the City Council's consideration. She further stated that the applicant also
proposes a driveway to provide access to the property and that the Traffic Commission reviewed the
driveway apron and recommends approval.
Ms. Schwartz stated that during the Planning Commission's review of the project, the applicant revised
their request in order to address the concern raised with the initial request, including removing any
requests for variance. She stated that the Planning Commission held several public hearings to consider
the case and made two site visits to see the project. She further reviewed the grading, which consists of
51,625 cu. yds. with 13,750 cu. yds of over -excavation and 13,750 cu. yds of recompaction. She noted that
785 cu. yds. will be exported.
Ms. Schwartz further reviewed the concerns raised by the neighbors below the proposed project and stated
that the correspondence relating to those concerns od in included with the staff report. She commented
that the applicant's engineer has also prepared a hydrology report and provided a general overview of
hydrology. She commented that in response to concerns raised by the neighbors regarding the drainage the
applicant proposed two cisterns on the upper pad and two cisterns on the lower pad. She further reviewed
the development standards stating that the proposed project meets the development standards.
Mayor Dieringer suggested that the applicant provide further clarification with regard to how the cisterns
work.
Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council take Zoning Case No. 902 at 23 Crest Road East
under jurisdiction. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. The
public hearing was scheduled to begin with a site visit to 23 Crest Road East on Tuesday, October 4, 2016
beginning at 7:00 a.m. The City Council directed staff to ask the County engineers to be present at the
public hearing if possible.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
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)
Minutes
City Council Meeting
09-12-16
DRAFT
The Committee reported that it is still considering placing a measure on the ballot to repeal Measure B at
the City's General Municipal Election scheduled for Tuesday, March 7, 2017 but a definitive decision has
not yet been reached because they are still trying to come up with a compromise.
Discussion ensued concerning the timeline for placing a measure on the ballot. In response to Mayor Pro
Tem Black, City Attorney Jenkins stated that measure should be drafted and placed on the ballot by the
City Council's second meeting in November.
Mayor Dieringer suggested that if the Committee is considering a measure to repeal Measure B, the voters
should also be given an opportunity to vote on a measure that would amend the View Ordinance to
address the problems with Measure B without taking it away. She suggested that two measures be placed
on the ballot so that voters have options.
In response to the Mayor's suggestion, Councilmember Mirsch commented that if a compromise can't be
reached, the Committee's recommendation to the City Council will be to place a measure on the ballot to
repeal Measure B. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she is not supportive of governing by
initiative and would prefer that the City Council have the ability to amend the Ordinance to address the
concerns without requiring a vote of the electorate.
Recognizing that there were members of the public wishing to address this mater, Mayor Dieringer called
for comments.
Spencer Karpf, 8 Maverick Lane addressed the City Council to suggest that the ad hoc committee be
expanded to include additional members of the public and offered to participate in the discussions in an
attempt to achieve a compromise regarding the proposed ballot initiative that is being circulated so that it
can be offered to the City Council as an ordinance rather than a ballot initiative that would be adopted if
Measure B is repealed.
In response to Mr. Karp?s comment, Councilmember Pieper commented that what Mr. Karpf suggests is
what the ad hoc committee is attempting to do.
Arvel Witte, 5 Quail Ridge Road South addressed the City Council to express concern regarding the
retroactivity provision in Measure B.
In response to Dr. Witte's comment, City Attorney Jenkins stated that if Measure B is repealed, the
retroactivity portion would also go away.
Clint Patterson, 22 Georgeff Road addressed the City Council in support of repealing Measure B.
The Committee was asked to report again at the October 10, 2016 City Council meeting.
OTHER MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Dieringer suggested that the City Council consider clarifying the language in the zoning case
conditions of approval regarding violation of the conditions to specifically state the construction must
Minutes
City Council Meeting
09-12-16
o
DRAFT
cease upon a violation until the violation is corrected. In response, City Attorney Jenkins commented that
Mayor Dieringer's suggestion is consistent with the intent of the section and the City Council could direct
staff to make such a change. The City Council concurred.
She further suggested that the no further development without Planning Commission review be included
as a standard condition. In response, Councilmember Pieper commented that doing so would discourage
applicants from coming before the Planning Commission and lead to increase as built situations. Planning
Director Schwartz commented that the Planning Commission adds that condition on a case -by -case basis.
The City Council did not take an action or provide any direction to staff.
Councilmember Mirsch commented that she found the report on the supplemental traffic enforcement
statistics that was provided to the City Council informative and useful in evaluating the supplemental
traffic enforcement program. In response to Mayor Dieringer, City Clerk Luce stated that this report is
provided for supplement traffic enforcement only.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
REPORT AND DISCUSSION REGARDING ZONING CODE REQUIREMENT THAT
UTILITIES BE UNDERGROUNDED UPON RELOCATING OR INCREASING THE
ELECTRICAL PANEL SERVICING A BUILDING OR PARCEL.
Planning Director Schwartz presented the staff report, which reviews the history of RHMC Section
17.27.030 that requires the undergrounding of utilities when an electrical panel is relocated or increased.
Mayor Dieringer suggested that the City Council consider changing the provision so that upgrading a
panel does not trigger the undergrounding requirement when doing so is done to simply address the
existing electrical needs of the house and improve safety. City Attorney Jenkins provided additional
background on this provision stating that the City Council at the time this ordinance was adopted was very
interested in doing what it could to further the undergrounding of utilities and wanted the most aggressive
ordinance possible to achieve that objective. Discussion ensued concerning the requirement and how it
affects properties in the Flying Triangle area of the City where all utilities are above ground.
Ed Smith, 85 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council stating that undergrounding does not improve
safety but rather improves aesthetics.
Councilmember Pieper commented that he would not be in favor of changing the requirement. Mayor Pro
Tem Black concurred. Following brief discussion, the City Council took no action. The report was
received and filed.
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)
City Manager Cruz reported that on September 9th, the City received a response to the letter that was sent
to Cal Water regarding water budgets and the appeal process indicating that Cal Water is unable to do
anything to address the concerns raised and rejecting the City's request. He stated the next step would be
to file an informal complaint with the CPUC and that a draft copy of the complaint form that will be
Minutes
City Council Meeting
09-12-16
DRAFT
submitted online has been placed on the dais. He furtherer explained the CPUC's complaint/appeal
process and reviewed the three main points addressed in the City's initial letter to Cal Water. Following
discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council direct staff to proceed with filing an
informal appeal with the CPUC. Mayor Dieringer seconded the motion, which carried without objection.
City Manager Cruz reported that at this time, there are not issues of an emergent nature for discussion at
the September 26, 2016 City Council meeting so the meeting may be cancelled.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
None.
CLOSED SESSION
None.
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Dieringer adjourned the meeting at 8:19 p.m.
to an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Tuesday, October 4, 2016
beginning at 7:00 a.m. at 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California for the purpose of conducting a site
visit to view the applicant's proposed project in Zoning Case No. 902. The next regular meeting of the
City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, October 10, 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
09-12-16
CHECK CHECK
NO. DATE
24492 09262016
24493 09/26/2016
24494 09/26/2016
24495 09/26/2016
24496 09262016
24497 09/26/2016
24498 0926/2016
24499 09262016
24500 09262016
24501 09/26/2016
24502 09/26/2016
• 24503 10/1/2016
24504 10/1/2016
24505 10/12016
PR LINK 9/16/2016
PR LINK 9/16/2016
Cityo/k?fli p .J di
Agenda Item No: 4-B
Mtg. Date: 10/10/16
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
9262016 - CHECK RUN A
PAYEE
JOBS AVAILABLE
KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS
LA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
MANERI SIGN CO., INC.
MCGOWAN CONSULTING
OPUS BANK
PALOS VERDES SECURITY SYS, INC
REMOTE SATELLITE SYS INTL
THE GAS COMPANY
USCM
VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS -
CALPERS
CIVICPLUS
DELTA DENTAL
PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING
PR LINK - PAYROLL 16 & PR TAXES
Total
DESCRIPTION
ADVERTISING -ASST PLANNER
PRINTER/COPIER
TRAFFIC DEPUTY
NEW POST FOR LEFT TURN SIGN
STORM WATER MGMT CONSULTING
VISA CREDIT CARD
SECURITY MONITORING
MONTHLY SERVICE FEE
SEPT SERVICES
DEFERRED COMP 9-30-16
DEFERRED COMPENSATION 9-30-16
OCTOBER INSURANCE PREMIUM
QUARTERLY HOSTING AND SERVICE FEE
OCTOBER INSURANCE PREMIUM
Processing Fee '
Pay Period - August 17, 2016 Through August 30, 2016
I, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager ofRolling Hills, California certify that the above demands
are accurate and there is available in the General Fund a balance of 557,991.71 (ar the payment
of above inns. C'Raytno d R C City anager •
• Previously Disbursed
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FM: (310) 3777288
AMOUNT
351.00
85.88
24,828.64
81.76
3,209.10
2,361.60
237.00
97.90
19.07
2,760.00
364.00
5662.69
1,382.41
523.25
47.45
15,979.96
S 57,991.71
U.9NJo
0
Printed on Recycled Pope,
CHECK CHECK
NO. DATE
24506 10/10/2016
24507 10/102016
24508 10/102016
24509 10/102016
24510 10/102016
24511 10/102016
24512 10/10/2016
24513 10/102016
24514 10/10/2016
24515 10/10/2016
24516 10/10/2016
24517 10/10/2016
24518 10/10/2016
24519 10/10/2016
24520 10/10/2016
24521 10/102016
24522 10/102016
24523 10/10/16
• PR LINK 9/30/16
* PR LINK 9)30/16
Cttt o//eo�� 44/��
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
10/102016 -CHECK RUN
PAYEE DESCRIPTION
CALIFORNIA JPIA
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO.
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COX COMMUNICATIONS
EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC.
FOUNTAINHEAD CONSULTING INC.
PACIFIC COAST LANDSCAPE
ROGERS, ANDERSON, MALODY
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY
TERMINIX
USCM
VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS -
VISION SERVICE PLAN - (CA)
WILLDAN INC.
XEROX CORPORATION
VOID
PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING
PR LINK - PAYROLL 16 & PR TAXES
Total
•
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 3771521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
AMOUNT
ALL RISK PROPERTY INS PRGM 481.00
SEPT WATER BILL -CITY HALL 1,231.39
CLEEP GRANT FUNDS -CAMERA 48,140.27
SEPT INTERNET/PHONE 90.34
SEPT JANITORIAL SERVICES 490.00
OCTOBER CONSULTING 516.00
SEPT LANDSCAPE MAINT 565.00
AUGUST MONTHLY ACCTG SVC 6,855.00
CROSSING GUARD SUMMER SCHOOL 291.81
SEPT ELECTRIC BILL 1,508.93
OCTOBER LIFE INS PREMIUM 201.49
AUGUST PEST CONTROL 50.00
OCT 14 DEFERRED COMP PRGRM 1,380.00
DEFERRED COMP PRGM-OCT 182.00
OCT VISION PREMIUM 80.95
B&S PLAN CHECK INSPECTION SVC 1,687.50
SEPT BASE CHARGE -COPIER 37.00
CHECK PRINTING ERROR -
Processing Fee 57.45
Pay Period - September 14, 2016 through September 27, 2016 16,932.70
I, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, C tfomia certify that the above demands arc
accurate and there is available in the General Fund a
items.
Raymond ruz, City Manager
• Previously Disbursed
lance of $80,778.83 for the payment of above
S 80,778.83
63,118.68
C)
Printed on Recycled Paper
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL
ALLIED WASTE RECYCLE NOW REPORT
Report Date:
2016
MONTH
2016
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Year to Date Totals:
Average Monthly Totals:
2016
RECYCLED
(tons)
74.63
82.00
83.40
86.74
120.19
100.07
85.65
105.38
738.07
92.26
GREEN WASTE
(tons)
83.74
66.79
106.96
100.87
102.06
96.02
103.09
104.95
764.48
95.56
C&D C&D Disposal Diversion
Recycled Disposed Tonnage
4.33
1.85
151.42
51.49%
3.20
1.37
155.47
49.22%
11.44
4.10
134.50
59.28%
4.97
1.37
118.77
61.58%
35.79
12.62
163.93
59.38%
52.70
19.13
134.20
61.87%
113.19
41.37
124.30
64.57%
57.46
18.35
150.33
61.35%
-
-
-
0.00%
-
0.00%
-
-
-
0.00%
-
-
-
0.00%
283.07
35.38
100.17
1,132.91
315.97
308.83
340.40
312.72
434.59
402.12
467.60
436.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
59.15%
12.52 141.61
0.59
MONTHLY
TOTALS (tons)
3,018.70
377.34
RECEIVED
SEP 12 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
al,ragast9 d=ie¢
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310)377-1521
FAX (310)377-7288
Item No.: 5-A
Mtg. Date: 10/10/16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR y
THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER f ''v
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2016-21. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A COVERED PORCH WITH AN OUT -OF -GRADE
CONDITION AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND A VARIANCE TO
ENCROACH WITH A SET ASIDE AREA FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL INTO THE
SIDE SETBACK, INCLUDING WITH A PORTION OF AN EXISTING SHED IN
ZONING CASE NO. 909 AT 7 SOUTHFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 4 -SF), ROLLING HILLS,
CA (KLERMAN).
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 Mr. and Mrs. Klerman request a Site Plan Review and Variance
for a 700 square foot deck, 380 square feet of which would be above ground by 2.5' in
height, and for a Variance to retain a portion of an existing shed in the side yard setback
and to set aside a 1,000 square foot area for a future stable and corral in the side yard
setback. In addition, a 232 square foot attached trellis, 34 square foot barbecue, and a 36
square foot water feature will be constructed which could be approved
administratively.
3. The Planning Commission held public hearings to consider the application in the
field on August 16, 2016 and an evening meeting on the same day, and after a
modification to the project held a public hearing on September 20, 2016 at their regular
meeting. On September 20, 2016 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2016-21
by a vote of 3-0 with Commissioner Kirkpatrick abstaining due to the fact that he lives
Z.C. No. 909 - 7 Southfield Dr.
e
in vicinity of the subject site and Commissioner Seaburn also abstaining, due to the fact
that September 20th was his first meeting as a newly appointed Commissioner.
The Planning Commission found that the project is not obtrusive, that it fits on the lot
and that it utilizes the sloped condition of the lot. They found that due to the
topography of the lot and the location of the residence on a small pad, there is no other
place than the somewhat flat area around the bend of the driveway to locate a set aside
area for the stable and corral or to improve the property in any way. They also found
that this project would correct drainage on the lot, eliminate currently existing but
cracked short retaining wall and the covered porch would not be visible from any
neighbors.
4. Originally, the applicant requested a Variance to waive the requirement for a set
aside for a stable and corral, as the lot is very steep. However, the Planning Commission
suggested that the applicant propose a location for the stable and corral in the vicinity
of an existing shed, rather than apply for a variance to not to set aside an area for
equestrian uses. It was noted that the potential set aside area is in the side yard setback,
and a new hearing for a variance to locate a set aside area for a stable and corral in the
setback was held and properly noticed.
5. During the Planning Commission proceedings it was also noted that the 200
square foot shed was built without building permits and in order to retain the structure
the owners would be required to obtain a building permit. The applicants propose to
reduce the size of the shed to two smaller sheds, in which case a building permit would
not be required; a 49 square foot shed and a 118 square foot shed for a total of 167
square feet, separated by a trellis. Pursuant to the zoning code, administrative approval
may be granted for up to 2 sheds, each not exceeding 120 s.f. and not in setbacks. (A
variance is requested for a small portion of one of them to remain in the side setback).
The RHCA Architectural Committee approved the shed modification.
BACKGROUND
6. The property is zoned RAS-1 and consists of 2.6 acres gross (113,256 sq. ft.) and
100,726 sq.ft. net lot area for development purposes. The property is accessed through a
property on Ringbit Road W., and has a long steep driveway that bisects the lot, and
overall steep topography that does not lend itself easily to equestrian amenities.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to provide a stable and corral set aside
in the flattest portion of the lot, which is in the northern side setback. Other locations
were studied and found not to be feasible for a stable and corral area. The property
slopes downwards from Southfield Drive from 1,100 -foot elevation to 970 elevation at
the building pad, and then to 920 elevation at the rear property line.
7. Currently the property is developed with a 3,113 square foot residence, 440
square foot garage, a 60 square foot spa, 390 square feet of breezeway, and a 96 square
foot service yard on an 11,924 square foot building pad area, and the disturbed area is
17.3% of the net lot, (40% max.).
Z.C. No. 909 - 7 Southfield Dr.
O
8. No changes are proposed to the existing configuration of the lot or the structures,
except for the 700 square foot deck, 380 square feet of which would be above ground by
2.5' in height. A not to exceed 30" high retaining wall will be constructed along the
edge of the deck together with caissons. The caissons will be constructed below ground
and are not part of the visible portion of the retaining wall.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
9. The net lot area of the lot is 100,726 square feet. The structural lot coverage is
proposed at 5,382 square feet or 5.3% of the net lot area, which includes all of the
structures and permissible deductions, (20% permitted). The total lot coverage
proposed, including structures and flatwork is 15,097 square feet or 15.0% of the net lot
area, (35% permitted). The driveway is over 7,770 square feet in area, which contributes
to the total lot coverage. The applicant proposes to add approximately 790 square foot
of hardscape.
10. The residential building pad is 11,924 square feet. Coverage on this building pad
will be 5,776 square feet or 43.4%, including the stable. Currently the building pad
coverage is 39.8%. The building pad will be enlarged by 474 square feet for the out -of -
grade porch.
11. The property slopes in a westerly direction and all of the drainage is carried
down -slope. No change to the drainage pattern is proposed, although drainage pipes
will be properly connected to carry the water to the canyon below, which will be
reviewed by Building Dept. drainage engineer.
12. In response for justification for the Variance request for the stable and corral, the
applicant's agent states that due to the slope and configuration of the lot and the
location of the building pad towards the rear of the lot, there is no available reasonably
sloped area elsewhere to set aside or construct a stable and corral.
13. This is a unique lot in that it has a driveway that is very long on steep
topography. The building pad and the residence sits in the rear, with no area further
back for a stable and corral. The front of the lot is undisturbed, other than for the
driveway and if a stable was to be constructed, it would have to be constructed in the
front, which requires a Variance and the front is too steep to accommodate equestrian
facilities.
14. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission considers
whether the proposed project is consistent with the criteria for Site Plan Review and
Variances enumerated below.
15. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Z.C. No. 909 - 7 Southfield Dr.
ZONING CASE NO. 909
SITE PLAN REVIEW
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Covered porch, attached
trellis, BBQ, water feature, set
aside in setback
RAS- 1 ZONE SETBACKS
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE
ABOVE GRADE DECK &
VARIANCE FOR
STABLE/CORRAL
LOCATION
Front: 50 ft. from front easement
line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
STRUCTURES
Residence
Garage
Spa
Breezeway
Service yd
Cov. porch
BBQ
Att. Trellis
Water feat.
Shed
3113 sq.ft
440 sq.ft.
60 sq.ft
390 sq.ft.
96 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft.
0 sq.ft.
0 sq. ft
200 sq.ft.
Residence
Garage
Spa
Breezeway
Service yd.
Cov. porch
BBQ
Att. Trellis
Water feats.
Sheds
Stable/future
3113 sq.ft
440 sq.ft
60 sq.ft.
390 sq.ft
96 sq.ft.
700 sq.ft.
'34 sq.ft
232 sq.ft.
36 sq. ft.
167 sq.ft.
450 sq.ft.
(Site Plan Review required for new
structures and if size of structure
increases by more than 999 sq. ft.
in a 36 -month period), swimming
pool, out of grade deck and others).
TOTAL
4,299 sq.ft.
TOTAL
5,684 sq.ft
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE
4.3%
5.6% of 100,726 sq.ft. net lot
area; with allowed
deductions 5.3%
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
13.1%
15.0% of 100,726 sq.ft: net lot
area w/deductions
(35% maximum)
BUILDING PAD COVERAGE
39.8% of 11,450 sq.ft.
pad
43.4% of 11,924 sq.ft. pad
RESIDENTIAL
(30% maximum guideline)
GRADING
N/A
NONE
Site plan review required if
excavation and/or fill or
combination thereof is more than 3
feet and covers more than 2,000
sq. ft., must be balanced on site
DISTURBED AREA .
17,250 sq.ft. — 17.1% of
17,450 sq.ft. — 17.3% of lot
(40% maximum; any graded
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary disturbance),
any graded slopes and building pad
areas, and any nongraded area
where impervious surfaces exist.)
STABLE (minimum 450 sa. ft.) and .
Future in side setback
CORRAL (minimum 550 sq. ft.)
STABLE ACCESS
Future from exst. drwy
ACCESSWAY
Existing from Ringbit W.
Existing from Ringbit W.
VIEWS
N/A
N/A
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
N/A
N/A
Z.C. No. 909 - 7 Southfield Dr.
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
1846.010 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.
1846.050 Required findings.
A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally
approve, or deny a site plan review application. •
B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the
Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be
made:
1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the
general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by
minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as
maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the
existing buildable area of the lot;
3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and
surrounding residences;
4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent
possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize
the amount of grading required to create the building area;
6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow,
unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and
supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with
and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or
transition area between private and public areas;
8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement
of pedestrians and vehicles; and
9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Z.C. No. 909 - 7 Southfield Dr.
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make
the following findings: •
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone;
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is
denied the property in question;
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous
Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
Z.C. No. 909 - 7 Southfield Dr.
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR A COVERED PORCH WITH AN OUT -OF -GRADE CONDITION
AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH
WITH A SET ASIDE AREA FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL INTO THE
SIDE SETBACK, INCLUDING WITH A PORTION OF AN EXISTING
SHED IN ZONING CASE NO. 909 AT 7 SOUTHFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 4 -
SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (KLERMAN).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Klerman for a 700
square foot deck, 380 square feet of which would be above ground by 2.5' in height, and
for a Variance to retain a portion of an existing shed in the side yard setback and to set
aside a 1,000 square foot area for a future stable and corral in the side yard setback.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings
to consider the application on August 16, 2016 at a field trip and an evening meeting on
the same day and on September 20, 2016 at their regular meeting. The applicants were
notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and
presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of
the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied
said proposal. The applicants' representative was in attendance at the public hearings.
Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-1 and consists of 2.6 acres gross
(113,256 sq. ft.) and 100,726 sq.ft. net lot area for development purposes. The property is
accessed through a property on Ringbit Road W., and has a long steep driveway that
bisects the lot, and overall steep topography that does not lend itself easily to equestrian
amenities. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to provide a stable and
corral set aside in the fltest portionof the lot, whci would be in the side yard setback.
The property slopes downwards from Southfield Drive from 1,100 foot elevation to 970
elevation at the building pad, and then to 920 elevation at the rear property line.
In August 2010, the applicant was approved for a lot line adjustment to move the
common property line between 7 Southfield and 5 Ringbit West where 11,168 square
feet of northerly portion of 5 Ringbit Road was transferred to 7 Southfield Drive
increasing the size of the lot from 90,912 square feet to 102,080 square feet, 2.34 acres net
(100,726 square feet for development purposes).
Section 4. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines.
Reso. 2016-21
7 Southfield
1 o
Section 5. Sections 17.46.020 requires a development plan to be submitted for
Site Plan Review for decks with an out -of -grade condition of more than 12". With
respect to the Site Plan Review application for the 700 square foot deck, 380 square feet
of which will be above ground by 2.5', the Planning Commission makes the following
findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan and
surrounding uses because the proposed project complies with the requirement of low
profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between
surrounding structures. The project conforms with all development standard
requirements for lot coverage and disturbance of the Zoning Ordinance. There is no
grading required. The deck will be located behind the residence and slopes will
maintain their natural terrain. The out -of -grade condition of 2.5' will not be seen by
surrounding properties. A 30" retaining wall and caissons will be constructed at the
edge of the deck for its support. The wall will be screened by landscaping so as to
reduce the visual impact of the development. The deck will be located in a flat area
behind the house on a portion of the property away from any other residence and street
and while it may be visible from the property across the canyon, with landscaping and
its low profile, it will not be obtrusive.
B. The 'development plan substantially preserves the natural and
undeveloped state of the lot because the new improvements will not cause the lot to
look overdeveloped. The proposed development will be located on an area that is
already flat and to the rear of the residence. Significant portions of the 2.6 acre lot will
be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property and the natural
rolling hill terrain. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings,
and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the construction
will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or
structures because the proposed improvements will be constructed on a portion of the
lot which is least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped
with plants and shrubs, is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the
proposed project will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors.
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and
mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. The proposed
project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood, as it is on a large lot. The lot
coverage maximums set forth in the Zoning Code will not be exceeded.
D. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to the
maximum extend practicable to accomplish groomed and usable areas of the lot.
Natural drainage courses will not be affected by the project. Grading will not modify
existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow. The project is not located in a
canyon or on existing slopes that exceed 25%.
Reso. 2016-21
7 Southfield
2 ®
E. The project preserves much of the existing vegetation elsewhere on the lot
and will introduce drought -tolerant 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. A landscaping plan will be
filed with the City.
F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed
development will utilize the existing driveway.
Section 6. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code permit approval of a Variance granting relief from the standards and
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property prevent the owner from making use of a parcel
of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity or
zone. In requesting relief from Section 17.18.060, stables and corrals are not to be
located in setbacks; the applicant advises that the property "has no abilities to support a
pad for a stable and corral elsewhere on the property." In addition a very small portion
of an existing shed that will otherwise be brought to compliance with the zoning code,
encroaches into the yard area set aside for the stable.
A. With respect to the aforementioned requests for Variance, the Planning
Commission finds that there are exceptional circumstances and conditions on the
subject property due to the steep topography there is no ability to grade and create a
pad for the stable/corral elsewhere on the lot.
B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and
zone but which is denied to the property in question by strict application of the code.
To the steep topography of the lot and the already developed building pad, the
property is not compatible with the requirement for horse facilities that could be located
in a conforming location. The set aside includes a very small portion of an existing 200
square foot shed that will be retrofitted to a 118 square foot shed to comply with the
building code requirements.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located, as the site identification for a stable and corral in the
side setback will not affect others in the city. Currently, the applicants have no plans to
construct said equestrian facilities. The small shed has been on the property for many
years and is not intrusive or takes away from the equestrian area, but is a part thereof.
D. The Variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of
Rolling Hills because the property complies with the General Plan requirement of low
Reso. 2016-21
7 Southfield
3 9
profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between
surrounding structures. The property is located on the edge of a canyon to the rear of
the lot and due to the large size of the properties and sloped conditions there is large
open space between any structures on subject property and the adjacent properties.
E. The Variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous
waste facilities.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Site Plan Review and Variance in Zoning Case No. 909 for new a
700 square foot deck, 380 square feet of which would be above ground by 2.5' in height,
and a variance to provide a set aside area for a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square
foot corral in the side yard setback as well as to retain an existing shed partially in the
side setback, subject to the conditions specified below. A 232 square foot attached trellis,
34 square foot barbecue, and a 36 square foot water feature will be approved
administratively.
A. The Site Plan and Variance approvals shall expire within two years from
the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not
commenced within that time period, as required by Section 17.38.070 and 17.46.080 of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended
pursuant to the requirements of these sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions
thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted
thereunder shall lapse; provided that the City has given the applicants 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, LA County Building Code and of the zone in which the subject property is
located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the 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 September 9, 2016, except as otherwise provided in these
conditions.
E. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety for plan check review must conform with the development plan approved with
this application. A copy of the conditions of this Resolution shall be printed on plans
Reso. 2016-21
7 Southfield
4 o
approved when a building permit is issued and a copy of such approved plans,
including conditions of approval, shall be available on the building site at all times.
F. Prior to obtaining a building permit a landscaping plan shall be submitted
for the screening of the retaining wall to the Planning Department.
G. 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. Any plants introduced for this project shall not grow
into a hedge but be offset. 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.
H. A drainage plan, if required, shall be prepared and submitted to the City's
Building Department for review and approval, and the project shall comply with their
requirements. The applicants, at all times, shall maintain the drainage devices in good
working condition and free of debris and vegetation.
I. 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 with this Resolution approving this project and including conformance
with all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning
Ordinance.
Further, the person obtaining a building permit for this project shall execute a
Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this
Resolution and any plans approved therewith.
J. There shall be no grading for this project, however excavation for
caissons and footings shall be allowed.
K. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 5,684 square feet, or 5.6% and
with allowable deductions, 5,382 sq.ft. or 5.3%. Total lot coverage shall not exceed
15.0% or 15,097 square feet, as approved by this Variance. Building Pad coverage on the
11,924 square foot residential pad shall not exceed 43.4%, with allowable deductions,
and includes the future stable (450 sq.ft.)
L. Disturbance for the residence, garage, spa, breezeway, service yard,
covered porch and other structures will not exceed 17,450 square feet or 17.3%
M. The unpermitted shed on the property shall be retrofitted to be in
compliance with the zoning and building department requirements and the small
portion of the shed in the setback may remain, as per the variance approval.
Reso. 2016-21
7 Southfield
5 ®
N. 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.
O. Should the existing electrical panel be upgraded or relocated, pursuant
to Section 17.27.030 of the zoning ordinance, all utility lines shall be placed
underground.
P. 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.
Q. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project
site and there shall be no parking on the common driveway. During construction, to
maximum extend feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City.
R. 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.
S. 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
management.
T. A minimum of 50% of the construction material spoils shall be recycled
and diverted. The hauler shall provide the appropriate documentation to the City.
U. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association (RHCA) Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance
of building permit. Perimeter 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 RHCA.
V. 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
Reso. 2016-21
7 Southfield
be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire
distinguisher.
W. Until the applicants execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions
of this approval, the approvals shall not be effective. Such affidavit shall be recorded
together with the resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20 D s ,1F SEP - -ER 2016.
HELF,
ATTEST,.
1E)
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. 2016-21
7 Southfield
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
) §§
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-21 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A
COVERED PORCH WITH AN OUT -OF -GRADE CONDITION AND
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH A
SET ASIDE AREA FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL INTO THE SIDE SETBACK,
INCLUDING WITH A PORTION OF AN EXISTING SHED IN ZONING CASE
NO. 909 AT 7 SOUTHFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 4 -SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA
(KLERMAN).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
September 20, 2016 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick and Chairman Chelf.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Seaburn.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
Reso. 2016-21
7 Southfield
CITY CLERK
8
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 6-A
Mtg. Date: 10/10/16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER I"
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
DATE PUBLISHED:
ZONING CASE NO. 902
23 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 132A -MS)
RA -S-2, 6.02 ACRES (EXCL. ROADWAY EASEMENT)
MW JIM HYNES
TAVISHA NICHOLSON, BOLTON ENGINEERING
SEPTEMBER 22, 2016
RECOMMENDATION AND PREVIOUS REVIEWS
1. It is recommended that the City Council review the staff report, take public
testimony and provide direction to staff.
Members of the City Council visited the site on October 4, 2016. Councilmember Mirsch
visited the site with staff and applicants' engineer on October 7, 2016.
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.
3. On August 16, 2016 meeting the Planning Commission approved this project. The
City Council took the project under jurisdiction at their September 12 meeting and
scheduled a field trip to the property on October 4, 2016. Cases taken under jurisdiction
require City Council's de novo hearing and consideration. The public hearings before
the City Council was properly noticed in the newspaper and neighbors within 1,000 -
foot radius were notified of the hearings.
4. At the City Council field trip public hearing residents who reside below the
proposed development, as during the previous Planning Commission and City Council
meetings, expressed concerns regarding stability, erosion and mostly water run-off
from the proposed project and the impact on the downhill properties. Both, Lisa
Naslund, City's grading and drainage engineer and the applicants' engineer discussed
the building code requirements of post development storm water handling on
properties, what studies and reports would be required and the issues that the
reviewing engineer would be looking at.
Members of the Council directed the City's engineer to address several issues including
a letter from a resident, Mr. Partridge, who is a Civil Engineer. The City engineer,
(County staff), is unavailable to attend the October 10, 2016 City Council meeting, but
will prepare a response to Council's questions.
Concern was also expressed whether such large grading activity for this development
would cause movement and cracking on the properties below and whether it can be
prevented.
5. Enclosed with this report is the correspondence received previously from residents
and 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 prepared by the applicants' engineer. 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 and slow down more run-off on site post construction
than what is currently draining.
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, also included.
BACKGROUND
6. 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.
ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
10. 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.
11. 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, 25' long and 4' in diameter
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 runoff would first pass through a pre-
treatment system and then enter into the cisterns storage barrels. In order to distribute
the runoff between the cisterns, a pipe connects the barrels. 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 exceeds the storage capacity of the tanks, the water will flow through
an overflow pipe and be slowly discharged through the dissipaters.
ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E.
In the previously proposed request to subdivide the lot (since withdrawn), the
applicants have also 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.
LA County grading/drainage engineer and the building official were present at one of
the Planning Commission meetings and described their role in reviewing proposed
developments. The engineer provided information on drainage requirements for new
construction, which is enclosed. The proposed drainage method will have to meet
building code requirements, together with compliance with the 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).
12. 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
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.
13. A 1,300 square feet stable - 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 and a proposed (for pedestrians) 780 square foot stairway
with 3' high maximum walls that 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.
ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E.
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
door
Condition of approval.
Loft is permitted
Loft; proposed for tack room purposes
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
contiguous 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 or sleeping in the stable
The applicant must comply with all other requirements of Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to stables, as well as to all other regulations including, but not be
limited to undergrounding of utility lines to the structures, lighting, roof material, Fire
Department requirements and others.
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
ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E.
cp
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.
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.
14. 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 in 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
This is a standard condition of
approval.
ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E.
(6)
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.
Renting of a guesthouse is prohibited.
This is a standard condition of
approval.
15. The proposed disturbed area of the lot will be 101,090 square feet or 38.53%, of
the net lot area, which is very close to 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 785
cubic yards will 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.
Maximum 2:1 slopes will be created between the roadway easement and the residential
building pad, between the back of the pool decking and the stable/guest house building
pad and the areas to the east and west thereof.
16. 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
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.
17. 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.
18. Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date.
19. When reviewing a development application the City Council should consider
whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review and Conditional
Use Permit, included with this report.
ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E.
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
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit.
The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use
permit application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the
project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and
meets the provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the
hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with the following
principles and standards:
A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan;
B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings
and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be
materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures;
C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and
shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed;
D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable
development standards of the zone district;
E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for
hazardous waste facilities;
F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this
title.
ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E. G8)
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
17.46.010 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.
17.46.050 Required findings.
A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application.
B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by
the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be
made:
1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and
policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are
regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon
the existing buildable area of the lot;
3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the
natural terrain and surrounding residences;
4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the
greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding
native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and
knolls);
5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site
and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area;
6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect
drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature
trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is
compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping
provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas;
8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe
movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and
9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E.
ZONING CASE NO. 902, 23 Crest Road East
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE PLAN REVIEW
EXISTING
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED
PROPOSED
APPROVED 13Y THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
RA -S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS
VACANT LOT
NEW RESIDENCE WITH
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES,
SPORTS COURT, DETACHED
GARAGE, GUEST HOUSE
NEW RESIDENCE WITH
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, GUEST
HOUSE, ATTACHED GARAGES,
POOL AND STABLE
Front: 50 ft. from front easement line
Side: 35 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from rear easement line
STRUCTURES
Residence
Basement
Garage attached
Garage attached
Pool/spa
Pool Equip.
Stable
Recreation Court
Att. Cov. Porches
Trellis
Outdoor Kitchen
Service yard
0 sq.ft.
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft
Residence
*Basement
Garage attached
Garage detached
Pool/spa
Pool Equip.
Stable (future)
Recreation Court
Att. Cov. Porches
Entryway
Trellises
Outdoor Kitchen
Service Yard
11,500 sq.ft.
11,500 sq.ft.
770 sq.ft.
770 sq.ft.
900 sq.ft.
50 sq.ft.
450 sq.ft
7,150 sq.ft
2,430 sq.ft.
410 sq.ft.
400 sq.ft.
510 sq.ft.
96 sq.ft
Residence
*Basement
Garage attached
Garage attached
Pool/spa
Pool Equip.
Stable
Guest House
Att.Cov.Porches
Trellises
Outdoor Kitchen
Service Yard
11,100 sq.ft.
11,100 sq.ft.
770 sq.ft.
770 sq.ft.
864 sq.ft.
50 sq.ft.
1,300 sq.ft
800 sq.ft
2,654 sq.ft.
400 sq.ft.
270 sq.ft.
96 sq.ft
(Site Plan Review required if size of
structure increases by at least 1,000
sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing
the size of the structure by more than
25% in a 36 -month period).
TOTAL
0 sq.ft.
TOTAL 25,436 sq.ft.
TOTAL
19,074 sq.ft
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE
0%
24,916 sf w/allowances 9.5% of
262,368 sq.ft. net lot area
18,554 sf w/allowances 7.1% of
262,368 sq.ft net lot area
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
0%
44,841 w/allowances or 17.1% of
262,368 sq.ft. net lot area
36,684 w/allowances or 14.0% of
262,368 sq.ft. net lot area
(35% maximum)
BUILDING PADS (30% guideline)
N/A
N/A
34.1% of 48,780 sq.ft. pad
71.36% of 10,650 sq.ft pad
32.55% of 47,325 sq.ft. pad
21.5% of 11,100 sq.ft pad
Residential
Guesthouse
GRADING
N/A
12,510 cy cut,12,510 cy fill, 19,500
cy overexcavation, 19,500 cy
recompaction = balanced on site.
51,625 c.y. total;12,455 cy cut,11,670
cy fill, 13,750 cy overexcavation,
13,750 cy recompaction = 785 cy to be
exported
Site Plan Review required if
excavation and/or fill or combination
thereof that is more than 3 feet in
depth and covers more than 2,000
sq.ft.) must be balanced on site.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
EXISTING
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED
PROPOSED
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
DISTURBED AREA
N/A
39.99% (104,915sq.ft. of the net lot
area)
38.5% (101,090 sq.ft. of the net lot
area)
(40% maximum; any graded building
pad area, any remedial grading
(temporary disturbance), any graded
slopes and building pad areas, and
any nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist.)
STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT.
N/A
450 sq. ft. FUTURE
550 sq. ft.
1,300 sq. ft. (with 792 sq. ft. loft)
2,250 sq. ft.
& 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL)
STABLE ACCESS
N/ A
Proposed from Crest Rd.
Proposed from Crest Road
ROADWAY ACCESS
N/ A
Off Crest Road East -
Off Crest Road East
VIEWS
N/A
Planning Commission condition
CC condition
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
N/A
Planning Commission condition
CC condition
"Basements are not included in calculation for structural square footage.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
JUL 1.1 2015
City of Rolling Hills
By
SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION
ED BY: BOLTON ENGINEERING
DATE: JULY 9, 2016
STORMWATER RUNOFF
CALCULATION SUMMARY
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
a11.n1:
JAMES P. HYNES WANG TRUST E25834 ngineering Cap. te 21t
4147 MARITIME ROAD Lanita, Ca. 90717
RANCHO PAWS VERDES, CA 90274 Phone: (310) 325-5580
Fax (310) 325-5581
J: \13315_Hynes\dwg\C—Site PIan_2016_G.dwg 7/8/2016 2.28:43 PM
a�.nnmw
ASSIOAN
owe ,.
s mts
Am 16,
ROOF RUNOFF COLLECTED
R GUTTERS AND INTO DOWNSPGU
MUM DRAIN TO
COLLECT RUNOFF
AT BASE OF MU
MD HOW TO PREVENT WATER .
FROM GOING OVER nu SERE
UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE LIKE.
ALL ORATES MD DOWNSPOUTS
FANNER TO DRS.
EW RESIDENCE
RUNOFF COLLECTED IN
GUTTERS AND INTO DOWNSPOUTS
RNLSIED GRADE
RIVEWAV CATOI BASIN. CGLECTS
DRIVEWAY AND PARSING PAD RUNOFF
PRETREATMENT
SYSTEM\ — fl LIMN CIES
0
10r0 UNDERGROUND OS
EACH 6S' LONG
CONNECTING PIP
CUTLET TD PUM
MP MAYPOLE 90114 CIS1FANS
CONFECT TO THIS AND CURET IS
IRRIGATION W OTHER APPROVED
DSOIMGE
is LINNG
! QODE
PIPE TO
OURET STRUCTURE
ON COMM
CURET STRUCTURE
FOR OVERFLOW.
smito
CODE
W WYE MARC DIAGRAM
STORMWATER RUNOFF
33 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLDIG 1403$ CAS 2T4
H13310)Mws osICM• Pm1JNe_GQAP Try 12%e em1G AM
UAES P.NYHES LMNG TRUST
4147 MMETIIE ROAD
RANCHO PMTS VERDES. CA S0274
na engineeeno Coin 4.1.
Lott. U 07717 o 66 310
Lott �. mA
§
\Q
)
•
' \ « y7 �`
)\\\ �; i
/�\
/ '|%
|/
\ \Z
�ƒ i ®` |� |
t OTPAlatall1021103,1•11111•110•11:NIS1 11 •0111111OltieS• Lballnlileinliiii•M LNOLMS11110,471 .01111 NO/MR.
C
9
nu 40:
ERo
1ZZ
0
0
O
N
0
!
i
s
0
F
E
I
0
e
E
C
8
2
i
8p
Ei
om
5
Hydrology 8 Hydraulics: 25 Tear Storm
Loth= go)
tot Me (ewes)
Doabpod Ma WabnSed (.2.)
DMbpod Arm v14YNad (®m)
Stratums NI)
Memoepo(Ur
Ted, SfrI D1I4 HoryesP
Inpe'te (%)
u+derebned lot
577,314
7.056
377,314
7.0550
0
%DD
B,aD
1.8911
ProPved Development
377,914
708
377.314
7.0550
18014
24,137
41221
14.06%
Notes
Arcing Eras Ste
Analyze Entre Site
. Portion d Crest Road an Property
Rev Past (N
°sopsdEbwaen(5
SHM (%1
EEO
245
25.70%
1229
245
20.08%
Legged mw pee es noel b reach
= verpvice paired tee capon stream
below pojoct.lb.
Cu
Cd
To (mlo)
Flow Rae (cb)
Malone (1 13)
0.8188
005®
7
13D
38733
0%E
0.8410
8
11.87
( 44,42
Mpao In Flee Rob (do)
baeo. in Vane NCO
STORAGE TANK NEEDS TO
STORE AMAIIMOM OF
-1E5
7,844
7,944 FTS OF RUNOFF
53,87! OF RUNOFF
llmwbped Rwsot Caala,mt
Dewbpod RwarCcdSsre
The of Corcontatbn
Item N low p.5, brgpt = decrease b
.lope end floe rob
PIPE OWOETER (00
120
CONTECN URSANGREEN BRPE CISTERN 812240 OptIon t
LENGTH OF PIPE (FT)
58
CHECK:
NUMBER OF PIPES
2
85,888
AVAILABLE STORAGE PER LF. (GALAS)
569.87
4 )58,873
PROVDED STORAGE CAP CRY (GAL)
4050
OK
PIPE DLAETER (1ro)
84
CONTECR URBANGREEN SRPE CISTERN MENG Opttoe 2
LENGTH OF PPE (FT� NUADER OF PPES
CHECK:
58
4
64,888
AVALVBLE STORAGE PER LF. (GAVLF)
278.74
X58073
PROVIDED STORAGE CAPACITY (GAL)
84,®
OK
Rain Event
Stonn(Year)
Undeveloped
Developed
pee vs Post
%otastern Yuma It
On Storing
Difference In Pre Vs.
a n" %Minrna
xor Volume
(Difference of Pre vs
Post) Stored by
nom,.
Additional Volume Stored
(Above Difference In Pre vs
Cubic Feet
Flow Rate (cfs)
24Hr Volume (ft3)
Flow Rate (cfs)
24 Hr Volume (ft3)
Flow Rate (Os)
24 Hr Volume (R3)
16 Post)
4139
15583
9.350
-0.0417
3,211
36.40%
' 100%
5,611
2
101
9,675
28384
13,917
-0.1715
4,242
48.06%
100%
4,580
5
6.47
18,486
6
24,424
-0.47
5,938
67.31%
100%
2,884
10
9.W2
25,769
8377
32,653
-0825
6,884
7803%
100%
1,958
25
13.42
36,708
11.8]
44,552
-LS
7,647
8891%
150%
978
50
1553
46,111
10.56
54.525
-0.97
8,414
95.376
WO%
408
11)3
19.2
5/642
16546
65456
-2YA
8,814
9891%
%
8
500
26.84
82,959
20.466
92,492
-2.374
9,533
]0806%
92.54%
0
LALCULATION SUMMARY
STORMWATER RUNOFF
as east ROM EAST
ROLLING KILLS. CA50274
Jd1d015JIpe.N.ease. PIaJ010_OLwa 092016 22203 PM
. W.ae P. HYNES W MG TRUST
4147 MMHTWE ROAD
RMILHG PAWS VOO7ES CA 50274
germ enotesedee Cm.
16114 Noncom Menus 6a 210
Lanh.C. 80717
Rom (310)3254M
Fec plBea4%1
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
Fie laratiirt:x73315_Hyrteypppimanisaydypyogy_Entile Stte2l Crest Road East - un-0o doped_25 Year w road.pdt
Version: HydroCetc 0.3.1 -beta
Input Parameters
Project Name
Subarea ID
Area (ac)
Flow Path Length (ft)
Flow Path Slope (vftitift)
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-
r, e
it
A e-
2-
0
Hydrograph (23 Crest Road East Un-Developed_25 Year)
200 400 600 600 1000
Time (minutes)
1200
1400 1600
7111.:
UN —DEVELOPED 25 YEAR
CALCULATION SUMMARY
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS. CA 90274
\13315_1ynes\dwg\C—Site PIan_2016_G.dwg 7/8/2016 2:29:13 PM
ell.nl:
JAMS P. HYNES LIYUNG TRUST plie
4147 MARITIME ROAD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA 90274
Baton 25834 Nehru ee Acme sertng �Ste. 21
lanito, Co. 90717
Phone (310) 325-5580
Fax (310) 325-5581
=+dft, Mlle
+� tau
Oval 1 OP.
CIS
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File lmatim: J113315_Hynos/Documente/Hydrology_Entrm Site/23 Crest Road East - Developed_25 Year toad pol
Velalm: HytlroCek 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 n/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
e-
Hydrograph (23 Crest Road East: Developed_25 Year)
400 600 600 1000
Time (minutes)
1200
1400 1600
DEVELOPED 25 YEAR STORM =is P. HYNES t1W4G TRUST
CALCULATIONS 4147 MARITIME ROAD
23 CREST ROAD EAST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90274
ROWNG HILLS, CA 90274
s \13315J1ynes\drg\C—Site Plan_2016_G.dtvg 7/8/2016 2.29:08 PM
25834Bolton NaarrbminraeplaCorp.Stt. 21
Lomita. Ca 90717
Phone (310) 325-5580
Fat (3101325-5581
a•wne 3315
:neelorel
Dram: TIN
xh 13315
Mat 1 a1
TI 1.:
HYDROLOGIC MAP
thj)51 .
-- i
J�
1...L.0).
, Y 4
PROJECT SITE
N l, —I6-1
-1 auu
l�l/ E lJ Ru.wwwn'
n.1
x ji; ...tin!:
•
(DPA - 61 puncr�la
CALCULATION SUMMARY
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
•
SAN PEDRO 1.111.2
0 I
2S -YEAR 24 -HOUR ISOHYET REDUCTION FACTOR U171
IO-YEAR 24 -HOOD ISOHYET REDUCTION FACTOR 1.714
TORRANCE
50 -YEAR 24 -HOUR ISOHYET
C11.n1:
JAMES P. HYNES uNNG TRUST
4147 MARITIME ROAD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90274
J: \1331SJflea\dwg\C—Site PIan_2018_G.dwg
7/8/2018 2:29:18 PM
21A
flit
1-111.4
Bolton n. Enpt .rine Corp. oott.4a20R
25834 Narbonno Avenue Ste. 21 ^s1Ha+
Lomita, Cs 90717
Phone: (310) 325-5580
MC 13311
Fart 010) 325-5581 1 Mod 1 al
33'43' Sr
TORRANCE 1.1114
kr; ,
Jy)z?:•'4-.
4
•
1 •
4.:
of •. ! ',
4
N
1)116 L4
+uvm
S f DPA _61
0 1
2 1M..
23 -YEAR 24-ROUR ISOHYlT REDCC ION FACTOR: 03711
III -YEAR 24 -HOUR ISOHYBT REDECFION FACTOR: Q7I4
SAN PEDRO
50 -YEAR 24 -HOUR !SOHYET
1-111.2
I
I'
33'37' 3r
Tit
HYDROLOGIC MAP
CALCULATION SUMMARY
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
\13315J1ynea\dwg\C—Slb Plan.2016_G.dwg 7/8/2016 2.29:28 PM
X11.,,1: _
JAMES P. HYNES WANG TRUST 25834oaten Narbonne Avenue Smote. 2It
4147 MARITIME ROAD Lomita, Ca 90717
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90274 Phone: (310) 325-5580
Fan (310) 325-5581
waits tame
cuY,u Slaw
—, TUN
r 11315
foes 1 OF1
4
U
U
I -
z
w
u
U.
W
0
U
LL
O
z
w
a
0
-J
z
z
Co = (0.9 • IMP) + (1.0 - IMP)
Where: CD =Developed Runoff Coefficient
IMP = Proportion Impervious �` �
uxm%
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
gp
1.0
Cu = Undeveloped runoffunefleoeRirJeM ?L' ,E
3).
+Isti
"'
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CURVE
SOIL TYPE NO. 002
•
------
--
I
0.7
1
1
1.
i
0.6
0.5
• I
I
I
0.3
i__
i
—+--
3.2
1
f
—
— r._
D.1
—I
_'
8 0 10.0 12.0 14.0
RAINFALL INTENSITY (I) INCHES/HOUR
FIIe:son Curve Data and Graphs 0-24 Tab:GN2 HYDROLOGY APPENDIX C
16.0
18.0
BJW: OS/1412004
2D.0
I
2
cc
8,-
81 n
gMb
Bag2Q
g1 —x
N ZZ
=MU on
0.
N
m
B
61
N
n
1 Year Storm
Storage of Pre Vs. Post
f
k
1 5,611; 64%
3,211; 36%
% 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
r
2,884; 33%
% of Cistern Filled if Only Storing
Difference in Pre Vs. Post Volume
5,938; 67%
t, 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
fl• 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%
0 Additional Volume Stored (Above
Difference in Pre vs Post) Cubic
Feet
50 Year Storm
Storage of Pre Vs. Post
408; 5% _ `
SD°
8,414; 95%
% of Cistern Filled if Only Storing
Difference in Pre Vs. Post Volume
s' Additional Volume Stored (Above
Difference in Pre vs Post) Cubic
Feet
100 Year Storm
Storage of Pre Vs. Post
8; 0.09%
)-09
8,814; 99.91%
% of Cistern Filled if Only Storing
Difference in Pre Vs. Post Volume
0 Additional Volume Stored (Above
Difference in Pre vs Post) Cubic
Feet
500 Year Storm
0, Storage of Pre Vs. Post
C7
9,533; 100%— -
% of Cistern Filled if Only Storing
Difference in Pre Vs. Post Volume
Additional Volume Stored (Above
Difference in Pre vs Post) Cubic
Feet
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
Contents
Introduction 2
Recurrence Intervals 2
Rainfall and Design Storm Characteristics 3
Rainfall Intensity -Duration -Frequency 3
Rainfall Isohyets 3
Rainfall Losses and Runoff Production q
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 DIVISION 6
Hydrology Review Includes: _ 6
Hydraulics Review Includes: 7
Grading Review Includes: 7
References 7
Appendix A g
Lectures Notes from Western Washington University Soils & Geology Class 8
1jPage
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 Soils & Geology Professor at Western 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 Soli 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
years any given year
100 tin 100.
50 1 in 50
25 1 in 25
10 1 in 10
5 1'in 5
2 1 in.2.
Percent chance of occurrence in any
given year
1
2
4
10.
20
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 50 -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 if there are significant
changes in the flow pattems at that location, possibly caused by an impoundment or diversion of flow.
The effects of development Immersion of land from forested or agricultural uses to commercial,
residential. or Industrial uses) on peak flows Isgenerally much greater for low -recurrence Interval
floods than for high -recurrence interval floods, such as 25- 50- or 100 -year floods. During these larger
floods, the soli Is saturated and doenaoj have the capacity to absorb additional rainfall. Under these
2(Page
�33
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 stone 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 pattern 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 define 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 storm 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
pattern 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
3'Page
2, 2 -year, 24 -hour Isohyetal data to provide the spatial rainfall pattern. NOAA 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 sublect to design rainfall are at a field
capacity soil moisture condition. This condition Is also referred to 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 coefficient, 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, Cu, the developed
soli runoff coefficient, Co, and the burned soil runoff coefficient, Cw. The appropriate coefficient
represents runoff for different watershed conditions." (LA County Hydrology Manual 2006)
4IPage
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 (C.) 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) *Cu (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 (Cu)
"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 calculations use a runoff coefficient curve adjusted for the burned watershed
condition. For burned watersheds, the rational equation becomes Qa.= CstA, in which Qp. and Cn. 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 burned 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 burned
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 Tcensures 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 flood 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 protect compliance with the Department's National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, including the enforcement of Standard
Urban Stomiwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) compliance.
33
6'Page
• 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 storm drains for capacity, appropriate levels of protection,
and negative impacts on existing drainage systems.
• Checking pre- and post -development flows, velocities, 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
floodplaln 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 -site
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.
CyD
7 Page
Appendix A
LECTURES NOTES FROM WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SOILS & GEOLOGY CLASS
8( Page
Gi
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
NE. t
1 .
.J •
ti
Nei L;
• 7_. t
.4k
7
n
1
I
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 f}
cowls* Oacao Nano. Pate HA Ira
Soil type (or classification) is determined by fragment
(clast) size and distribution of clast sizes.
GRAVEL
RELATIVE SIZES
SANS
SILT CL4
AY
t Mashie at
this gale
nun
I I I I I I I I I I I
oI 1 2 3 4 5
inches I I I I I I
o 1/ 316 2116 '16
Soil classification can get more descriptive, but for
hydrology purposes we use clast size.
O. Hama mnomd mnr d nest gad.b maxim
d.uayad rcue.O lea" . Ile 07117,
d �. h.4me h awdr dal been sbbS
A Ibtw n carapace dbob mend cod ow= a the
cable don help liked b barn Imdu.y. Shod eo b puma
d aawb^v .cable. a and% Cat war bp.mm.d
aand.pa ohe baSA m.. be A Ina a.d tasty
ad aba ae..tal as ea We dad also b b I Wm,.
E. Iwavn to woad d 1Wem6.d ..acid wJy Nee Incite
dap. edam. ^•a and Yee abw buoys the A ad
E Swap tweet da =blue be® d Webb
B. Mediae le
eer
aaaldle boa a. hYe ha. . Ile bmba1 the
=as d emsJaa
C. Iom, is aa.awd d pale* died flange paa. mown*
.ai tad.. hew bee do sawed ma! d.e be anti ban.
ul ea Act gDab b ale emeconsb 1Y bottom may be easel
red WI, eat Wan
il;storage
a
nothing came out
groundwater. recharge
Infiltration (and runoff) is controlled by soil type, thickness,
original water content, and precipitation characteristics
Soil
Rock
i7FJAJXI]IAAPI►Af N IC
Infiltration
runoff
000
41-
N
0
N
W
V
C
.4
4.4
N' O
L C
0 2
C
N
?� A
`<,p E-%
�W W 80 ,0 M NI pl 30
sands have high sem fretto
infiltration rates
n0xaa pm iti,ia iao
The degree of infiltration and runoff depends on the soil type
• 30' .,,.aa c4 .`�— Aso
have low infiltration rates
100
10
]0
r s
iL
.7411, zny7i, 60
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.
Porosity is a measure of void space in a soil
CS)
Grain -size distribution controls the magnitude of porosity
uniform grain sizes
porosity = 40%
mixture of grain sizes
porosity = 25%
sandy soils
Hydrograph
attenuated response
Q
lime
silt and day soils
nHydrograph
rapid high pear response
Q
Impervious surfaces in urban
settings don't allow any infiltration,
hence very rapid surface runoff
Hydrograph
very rapid 'high peal' response
Time
53
thin soils saturate quicker, hence produce
more runoff
Q
Time
soils near saturation produce more runoff
Q
Time
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
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.
Los Angeles County
Building and Safety.
LOW I M PACT
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
Renee Martin
310-544-8161
22 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
renee@martinliterary.com
RECEIVED
May 16, 2016
To Whom It May Concern:
MAY 16 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
I am deeply concerned about the proposed new construction of a
home at 23 Crest Road East across the street from and below my
home.
I've been informed that the combined "footprints" of the various
proposed structures approach an acre of impermeable surface area.
This will leave almost no space for proper drainage, and when it rains
all the water will be funneled south directly into the active Flying
Triangle Landslide and further down to Klondike Canyon. The
repercussions from this could be, obviously, catastrophic.
I am concerned about the safety of my community, as well as the
possible consequences for my own home. I am urgently requesting
that the City of Rolling Hills hire a third party corisultant to evaluate
the possible geological impact of the proposed plan.
Sincerely,
Renee Martin
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
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
SPIERER I WOODWARD 1 CORBALIS I GOLDBERG
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
www.practIcallawyer.com
RECEIVED
JUL 1 8 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
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@ncca.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
Re: 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California
Greetings,
0 PLEASE RESPOND TO:
2 INVERNESS DRIVE EAST
SUITE 200
ENGLEWOOD. COLORADO 80112
TELEPHONE (303) 792-3456
TELECOPIER (303) 792-9092
Raine/Hynes
(160841/02)
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. 6'h 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
Attomevs at Law
A Pr
teven F. Spi
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
Drain under
shared driveway
RNC P drain Road
Crack in road signals star
of the " slide 9
Little KlondikeMlo
LitHeklondikt fY°
i---- Big Klondike tpnyon
Represented
properties
i 1
1 I
1-
1:11 3t1
ib
��ECEIVED
JUL 1.8:7016 It
City of RoIIing., 14185
By4';i^" 44i--0411).-,
oG
1
RECEIVED
Water JUL 1 92016
23 Crest Road East Cit of Rolling Hills
July 19, 2016 From 0.0 19.1Ptttil
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 1/6t' 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
The Weinberg Law Group
RECEIVED`
JUL 1 9 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
consfruction 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 fora 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.
2255o Via Tejon 1 Suite 213 1
Palos Verdes 1 CA 1 902.74 1
:3«1.36:3.7775 I howard(rz.weinberglaW.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:
1. 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 attomey, 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.
Sincerely,
The Weinberg Law Group
C: James and Lore Hynes
Yolanta Schwartz
Michael Jenkins, City Attorney
SMITH -EMERY COMPANY
An lndcpendem Commercial Teeing Latmaw, , Esiabfish•d 1904
791 East IVVarla'agou BM. Las Agstks. Calera; 90021-3043. (213) 749.3411. Fax (213) 7414620
September 12, 2016
Dear Members of the City Council -
I read the brief report commissioned by the Hynes family and submitted in support of their construction
on Crest Road. Although I have some criticism of the report, my hope is that it will be taken
constructively, particularly in light of the authors own statement in their April 7, 2015 report indicating
the preliminary nature of their effort.
Firstly, I wish to acknowledge the Planning Commission for its recognition that the run-off storm water
exiting the Hynes family site must be controlled due to its negative effect on the landslides below the
subject site, and I further comment:
• The storm water run-off on the site is influenced by more than one soil type or condition
and the value for the coefficients used In determining the ability of the site to absorb water
varies with these factors. I would suggest when producing a final report that actual percolation
values be measured in the field by test to produce accurate results which will reflect these
different conditions. A different run-off quantity will result from these accurate numbers, and
will not be subject to criticism by anyone if this procedure were followed.
• The water impound tank system is not fully developed as indicated by the comments by
Willdan Engineering. The proposed tank is designed for a different use and is currently missing
pump -out capacity and disposal details. Mw, as years advance there is no mention of
maintenance requirements or a method to indicate the tank is in an operating mode that will
accept run-off. There are no operating instructions regarding pumping of the water after a
storm, in preparation for a subsequent storm. Will the City be responsible for monitoring the
proper operation of the tank and insuring that the tank is drawn down sufficiently (or all the
way to full capacity) in preparation for a storm? If the resident is made responsible for this
function, how will operational responsibility be transferred while on holiday?
• The flow of water from the impoundment tank will begin after the storm and continue for
about 2 days allowing the definite conclusion that post construction site water run-off will
exceed pre -construction level for certain. (April 7, 2015, Bolton to Willdan Engineering).
• The amount of run-off from the site should be calculated to include each family's property
that sends its rainwater run-off across the Hynes family property. Any agreements in place to
allow the transmission of this water by the Hynes family should be produced along with the
calculations made for the run-off from each property. The Crest Road which discharges onto
the Hynes family property street drain, was installed in the late '50's and its first storm use
caused extensive scour and transmission of rock/soil debris so as to make the Dessy family
driveway at 4 Pinto Road impassable.
• The total run-off from Crest Road should be calculated or the calculations, which would
have been made in the late '50's, should be produced.
RECEIVED
SEP 12 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
nq
+li. ::l 7r '.. i.;!! renl:ii)
• The city should have verified the neighboring families and city run-off actual quantities by
installing simple measurement devices for the purpose. The calculated and actual values
should be compared.
• The first record of this slide in the early past century ended with a condition of stability
allowing all of the current development.
• If the Flying Triangle Slide stopped once, restoration of the canyon bottoms and ending
uncontrolled water dumping would likely stop present ground movement.
If additional comment would be helpful, please be in contact.
Very Truly Yours
fr.ii (4a.l
mes E. Partridge
President
Civil Engineer
RECEIVED
From: "Naslund (Eckert), Lisa"
Date: Thursday, October 6, 2016 4:11 PM
To: Yolanta Schwartz
Cc: "\"Bagnell, Kit\""
Subject: 23 Crest Road East
OCT 0 6 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
We have reviewed the letter to City Council submitted by Smith -Emery on September
12, 2016. With the project in the proposal phase and only conceptual review of
proposed drainage and grading solutions having taken place, it is not possible to
comment on the "design" of the project since it has not yet been started in detail. As has
been stated in our discussions to date, there are existing drainage and grading code
requirements that will apply to the design of the project and the project will be reviewed
for compliance with those requirements.
Speaking specifically to some of the points made in the letter, any method of hydrologic
study would be determined by the designing engineer, including taking into account site
soil conditions. Any equipment installed to store runoff would also be designed by the
project engineer, and operation and maintenance of the equipment would be the
responsibility of the property owner consistent with manufacturer's specifications. In
reviewing the ultimate design, it is any increase in runoff from the site itself that is
incorporated into proposed mitigation measures. Runoff from off -site sources is
expected to be maintained in its current state and incorporated into the project design.
Best,
Lisa Naslund, PE L.A. County Department of Public Works Building and Safety
Division Counter Hours: East LA 8:00-11:30am on Wednesday (323) 881-
7030 Lomita 8-11:30 on Thursday(310) 534-3760
LET US KNOW HOW WE'RE DOING! http://dpw.lacounty.gov/go/bsdsurvey
Online Submittal Website:https://dpw.lacounty.gov/bsd/bsop/
Forms and Publications:http://dpw.lacounty.gov/bsd/publications/index.cfhi
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
SUBJECT:
gar v11r Sea, ai INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No: 8-A
Mtg. Date: 10/10/16
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK `T'Iy�""
RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER Y'`
CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 347 - AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MOVING
THE DATE OF THE CITY'S GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
FROM THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY IN
MARCH OF EVERY ODD -NUMBERED YEAR TO THE FIRST
TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY IN NOVEMBER OF EVERY
EVEN -NUMBERED YEAR BEGINNING IN NOVEMBER 2020.
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2016
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance No. 347
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council introduce on first reading and waive full
reading of the following Ordinance No. 347:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
MOVING THE DATE OF THE CITY'S GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION FROM
THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY IN MARCH OF EVERY ODD -
NUMBERED YEAR TO THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY IN
NOVEMBER OF EVERY EVEN -NUMBERED YEAR BEGINNING IN NOVEMBER
2020."
OR
Provide additional direction as necessary.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Rolling Hills currently conducts its general municipal election on the first
Tuesday after the first Monday in March of each odd -numbered year. As the City
Council was briefed previously, Senate Bill 415 (SB415), which was signed into law by
the Governor on September 1, 2015, requires cities to adopt a plan to change its election
date by January 1, 2018 if certain criteria are not met, as an effort to address low voter
turnout in municipal elections.
The new law prohibits the City from conducting an election on a date other than a
statewide election date, if doing so in the past has resulted in a turnout that is 25% or
more below the average turnout in that jurisdiction, in the last four statewide general
elections. In an analysis of voter turnout, it was determined that the City falls below
this threshold and is therefore required to switch to statewide general election dates,
based on the criteria established in SB 415.
The chart below outlines the Rolling Hills voter turnout percentages for the last four (4)
statewide general elections and the voter turnout percentage of the City's last general
municipal election.
STATEWIDE ELECTION DATE - ROLLING HILLS
Election
Date
Registered
Ballots
Cast
Percentage
Average City
Turnout (%)
over 4 State
Elections
Minimum %
City Turnout to
Avoid State Cycle
(25% less than average
from previous column)
Nov. 4, 2008
1,413
1,262
89.31%
74.41%
55.81%
Nov. 2, 2010
1,448
1,059
73.14%
Nov. 6, 2012
1,491
1,202
80.62%
Nov. 4, 2014
1,494
815
54.55%
LAST STANDALONE ELECTION DATA - ROLLING HILLS
March 3,
2015
1508
658
43.64%
(below required
threshold)
DISCUSSION:
SB 415 requires that by January 1, 2018, cities must adopt a plan to consolidate future
elections with a statewide election not later than the November 8, 2022 statewide
general election. Because it is not anticipated that the County will have the process and
systems in place to handle these consolidated elections until 2020, it is the staff's
recommendation that the City proceed with its next two general municipal elections as
planned and consolidate beginning in November 2020.
The City's next two general municipal elections are scheduled for March 7, 2017, where
two (2) Councilmembers will be elected; and March 5, 2019 where three (3)
Coucilmembers will be elected. These two elections would be the City's last stand-alone
elections, before consolidating with the County of Los Angeles beginning in November
2020. In order to accommodate this change, the City would reduce the terms of
Councilmembers elected in the 2017 and 2019 elections by four (4) months; meaning
they would serve a term of 3 years and 8 months instead of the full 4 years.
Councilmembers elected to office in March 2017 and March 2019 would have terms
ending November 2020 and November 2022 respectively, as shown in the following
chart:
Elected Date
(by standard odd -year
municipal election)
End of Term
New End of Term
Councilmember 1
March 2017
March 2021
November 2020
Councilmember 2
March 2017
March 2021
November 2020
Councilmember 3
March 2019
March 2023
November 2022
Councilmember 4
March 2019
March 2023
November 2022
Councilmember 5
March 2019
March 2023
November 2022
FISCAL IMPACT
The City typically budgets $30,000-$35,000 for its general municipal election. For the
last three elections, the City of Los Angeles has consolidated its election for the Los
Angeles Community College District board member seats with the City's election and
Rolling Hills was reimbursed by the City of Los Angeles for approximately 40-50% of
election the cost. After reimbursement, the average cost of the City's elections falls
within the range of $17,000 - $21,000 every two years.
A preliminary cost estimate received from the Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder's
Office for a consolidated election for two (2) City Council seats and two (2) ballot
measures was $12,550. Before each election, the City will receive a cost estimate from
the County Registrar -Recorder's Office and will budget accordingly.
CONCLUSION
Based on the requirements of SB415, staff recommends that the City Council introduce
the ordinance moving the City's General Municipal Election date from the first Tuesday
after the first Monday in March of odd -numbered years to the first Tuesday after the
first Monday in November of even numbered years beginning in November 2020 for
first reading and waive full reading of the Ordinance. In doing so, the City Council will
also be reducing the terms of the Councilmembers elected in 2017 and 2019 by four
months. Staff will return with the appropriate resolutions for that change when the
election is called on October 24, 2016.
HL
Election Date Giange.taffreport.docx
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ORDINANCE NO. 347
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MOVING THE
DATE OF THE CITY'S GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION FROM
THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY IN MARCH OF
ODD -NUMBERED YEARS TO THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE
FIRST MONDAY IN NOVEMBER OF EVEN -NUMBERED YEARS
BEGINNING IN NOVEMBER 2020.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
A. The City's General Municipal Elections are currently held on the 151 Tuesday after
the Is' Monday in March of each odd -numbered year.
B. Senate Bill 215 was signed by the Governor in September 2015 and commencing
January 1, 2018, prohibits a political subdivision, as defined, from holding an election other than on a
statewide election date, if holding an election on a non -concurrent date has previously resulted in voter
turnout for a regularly scheduled election in that political subdivision, being at least 25% less than the
average voter turnout within the political subdivision for the previous 4 statewide general elections.
C. The City of Rolling Hills did not meet the qualifying criteria to continue to
conduct stand-alone elections and must move its elections to the date of the statewide general election.
SECTION 2. The City wishes to change its election date and consolidate its elections with the
state-wide general election conducted by the County of Los Angeles on the Tuesday after the first
Monday in November of even -numbered years, beginning November 2020.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to §1301 of the Elections Code of the State of California, the City will
continue to hold their elections on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of each odd -
numbered year until such time as the County approves the consolidation of future general municipal
elections.
SECTION 4. If the County approves the City's request, pursuant to Section 10403(6) o the
Elections Code, no elected city office term affected by a subsequent adjustment to City election dates by
ordinance shall be increased or decreased by more than (12) months.
SECTION 5. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 1301, the City requests the County of Los
Angeles approve consolidation of the City's general municipal election with the statewide municipal
election.
SECTION 6. Pursuant to Elections Code Sections 1301 and 10403.5, this ordinance shall not
become operative until approved by the Los Angeles, County Board of Supervisors.
SECTION 7. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 10403.5(e), within 30 days after the ordinance
becomes operative, the City's election official shall cause a notice to be mailed to City of Rolling Hills
registered voters.
SECTION 8. The City.Clerk shall forward a copy of the ordinance to the Los Angeles County
Registrar -Recorder and Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors requesting approval by Board
Resolution. ,
SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Ordinance No. 347 2
day of 2016.
BEA DIERINGER, MAYOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS)
I certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 347 entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MOVING THE
DATE OF THE CITY'S GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION FROM
THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY IN MARCH OF
ODD-NUMBERD YEARS TO THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE
FIRST MONDAY IN NOVEMBER OF EVEN -NUMBERED YEARS
BEGINNING IN NOVEMBER 2020.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on October , 2016 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
HEIDI LUCE
CITY CLERK
Ordinance No. 347
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
gar aiRde&li qee6
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No: 8-B
Mtg. Date: 10/10/16
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER y+'w
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AND PROPOSITION A
ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR AN EXCHANGE OF $75,000 IN
PROPOSITION A TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION PROJECT
RELATED FUNDS WITH THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FOR $56,250 OF GENERAL FUNDS TO PLACED IN THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS' GENERAL FUND; AND A RESOLUTION AND
PROPOSITION C/MEASURE R ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR
GIFTING OF PROPOSITION C AND MEASURE R FUNDS TO THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES TO CONSTRUCT TRAFFIC
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT BENEFIT THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS' RESIDENTS.
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2016
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution for Proposition A Exchange
Proposition A Assignment Agreement
Resolution for Proposition C/Measure R Gifting
Proposition C/Measure R Assignment Agreement
City of Rolling Hills letter
City of Rolling Hills Estates response
City of Rancho Palos Verdes response
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider the requests from the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes and City of Rolling Hills Estates for Rolling Hills' Proposition A,
Proposition C and Measure R funds and approve the distribution of the funds as
follows:
1. Exchange of $75,000 in Proposition A funds to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in
return for $56,250 in General Funds (exchange rate: $1.00/$0.75); and
2. Gift a total of $65,000 of Proposition C funds to the City of Rolling Hills Estates in
support of resurfacing a section of Palos Verdes Drive North from Portuguese Bend
Road/Rolling Hills Road to about 250' west of Dapplegray Lane; and
3. Gift a total of $50,770 of Measure R funds to City of Rolling Hills Estates that were
already obligated in May of 2015 by the City Council in order to reimburse the City
of Rolling Hills Estates for the completion of the traffic signal project at the
intersection of Palos Verdes Drive North and Rolling Hills Road/Portuguese Bend
Road.
BACKGROUND
The City annually receives from the County Proposition A, Proposition C and Measure
R funds to be used for transportation and transit -related purposes. These funds,
however, are not eligible for use in Rolling Hills due to the roads within the City being
privately owned and maintained. As such, the City typically accumulates the funds
until there is a substantial balance that can be exchanged for General Fund monies or
gifted towards other transit -related purposes, as allowed by law, with another public
agency. Measure R funds were received by the City for the first time in FY 2009/10.
The FY 2016/17 budget includes $56,250 in General Fund revenue from an exchange of
Proposition A funds. On July 14, 2016, a letter was sent to the neighboring Peninsula
cities and agencies inquiring as to their interest in an exchange. Concurrently, staff
requested proposals for use of the City's Proposition C funds that are available for
gifting. The City will be utilizing Measure R funds to fulfill the commitment made by
the City Council in May of 2015 to utilize transit funding (Measure R and/or
Proposition C funds) when it accumulated to $50,770 in order to assist in the financing
of the Palos Verdes Drive North/Portuguese Bend Road Traffic Signal Improvement
Project. Measure R funds are being utilized because they have accumulated to the
necessary amount and will be provided to Rolling Hills Estates for funding the project.
DISCUSSION
Response letters for Rolling Hills' Proposition A and Proposition C funds have been
received from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and City of Rolling Hills Estates.
Proposition A Funds
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is interested in an exchange of General Funds for
Proposition A Funds. Rancho Palos Verdes is offering $0.75 in General Funds for $1.00
in Proposition A Funds. Since the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is the only agency
requesting Proposition A Exchange Funds, it is recommended that the City Council
approve this request because they are offering $.75 of General Fund to exchange for
$1.00 of Proposition A funds for a total of $56,250.
Proposition C Funds
The Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates have expressed interest in
Rolling Hills' Proposition C funds. Between the two Proposition C fund project
proposals, staff recommends the Rolling Hills Estates' project that resurfaces a section
0
of Palos Verdes Drive North from Portuguese Bend Road to about 250' west of
Dapplegray Lane. This stretch of Palos Verdes Drive North is considered to be in poor
condition and the project will directly benefit residents from Rolling Hills by enhancing
pavement performance and safety that will improve mobility along this heavily
traveled arterial road. Therefore, this project is considered a higher priority than the
one submitted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, in conjunction with the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Transit Authority, that proposes to improve the quality and safety of access
to public transit services along Silver Spur Road adjacent to Peninsula High School and
Promenade at the Peninsula Mall.
Measure R Funds
The City Council previoulsy obligated a total of $50,770 of future Proposition C and/or
Measure R funds when it accumulated to that amount in order to reimburse the City of
Rolling Hills Estates for completion of the traffic signal and intersection improvements
at Palos Verdes Drive North and Portuguese Bend Road/Rolling Hills Road. Since the
Measure R funds accumulated to the obligated amount, these funds will be utilized to
pay for the City's pledged amount towards the project
FISCAL IMPACT
Prior to any gifting or exchange, the FY 2016/17 year-end fund balance and proposed
amounts for exchange and gifting for all three sources is:
Funds
Proposed Amount for FY 2016/2017
Exchange and Gifting
Proposition A
$ 75,000
Proposition C
$ 65,000
Measure R
$ 50,770
TOTAL
$190,770
The following summarizes the disposition of Proposition A & C funds and Measure R
funds over the past several years:
Fiscal Year (FY)
Amount
Benefiting
Exchange
General Fund
Agency
Rate
Revenue
Proposition A
1999/2000
$ 40,000
Torrance
$0.65
$26,000
2001/2002
$ 80,000
Torrance
$0.65
$52,000
2004/2005
$ 87,475
Torrance
$0.65
$56,858
2007/2008
$100,000
PV Transit
$0.70
$70,000
2010/2011
$ 65,000
Rancho PV
$0.75
$48,750
2012/2013
$ 60,000
Rancho PV
$0.75
$45,000
2014/2015
$ 75,000
PV Transit
$0.75
$56,250
2016/2017
S 75,000
Rancho PV
50.75
556,250
Fiscal Year (FY)
Amount
Benefiting
Exchange
General Fund
Agency
Rate
Revenue
Proposition C
2002/2003
$ 46,146.50
RH Estates
N/A
N/A
2002/2003
$ 46,146.50
Rancho PV
N/A
N/A
2005/2006
$ 83,000
RH Estates
N/A
N/A
2008/2009
$ 38,174
Rancho PV
N/A
N/A
2008/2009
$ 38,174
RH Estates
N/A
N/A
2010/2011
$ 9,000
RH Estates
N/A
N/A
2010/2011
$ 18,000
Rancho PV
N/A
N/A
2010/2011
$ 3,000
PV Transit
N/A
N/A
2012/2013
$ 40,000
RH Estates
N/A
N/A
2014/2015
$70,000
RH Estates
N/A
N/A
2016/2017
$65,000
RH Estates
N/A
N/A
Measure R
2010/2011
$ 3,000
RH Estates
N/A
N/A
2010/2011
$ 6,000
Rancho PV
N/A
N/A
2010/2011
$ 1,000
PV Transit
N/A
N/A
2012/2013
$ 30,000
RH Estates
N/A
N/A
2014/2015
$50,000
RH Estates
N/A
N/A
2016/2017
550,770
RH Estates
N/A
N/A
Totals: Rancho Palos Verdes
Proposition A
$75,000
Rolling Hills Estates
Proposition C
$65,000*
Rolling Hills Estates
Measure R
$50,770
"'The total cost of the Palos Verdes Drive North Street Overlay Project; including design, construction
and inspection is $405,000. 'The project is expected to commence within 24 months.
NOTIFICATION
The cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates have been advised that this
matter is being considered by the City Council
RC:hi
Prop A C Measure R exchange_gifting_staffreport.docx
a
RESOLUTION NO. xxxx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BY
AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AND THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AUTHORIZING AN EXCHANGE OF
PROPOSITION "A" TRANSPORTATION LOCAL RETURN FUNDS.
WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills has uncommitted Proposition "A" funds within its
reserve allocation in the amount of $75,000; and c, 4
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has transportation programs eligible to be
funded by Proposition "A" funds; and
WHEREAS, both agencies agree that this exchange of funds would provide a benefit to
both agencies; and
WHEREAS, both agencies agree that these projects/programs will be of benefit to the
needs of local transportation services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council approves an Agreement for the exchange/acquisition of
General Funds from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Said Agreement is hereto attached as Exhibit
"A", and is made a part hereof by reference.
Section 2. The Mayor or her representative is hereby authorized to affix her signature
to this Resolution, indicating its approval.
Section 3. The City Manager is hereby directed and authorized to execute any
necessary documents, including, but not limited to agreements, amendments, forms, applications, etc., to
follow through with the exchange of funds.
Section 4. The City Clerk, or duly appointed Deputy, is directed to attest thereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS ON THIS 10th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016.
Bea Dieringer
Mayor
ATTEST:
Heidi Luce
City Clerk
Resolution No. XXXX
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
SS
The foregoing Resolution No. XXXX entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BY
AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AND THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AUTHORIZING AN EXCHANGE OF
PROPOSITION "A" TRANSPORTATION LOCAL RETURN FUNDS.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on October 10, 2016, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Heidi Luce
City Clerk
Resolution No. XXXX
2
PROPOSITION A ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT
This Assignment Agreement is made and entered into this day of
October, 2016 by and between the City of Rolling Hills and the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, with respect to the following facts:
A. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes in coordination with the Palos Verdes Peninsula
Transit Authority and the City of Rolling Hills Estates, propose to expend the Proposition
A Funds to improve the quality and safety of and/or access to public transit services
along Silver Spur Road adjacent to Peninsula High School and Promenade on the
Peninsula Mall. The proposed improvements will include the following amenities:
• Construction of Bus Pads or concrete landings
• Construction of Bus Shelters
• Installation of Bus benches
• Construction of ADA improvements
B. The City of Rolling Hills has an accumulation of uncommitted Proposition A
Local Return funds which could be made available to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to
assist in providing the services described in Paragraph A of this Agreement. The City of
Rolling Hills is willing to assign uncommitted Proposition A Local Return funds to the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes for the purpose identified in Paragraph A.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by
the parties and of the premises herein contained, it is mutually agreed as follows:
1. Exchange. The City of Rolling Hills agrees to assign $75,000 of its
uncommitted Proposition A Local Return funds to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in
Fiscal Year 2016/17. In return, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes agrees to assign $56,250
(exchange rate: $1.00/$0.75) in General Funds to the City of Rolling Hills in Fiscal Year
2016/17.
2. Consideration. The City of Rolling Hills shall assign the agreed upon
Proposition A Local Return funds' to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in one payment no
later than June 30, 2017. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall assign the agreed upon
General Funds to the City of Rolling Hills in one payment no later than June 30, 2017.
3. Term. This Agreement is effective on the date above written and for
such time as is necessary for both parties to complete their mutual obligations under this
Agreement.
4. Termination. Termination of this Agreement may be made by either
party before the date of approval of the project description covering the funds in question
by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, so long as written notice of intent to
terminate is given to the other party at least five (5) days prior to the termination.
5. Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal
service on the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the
custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows:
a. Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
b. Doug Willmore, City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
6. Assurances
a. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall use the assigned Proposition A
Local Return Funds only for the purpose of providing the project discussed in Paragraph
A of this Agreement and within the time limits specified in Metropolitan Transportation
Authority's Proposition A Local Return Program Guidelines.
b. Concurrently with the Execution of this Agreement, the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes shall provide the Metropolitan Transportation Authority with the Standard
Assurances and Understandings Regarding Receipt of Use of Proposition A Funds
specified in the Guidelines regarding the use of the assigned Proposition A Local Return
Funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Assignment
Agreement to be executed by their respective officers, duly authorized, on the day and
year written above.
CITY OF RANCH PALOS VERDES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By:
City Manager
Attest:
By:
City Manager
City Clerk City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney City Attomey
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. xxxx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, ASSIGNING TO THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES ITS AVAILABLE PROPOSITION C
TRANSPORTATION FUNDS, AND MEASURE R FUNDS.
WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills has a fund balance of approximately $65,000 in
Proposition C Local Return Funds for transportation projects; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills has a fund balance of approximately $50,770 in
Measure R Funds for transportation projects; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills does not have projects that are eligible for funding
with Proposition C Local Retum Funds or Measure R Funds; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes have identified
projects that qualify for funding with Proposition C Local Return Funds and Measure R Funds; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills has a general interest in supporting eligible projects
for transportation, to maintain traffic flow and to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the Palos
Verdes Peninsula; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills has the specific interest in improving the
intersection of Palos Verdes Drive North at Portuguese Bend Road/Rolling Hills Road and resurfacing a
section of Palos Verdes Drive North from Portuguese Bend Road/Rolling Hills Road to about 250' west
of Dapplegray Lane; and
WHEREAS, at this time the City wishes to allocate Proposition C Local Return Fund and
Measure R Fund balances to other public agencies to be utilized for an eligible use;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills, California, does
hereby resolve as follows:
• Section 1. The City of Rolling Hills hereby assigns to the City of Rolling Hills
Estates its total accumulated balance of Proposition C Local Return Funds and Measure R Funds.
Section 2. The City of Rolling Hills hereby assigns to the City of Rolling Hills
Estates $115,770 consisting of $65,000 in Proposition C Local Return Funds for the resurfacing a
section of Palos Verdes Drive North from Portuguese Bend Road/Rolling Hills Road to about 250' west
of Dapplegray Lane; and $50,770 in Measure R Funds for intersection improvements and signal
improvements.
Section 3. The City Council approves an Agreement for the assignment of said funds.
Said Agreement is hereto attached as Exhibit "A", and is made a part hereof by reference.
Section 4. The City of Rolling Hills will submit its documentation for the Los
Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority to allocate these funds to the City of Rolling Hills
Estates for the appropriate eligible programs in the City.
Resolution No. xxxx
Section 5 The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall
forward certified copies to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the City
of Rolling Hills Estates.
Section 6. The City Manager is hereby directed and authorized to execute any
necessary documents, including, but not limited to agreements, amendments, forms and ,applications to
follow through with this transfer of funds.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of October, 2016.
Bea Dieringer
Mayor
ATTEST:
Heidi Luce
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
The foregoing Resolution No. xxxx entitled:
SS
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, ASSIGNING TO THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES ITS AVAILABLE PROPOSITION C
TRANSPORTATION FUNDS, AND MEASURE R FUNDS.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on October 10, 2016, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Resolution No. xxxx
Heidi Luce
City Clerk
-2- ID
PROPOSITION C AND MEASURE R ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT
This Assignment Agreement is made and entered into this day of
October 2016 by and between the City of Rolling Hills and the City of Rolling Hills
Estates, with respect to the following facts:
A. The City of Rolling Hills Estates maintains the roadways and plans to construct
signal and intersection improvements at Palos Verdes Drive North and Portuguese Bend
Road/Rolling Hills Road and resurfacing a section of Palos Verdes Drive North from
Rolling Hills Road/Portuguese bend Road to about 250' west of Dapplegray Lane.
B. The City of Rolling Hills has an accumulation of uncommitted Proposition C
Local Return and Measure R Local Return funds which could be made available to the
City of Rolling Hills Estates to assist in providing the services described in Paragraph A
of this Agreement. The City of Rolling Hills is willing to assign uncommitted Proposition
C Local Return and Measure R Local Return funds to the City of Rolling Hills Estates for
the purpose identified in Paragraph A.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by
the parties and of the premises herein contained, it is mutually agreed as follows:
1. Gifting. The City of Rolling Hills agrees to assign $65,000 of its
uncommitted Proposition C Local Return funds and $50,770 of its uncommitted Measure
R Local Return funds to the City of Rolling Hills Estates and in Fiscal Year 2016-17.
2. Consideration. The City of Rolling Hills shall assign the agreed upon
Proposition C Local Return and Measure R Local Return funds to the City of Rolling
Hills Estates in one payment no later than June 30, 2017. '
3. Term. This Agreement is effective on the date above written and for
such time as is necessary for both parties to complete their mutual obligations under this
Agreement.
4. Termination. Termination of this Agreement may be made by either
party before the date of approval of the project description covering the funds in question
by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, so long as written notice of intent to
terminate is given to the other party at least five (5) days prior to the termination.
5. Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal
service on the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the
custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows:
a. Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
b. Douglas R. Prichard, City Manager
City of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates, California 90274
6. Assurances
a. The City of Rolling Hills Estates shall use the assigned Proposition C
Local Return and Measure R Local Return funds only for the purpose of providing the
project discussed in Paragraph A of this Agreement and within the time limits specified
in Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Proposition C Local Return and Measure R
Local Return Guidelines.
b. Concurrently with the Execution of this Agreement, the City of Rolling
Hills Estates shall provide the Metropolitan Transportation Authority with the Standard
Assurances and Understandings Regarding Receipt of Use of Proposition C and Measure
R Local Return Funds specified in the Guidelines regarding the use of the assigned
Proposition C Local Return and Measure R Local Return Funds.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Assignment
Agreement to be executed by their respective officers, duly authorized, on the day and
year written above.
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
By:
City Manager
Attest:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By:
City Manager
Deputy City Clerk City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney City Attorney
July 14, 2016
Mr. Doug Prichard
City Manager
Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Drive N
Rolling Hills Estates, CA
90274
Dear Colleagues:
City aCLin, _AMA
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
Mr. Doug Willmore
City Manager
Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
90275
Mr. Anton Dahlerbruch
City Manager
Palos Verdes Estates
340 Palos Verdes Drive W
Palos Verdes Estates, CA
90274
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 3771521
FAX (310) 377.7288
Mr. Martin Gombert
Administrator
PV Transit Authority
PO Box 2656
Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA
90274
The City of Rolling Bills has accumulated $75,000 in Proposition A Local Return Funds and $65,000 in
Proposition C Local Return Funds that we are unable to utilize within the City. With this letter, we are
inquiring if your agency is interested in an exchange of all or a portion of the Proposition A funds for
your General Funds. In addition, we would like to know if your agency would be interested in
receiving a portion of the City's Proposition C Funds which may only be "gifted" to another
jurisdiction for transportation/transit-related projects.
It would be appreciated if you would let us know your thoughts on this matter in writing by
September 30, 2016. Please advise us of the exchange rate you propose for the Proposition A funds; the
project(s) you plan with use of the Proposition C Funds (for example, the direct or indirect benefits to
Rolling Hills) and if there is a minimum amount of funds you would be willing to accept for the
project(s) you identify. We are interested in a minimum of $0.75/$1.00 for an exchange of Proposition
A Funds.
Upon hearing from you, the Rolling Hills City Council will be asked to consider the exchange and
distribution of funds.
If you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Raymond R. Cruz
City Manager
RC:hl
07-14-16Prop-A-Fidiange-11r.dnc
c: Terry Shea, Finance Director
Printed onReel Paper
STEVEN ZUCKERMAN
Mayor
FRAM: V. ZERUNYAN
Mayor Pro Tem
BRITT HUFF
Council Member
JUDY MITCHELL
Council Member
VELVETH SCHMITZ
Council Mmho.
DOUGLAS R. PRICHARD
CityAIanagcr
September 1, 2016
Raymond Cruz, City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Mr. C.
CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
4045 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH • ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274
TELEPHONE 310.377.1577 FAX 310.377.4468
RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov
RECEIVED
SEP 0 2 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
Thank you for /our letter regarding the City of Rolling Hills' available
Proposition A Local Return Funds and Proposition C Local Return Funds.
The City of Rolling Hills Estates would like to propose utilizing the full amount
of Prop C funds ($65,000) toward resurfacing a section of Palos Verdes Drive
North from Rolling Hills Road/Portuguese Bend Road to about 250' west of
Dapplegray Lane. The total cost of the street overlay project, including design,
construction and inspection, is estimated at $405,000. We would expect to
commence construction within 24 months.
This stretch of Palos Verdes Drive North is considered to be in "poor" condition,
and we believe a street improvement project will directly benefit the residents of
the City of Rolling Hills and the Palos Verdes Peninsula by enhancing pavement
performance and providing improved safety and mobility along this arterial
road.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this request to the City of Rolling
Hills. Please do not hesitate to contact Assistant City Manager Greg Grammer
at • 310-377-1577, ext. 107 if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Sincerely,
Dougl . R. Prichard
City anager
CITY OF
Mr. Raymond R. Cruz
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA. 90274
September 06, 2016
Dear Mr. Cruz,
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
ADMINISTRATION
RECEIVED
SEP 12 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
In response to your letter regarding Proposition A Exchange, the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes is proposing $0.75 of General Fund to exchange for $1.00 of
Proposition A Funds for a total of $75,000.
Additionally, the City is interested in receiving the City of Rolling Hills' Proposition
C Funds in the amount of $65,000. Based on the LACMTA program guidelines,
Proposition C Funds may only be gifted to another city or jurisdiction. As stated
in your letter, the City acknowledges that the City of Rolling Hills will make a
decision after September 30, 2016 and that the City will notify the entity that has
been chosen to receive these funds.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes in coordination with the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Transit Authority and the City of Rolling Hills Estates, propose to
expend Proposition A and Proposition Funds to improve the quality and safety of
and/or access to public transit services along Silver Spur Road adjacent to
Peninsula High School and Promenade on the Peninsula Mali. The Silver Spur
Road intersects Hawthorne Blvd where transit transfers to and from Metro Line
344 and LADOT Commuter Express Line #448 occur. The proposed
improvements will include the following amenities:
• Construction of Bus Pads or concrete landings
• Construction of Bus Shelters
• Installation of Bus benches
• Construction of ADA improvements including access ramps (curb cuts)
and sidewalks repair to remove hazards/vertical uplifts within 25' of a bus
stop.
Additionally, replacement and maintenance of existing transit amenities will be
implemented. The above improvements will serve a transit demand directly
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-520 FAX 1310) 544.5291 / www.RwcA.cov
£- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER f
associated with the local High School and Commercial zone and improve the
transit experience of the general public. The proposed Exchange Agreement will
be considered for approval by the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes on
September 20, 2016.
.Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Doug Willmore
City Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
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: 10/10/16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
` FROM: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK k
ti
THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER /"
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF OPTIONS PERTAINING TO THE CONDUCT
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION . SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 7, 2017 - OPTION 1:
CONDUCT A STAND-ALONE ELECTION TO BE CONSOLIDATED
WITH THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES LACCD BOARD OF
DIRECTORS ELECTION (STATUS QUO) TO BE RUN
CONCURRENTLY WITH THE COUNTY'S SPECIAL ELECTION;
OPTION 2: CONDUCT A CONSOLIDATED ELECTION WITH THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES WITH SPECIFIED SERVICES TO BE
ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY.
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2016
ATTACHMENT:
Board of Supervisors Motion
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider the options presented herein and
provide direction to staff as to how to proceed with the conduct of the City's General
Municipal Election scheduled for March 7, 2017.
Option I: Conduct a stand-alone election to be consolidated with the City of Los Angeles
LACCD Board of Directors election (status quo) to be run concurrently with the County's
Special Election;
Option 2: Conduct a consolidated election with the County of Los Angeles with specified services
to be administered by the County.
Upon discussion, the City Council may also choose to provide additional direction to
staff if there is a desire to proceed in another manner.
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on Tuesday, September 13, 2016, the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors approved a motion (attached) to preserve the County's option to call a
Countywide Special Election in March 2017 for a possible ballot measure. The County
does not usually have an election in March; but their intent, based on direction from the
Board of Supervisors, would be for the County to conduct a consolidated election with
those cities/districts with regularly scheduled municipal elections in March. Given the
date requirements set forth in the Elections Code regarding March elections, the Board
of Supervisors has asked the Los Angeles County Registrar/Recorder to begin
preliminary preparation for a consolidated March election.
It is ultimately each city's decision whether or not to consolidate with the County's
election. In its correspondence to the cities, the County's reasoning for a consolidated
election is to share expenses and eliminate voter confusion. At this time, the County
still has not placed this potential measure on the ballot, but the County has until
December 9, 2016 to do so. Furthermore, the County has expressed their intent to
proceed with handling the elections for those cities/districts with scheduled March
elections even if they do not have a ballot measure
DISCUSSION:
If a decision is made to hold a stand-alone election, City staff would proceed as normal
utilizing Martin & Chapman for election services including preparation of the voting
material (ie: Sample Ballot Booklets and ballots), mailing of the sample ballot booklets
and ballot counting on election night. City staff would also be responsible for the
nomination process, all the required noticing, processing the vote -by -mail applications
and ballots and securing poll workers.
If a decision is made to consolidate with the County's Special Election, City staff would
be responsible for only the initial notices calling the election, the nomination process
and proofing/verifying the City's information on the County ballot and sample ballot
booklet. All of the vote -by -mail applications and ballots will be processed by the
County; and the County would handle ballot counting at their central counting location
as well as any subsequent noticing requirements and securing polling locations and poll
workers.
The following table lists the pros and cons of both options:
PROS
CONS
County Consolidated
Election
Reduces voter confusion
Ballot counting off site
Involves less staff time
Election results delayed
Reduced expenses
PROS
CONS
Stand Alone Concurrent
Election
Ballot counting at City Hall
Causes voter confusion
Immediate election results
Involves more staff time
Increased expenses
FISCAL IMPACT
The City typically budgets $30,000-$35,000 for its general municipal election. For the
last three elections, the City of Los Angeles has consolidated its election for the Los
Angeles Community College District board member seats with the City's election and
Rolling Hills was reimbursed by the City of Los Angels for approximately 40-50% of the
election cost. After reimbursement, the average cost of the City's elections falls within
the range of $17,000 - $21,000 every two years. Because of the impact the County's
action to hold a March election will have on Martin and Chapman, they have indicated
that the costs associated with this year's election will increase.
A preliminary cost estimate received from the Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder's
office for a. consolidated election for two (2) City Council seats and two (2) ballot
measures was $12,550. Because the City would still need certain election related
services from Martin & Chapman including a sample ballot to be mailed to Rolling
Hills' voter, there is an additional estimated expense of $4,000. The County has asked
each City to provide its estimated election costs so that if there is a consolidation, it is
administered in a cost -neutral manner for the cities.
CONCLUSION
Staff requests that the City Council consider the pros and cons of the options presented
and provide direction to staff as to how it wishes to proceed with regard to conduct of
the March 7, 2017 General Municipal Election. Staff will return to the City Council on
October 24th with the associated resolutions.
• HL
Election Options_staffreport.docx
o
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT A
AGN. NO.
MOTION BY SUPERVISOR MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS SEPTEMBER 13, 2016
Preserving the Option for a Countywide Special Election in March 2017
The next available election date for the Board of Supervisors (Board) to place
potential measures before the voters to address homelessness and other issues is on
March 7, 2017. The ideal scenario is for several jurisdictions to combine elections on that
date and hold one election, known as a consolidated election, conducted by the County of
Los Angeles (County). While ideal, a consolidated election on this date requires significant
due diligence, jurisdictional coordination, and advance preparation to ensure success. The
last scheduled meeting that the Board could vote to order a special election for March 2017
is on December 6, 2016. The last day to have a special meeting that the Board could vote
to order a special election is only a few days later on December 9, 2016.. To administer a
successful countywide election, the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk (RR/CC) cannot wait
to begin coordinating until December. Election planning for all jurisdictions begins several
months in advance of the December 9, 2016 deadline. As such, coordinating early in an
effort to conduct a consolidated election with other cities and districts is critical.
The benefits of a consolidated election are clear. They improve voter clarity, avoid
duplication of services, reduce voter fatigue, and serve to ensure a countywide awareness
of the election which facilitates and encourages voter participation. There are 36 other
jurisdictions — cities and districts, including the City of Los Angeles — that are currently
scheduled to conduct their regular municipal elections in March 2017. The vast majority of
4
these jurisdictions administer their own elections outside of the purview of the RR/CC. If the
County wants to consider calling for a special election and adding a countywide ballot
initiative in March 2017, the best course of action would be for other cities and districts to
consolidate onto the County's ballot.
Without a consolidated election, cities would conduct their own concurrent election at
the same time as the County election, which is not in the best interest of the public.
Concurrent elections not only duplicate efforts of elections officials, but also significantly
impact voters. Under a concurrent model, a voter could be required to report to two different
polling locations, or if they are located at the same polling place the voter must check in at
two different tables, sign two different rosters, and vote two different ballots. This creates
confusion among voters and poll workers alike, has the potential of disenfranchising voters,
and contributes to an overall negative voting experience.
The RR/CC needs adequate time to begin having discussions with the various
jurisdictions to ensure the feasibility of consolidation. The RR/CC must start notifying and
coordinating with cities and districts and begin expressing the County's intent to conduct a
consolidated, countywide election in March. It is also possible that additional cities or
districts may want to consider placing local measures on a consolidated ballot if there is a
countywide special election being considered.
In addition, early coordination efforts are necessary because each jurisdiction will be
required to pass a resolution requesting consolidation and specified elections services that
must then be presented to the Board for approval. The deadline for a -jurisdiction to request
consolidation with the County for the March 2017 election is December 9, 2016.
The final element of a consolidated election in March is the potential budgetary
impacts. The RR/CC estimates that if the County agreed to conduct a consolidated election
with every city and district in March 2017, it would cost the County approximately $10.5
million plus $8.5 million distributed on a pro rata basis to the participating cities and districts.
These estimates assume that the Board moves forward with calling a .special election in
March 2017. If the Board decides not to proceed with a County measure at that time, then
5
the estimated election costs to be distributed among the participating cities and districts will
increase to an estimated $13 million.
If the County' does not place a County measure on the ballot in March, the potential
increased cost to cities and districts is problematic. These jurisdictions have limited
funding, rely on stable estimates of election costs, and have budgeted accordingly. For this
reason, it is important for the County to explore a budget -neutral provision for cities in the
event that a countywide measure does not move forward and the RR/CC conducts the
election for the participating cities and districts. This will require discussions and
agreements with each city and district to determine their estimated election costs. In this
way, the County can ensure that the individual city or district can present accurate
• estimates to their governing bodies in the event that the Board decides not to proceed with
a countywide ballot measure in March 2017.
I THEREFORE MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
1. Direct the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk
(RR/CC) to contact and coordinate with the appropriate jurisdictions (cities and
districts) to facilitate a countywide consolidated special election in March 2017 and
report back in 30 days on the status of that coordination, identifying any further
issues or actions necessary for the Board's action; and
2. Direct the CEO, in coordination with the RR/CC, to identify and allocate the
resources to conduct the special election and the associated agreements with the
jurisdictions for proportional costs of a special countywide election or the direct costs
of conducting the elections absent a countywide measure that is cost -neutral for the
jurisdictions.
# # #
(YV/DW)
6