The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Meeting 10-04-2016 - Adjourned Regular Meeting10/04/16 CC FT Meeting Notification List Z.C. NAME email: Address City 3A -ZC 902 - Hynes Agenda + Staff Rep Agenda + Staff Rep Agenda + Staff Rep Agenda + Staff Rep Agenda + Staff Rep Agenda + Staff Rep agenda only agenda only agenda only agenda only agenda only agenda only agenda only agenda only agenda only Rea Jim Hynes Howard Wienberg Tavisha Nicholson Charlie Raine Kit Bagnell Lisa Naslund Ekberg Gordon Schaye John Mackenbach Carmen Schaye Ron Dragoo John Schoenfeld Craig Ekberg Bonnie Waters Steven Spierer via email only Jimphynes@gmail.com h owa rd@wei nberglaw.la tnicholson@boltonengineering.com Charlie.rainel0@gmail.com KBAGNELL@dpw.lacounty.gov LNASLUND@dpw.lacounty.gov hannege@msn.com gordonschaye@cox.net johnfmac@cox.net carmenschaye@cox.net RonD@rpvca.gov john@jalexanderco.com craigte@msn.com bonnie.waters@practicallawyer.com steven.spierer@practicallawyer.com 20252 Bancroft Circle Huntington Beach 92646 4 Pinto Road LA County Public Works LA County Public Works 58 Portuguese Bend Ro Rolling Hills, CA 90274 56 Portuguese Bend Ro, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 35 Crest Road East Rolling Hils, CA 90274 Public:2016 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS:10-04-16 City Council Agenda Field Trip:NotificationList.xlsx CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within proceeding; my business address is 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. On the 30'h day of September, 2016, I serve the within City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting - 10/04/2016 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 RH Web site listSery Parties Interested parties City Attorney Council Members 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 30ih day of September, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California. Ewa Nikodem Administrative Assistant INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 AGENDA -ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2016 MEETING TIME/LOCATION: 7:00 A.M. 23 CREST ROAD EAST, ROLLING HILLS, CA NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FIELD TRIP 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC HEARING 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. 4. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT 5. ADJOURNMENT 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. 9'f al fd! gelei INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: THRU: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 3-A Mtg. Date: 10/04/16 FIELD TRIP HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR"X✓ RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER 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) MR. JIM HYNES TAVISHA NICHOLSON, BOLTON ENGINEERING SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 RECOMMENDATION AND PREVIOUS REVIEWS 1. It is recommended that the City Council view the project in the field, take brief public testimony and adjourn the public hearing to the regular City Council meeting on October 10, 2016, or provide other direction to staff. 2. At its August 16, 2016 meeting the Planning Commission approved this project. The City Council took the project under jurisdiction at its 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 hearing before the City Council was properly noticed in the newspaper and neighbors within 1,000 -foot radius were notified of the hearing. 3. 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 ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E. 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. 4. The Planning Commission held several public hearings and made two field trips to the site. Following recommendation from the Planning Commissioners, the applicants revised the submittal and removed all requests for variances. In addition, they scaled down the project and relocated the garages to be closer to the residence and shortened the driveway. They eliminated a tennis court proposal on the lower pad and removed all fill from the lower pad by reconfiguring the proposed structures on the pad. They added two cisterns on the lower level to better address the run-off from that area of the lot. 5. During the Planning Commission proceedings, several residents expressed concerns regarding stability, erosion and water run-off from the proposed project and its impact, if any, on the downhill properties. All the correspondence is included with this report. The City Council requested that City's grading/drainage engineers be present at the October 10, 2016 City Council meeting. County staff is unable to attend the October 10 meting, however, they will be present at the field trip and are also available to attend subsequent City Council meetings. 6. Following one of the meetings, in response to additional questions from the Planning Commission regarding the handling of the run-off from the property and retention of the water on site, the applicants' engineer prepared a hydrology analysis for the proposed method of storage system (cisterns) for 1 year storm, 2 year storm, 5 year storm, 10 year storm 25 year storm, 50 year storm and 100 year storm. The proposed storage system is designed for a 25 -year storm to store the difference in stormwater runoff volume between the pre and post development conditions. According to the applicants' engineer, the project will retain and slow down more run- off on site post construction than what is currently draining. The hydrology analysis for 23 Crest Rd W. is included. The applicant's 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. This report was provided to the City Council at the September 12, 2016 meeting. BACKGROUND 7. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 7.05 acres. The net lot area for development purposes is 6.02 acres or 262,368 square feet. The existing property is currently vacant. ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E. 8. In 2015 the applicant requested to subdivide the existing vacant lot known as 23 Crest Road East, totaling 7.055 acres (gross) into 2 parcels. In February 2016 the applicant withdrew an application for a subdivision. 9. A natural drainage course is located along the western portion of the lot and a blue line stream, which is a part of the Klondike Canyon System, is located approximately 200 feet south of the southern property line of the lot. The lot is also located in proximity to the Geotechnical Hazardous area of the City, known as the Flying Triangle. A geotechnical and geological report prepared for the subdivision states that the crown of a landslide (Flying Triangle) is about 230 feet west of the southwestern portion of the lot. 10. The single-family residence on the lot as it is currently proposed is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 3. However, the Planning Commission and/or City Council may require additional information to aid them in the decision -making process and place conditions on the development, which are site specific. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 11. The new residence is proposed at 11,100 square feet and the first floor level will be about 13-15' below Crest Road East. The proposed residence will have a maximum ridge height of 18.5' above the finished floor, plus chimneys. The attached garages will have a maximum ridge height of 13' from finished floor. The basement is proposed to be 11,100 square feet and be contained entirely within the footprint of the new residence and will be 14' in depth. Per the applicant, the residence is proposed on the shallowest sloped area with a basement being added to increase the residence size while reducing the footprint. None of the proposed structures are in setbacks. 12. The lot drains to the southwest and southeast 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). 13. The applicant also proposes a new driveway off of Crest Road East. Per the Fire Department requirement, the driveway will be 20' wide and include a turn -around area to accommodate fire truck access. The Traffic Commission reviewed the proposed apron on July 28, 2016 and recommended approval. A not to exceed 3' high retaining wall with a swale is proposed along the north and east sides of the driveway. A 600 square foot parking pad in front of the residence, and adjacent to the driveway is proposed to accommodate guest parking. Both, the driveway and the parking pad location and size meet the zoning code provisions. 14. A 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. A proposed (for pedestrians) 780 square foot stairway with 3' high maximum walls joins the residence pad and the guesthouse pad. A 3' high retaining wall is required just north of the stable and will have a swale behind it to collect drainage. Pursuant to the zoning code requirements the following is applicable to this request: REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED Minimum 6' wide access with roughened surface 10 'wide access -way from Crest Road with roughened surface (not paved) Stable, corral not to be located on slopes greater than 4:1 Grading with 3' retaining wall; 2,500 cubic yards cut , 0 cubic yards fill, 750 cubic yards over - excavation and 750 cubic yards recompaction. 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 doo- Condition of approval. Loft iyermitted 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 contiguou to stable. (Planning Commission may determine the size of a corral) Proposed 2,250 sq. ft. corral enclosed with 3' high wall on north side Access slope not to exceed 25% From main driveway and Crest Road with 25% maximum slope Commercial uses or sleeping is not allowed Applicant is not proposing any commercial uses o sleeping in the stable The applicant must comply with all other requirements of Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to stables, as well as to all other regulations including, but not be limited to undergrounding of utility lines to the structures, lighting, roof material, Fire Department requirements and others. The following table lists stables /sizes approved since 2011. LOCATION SQUARE FEET/ NO. OF STORIES 11 Blackwater Cyn. Rd. 890 sq. ft. one story 5 Buggy Whip 890 sq. ft. one story ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E. 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. 15. An 800 square foot guesthouse is proposed with a 14.6' high maximum ridgeline plus chimneys. Section 17.16.210 (A)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a guesthouse, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. These conditions, listed below, are intended to ensure that such structures are ancillary uses, do not eliminate an existing or future development for a stable and are not converted to other than permitted uses. REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED Shall not exceed eight hundred square feet An 800 square foot guesthouse is proposed. Shall not be located in the front yard or any setback. The guesthouse is not proposed to be in the front yard or 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 occupants of the main residence or by the temporary guests of the This is a standard condition of approval. ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E. e 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 approval. standard condition of 16. 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. 17. Two building pads are proposed. The residential building pad is proposed at 47,325 square feet and will have coverage of 15,405 square feet or 32.55% with allowed deductions, (30% max. guideline). This pad includes all the structures minus the guesthouse, stable and trellis. Pad 2 for the guesthouse and stable is proposed at 11,100 square feet with 2,389 square feet of coverage or 21.5% with allowed deductions for the trellis. 18. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 19,074 square feet or 7.3%, and with allowed deductions would be 18,554 or 7.1%, (20% max. permitted); and the total lot coverage including the structures and all hardscape and flatwork will be 36,684 square feet or 14.0% (35% max. permitted) excluding allowable deductions. 19. Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. 20. 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 NEARBY PROPERTIES (For information only) Address House size in sq.ft. Lot Area (gross acres) 16 Crest Road E. 5,460* 1.51 ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E. 0 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: 11:42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit. The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord, with the following principles and standards: A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan; B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures; C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed; D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district; E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title. ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E. SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 11.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 11.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. ZC NO. 902, 23 Crest E. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ZONING CASE NO. 902 23 Crest Road East SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED PROPOSED APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION RA -S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS VACANT LOT NEW RESIDENCE WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, SPORTS COURT, DETACHED GARAGE, GUEST HOUSE NEW RESIDENCE WITH Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from rear easement line ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, GUEST HOUSE, ATTACHED GARAGES, POOL AND STABLE 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 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. recompaction = 785 cy to be exported 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. • 4 SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS 23 CREST ROAD EAST IMO JUL t.1 2013 City of Honing Hills By ROLLING HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION ED BY: BOLTON ENGINEERING DATE: JULY 9, 2016 1111.: STORMWATER RUNOFF CALCULATION SUMMARY 23 CREST ROAD EAST ROWNG HILLS, CA 90274 JAMES P. HYNES UVING TRUST Bolton triginesrIng Carp. 25834 Nwbonne Avenue Ste. 21( 4147 MARITIME ROAD Lomita Co. 90717 RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90274 Phone: (310) 325-5580 Far (3101 325-5581 .M, 20/11 tPamm r Drat 1741 a 11315 Am 1 OF 1 J:\13315J4ynes\dwg\C-Site PIan_2016_G.dwg 7/8/2016 2.28:43 PM ROOF RUNOFF COLLECTED I OTT1ER5 AND INTO DOWNSPW RIUM DRAIN TO COLLECT RUNOFF AT BASE OF BERM mtimimmssionomme DIEN BERM To PREVENT WATER, FROM GOING OVER FILL SLOPE UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE {WE AU. GRATES AND DOWNSOUTS CONNECT TO DOS. ER RESIDENCE RUNOFF COLLECTED IN CUTTERS MID INTO DOWNSPOUTS FINISHED GRADE RIKWAY CATCH BASIN. COLLECTS DRIVEWAY AND PARKING PAD RUNOFF PRETREATMENT SYSTEM \ '• 5S MANHOLES 10'1 UNDERGR MIND as EACH Sit LONC GVTFNNECIINC PIPE OUTLET TO PU MP BOTH OSTFRNS CONNECT CT TO TO E MS MD CURET IS /LIMP OR OTHER APPROVED DISCHARGE N ...COSTING CRATE ADE ! PIPE TO CUTLET STRUCTURE ON CONTROL WTIET STRUCTURE FOR OVERFLOW. `...1/4•4°51114R AOE G Tape. DIAGRAM STORMWATER RUNOFF a CREST ROAD EAST IOLUNO HILLS. CA 130274 Je11T10111n..1e otob PW_ 1e Od.P 7/11/2010 e1A1O AM JAMES P. HYNES LMNO TRUST 4147 MARMME ROAD RANCHO PAIOS VEROE5. CA 00274 trAttaNvm Awns MA 210 Lanai. PIM Nos (310) 9256580 Fe (S10)13®1 Y... LA. 3 o0 g e 1 • R Q ‘ lilt i /AV � � \ '\ • \ .1 1 1I 4 j• 1.i^\``\ `\ • \ \' 'V\', fI 6f 1 ,/ .:�;z \\\�\\' 1. } 11tL^, §� i / / /yam -.� \ \ \ l f f 19911:11 11; V =1,. ` .//� `/ /: ?-.---�\ `: \\\ II is l'ilis ; :?, ;„:14-71 :I, :: 7 -, ":-:-:;—: 7, -:-::::::::-:;, : E." -,::_t= if: ,:i,::.: , iiitl ;;;;;:i:1-:71:\C:::, 11!11;11 ng �!' ,, - -_ .... ... .. ....z\ T�� y r // �/ / 11fr;,r i•�/ 1:11111. %% S 2' : liij f -r: ,- .�'' /,%'; ill' ill a t' 1 t• ;, 'r 6 \�`\�,.,' ji' iii%i/ ,C. a ag E e 1l11�', 1I//%�--: \>� \\\\`\1\ ,tj 1'i '�� II • I �@ 4 % E 1 t}t,fl?5/% ' r \`\ .\?liit' ail i\ I I' i1 (off%%l%9 :: ,,"-‘‘\.\\147/27 � AQ'/, >://(7, /iEms.. \ ''\\ ` li'1i• I t r E ,1}1t 1,\ll jl.��"�r/ ' '/ /r._�^�\�:\ \\\ `N%I�f %r /'r I \}1,j, 1)i�:'�/j /�i�!. . iS ':` ,.;� ,.\\` \\..�\d�\1j'1i1i' r / /: /. 1i. k. 'f , t,l\, STOR AGE AVAILA BILITY PER DIAMETER 5 FBI qds:9iiii !!II! 5 !4!!!5!!! ° a liiiI ! 8!00!1! E .. .e .i5 r_ 0 0 E 0 s 2 b ' ttl QIlj 1 ICI8 11 Y 6, 1 We 5e i ' if 1 $111 IIIi4 1� :14 tut s E g €1! ei�� .�I His I r gi "i� ill !I loilo i t 11ip. 1111419e1 ill 11111101 1 ii 1410/ 1� / hosil pill 1140 hellirowid ! e i E Hydrology & Wdnuam: 25 Year Storm Lbdwweped Lot Propped DewbpnBr NM Lot/rue (41) 507314 37314 20-01724 Er4ra Bb Lot Ao (east) 7.055 7155 - D.wlop4dAnoWebr.N.d(a.t.) 97,314 307,314 Analyze Even. Sib o.wbpd Ao W4o.1.0 (.pee) 7.0650 7.0560 smmcN.e (.Q 0 14074 - No0844/41010 0,033 24,130 ♦ Por , n of Gnat Rod on Property Total Sauteed• IYrdsop 0,033 4330 - )nPeO%tM(%) 1.05% 14.06% . Flow Path (f0 GEO 1220 Largest lbw p0r br rate to react wrw,pwra roe.of too canyon.bwrte Clap in EbnSn (4) 245 245 Slope (%) 2578% 20.05% Sow Pobct sib. Cu 0.098 00363 Udoebped RHOS COMkobd Cd 0.850 06470 Dwabpad Rurofl Cadbolsrl To(mb) 7 9 The of CacMOnSm Flow Rote (a1.) 13.42 11.87 - Velma (fG) 3%700 I 44,562 - buna In now pith brgh a d.cr ss In *co end flow re% Inmate In Flow Rats (cM) -1)$ beat In Vane 543) 7,844 - STORAGE TANK NEEDS TO STORE AMINIMUM OF 7,444 FTa OF RUNOFF . 50,673 GAL OF RUNOFF - CONTECH URBANGREEN ORPE CISTERN 3ID40 Opon 1 PPE OVLLETER (10 LENGTH OF PPE (Fr) NUMBER OF PIPES AVNYBIE STORAGE PER LF. (GAULF) PROVOED STORAGE CAPMIIY (G.L) 120 50 2 69.67 85,993 CHECK 85,989 c 158,073 O( CONTECH URDIW GREEN SAFE CISTERN BILNG Option 2 PPE DWETER (10 LENGTH OF PPE (FT) MILKER OF PPES AVAUABLE STORAGE PER LF. (GAULF) PROVOED STORAGE CAPACITY (GAL) 0 9 4 278.74 64,66B CHECK: 84.608 C 158173 O( Barn Event Storm (Year) Undeveloped Developed Pre n Post % al ()stem 3urea lr Only Storing Difference (Above In Pre Vs. n,,.: dot Volume (Difference of Pre vs Post) Stored by ea. Additional Volume Stored Difference In Pre n Post) Cubic Feet Flow Bale (ds) 24Hr Volume (fl3) Flow Rate lets) 24 HrVdume(ft3) Flow Rate (di) 26 Br Volume (R3) 1 1.6 4 139 1.55 3 9, 0 3.5 40417 3,211 36.40% , 100% 5,611 2 3.01 9,675 28384 13,917 41716 4.242 48.08% 100% 4,580 5 6.47 18,486 6 24,424 -0.47 5,938 67.31% WO% 1,934 10 9.202 25,769 8.377 32,653 4825 6,884 7803% 100% 1,938 25 13.42 36.708 11.87 4%552 -155 7,844 88891% In 978 5O 15.53 46,111 14.56 54.525 497 8.414 95.37% 100% 408 100 142 5(}}642 14546 66,456 -2654 8,814 99.91% 100% 8 500 26.84 82,939 24.466 92,492 -2.374 9,533 10806% 9254% 0 CALCULATION SUMMARY STORMWATER RUNOFF neRF&T RGAD EAST ROLLING KILLS, CA 00274 ala15Jbro.Nnp'Geb PbL201e_OCp M201022993 FM JAMES P. HYNES WHO TRUST 414TMARTMEROAO RANCHO PALOS V ERDES. CA 90274 5— la__ Corp, 2534 Nabv.. Ares. Oho. 210 Ime4Q 90111 Dena (310)3254560 Fecp10)3254121 ale ea man Cal Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis Fde location: PJ13315 Hyrtls/Documenf801ydrpbgy_Enlro See/23 Crest Road East - Un-DevtWpot25 Year w road.p&f Version HydroCalc 0.3.1 -beta Input Parameters Project Name Subarea ID Area (ac) Flow Path Length (ft) Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) Percent Impervious Soil Type Design Storm Frequency Fire Factor LID 23 Crest Road East Un-Developed_25 Year 7.055 950.0 0.2579 5.0 0.0195 2 25-yr 0 False Output Results Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) Peak Intensity (in/hr) Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) Time of Concentration (min) Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) Bumed Peak Flow Rate (cfs 24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume ac -ft 24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume cu -ft) 4-39 2.2361 0,8499 0.8509 7.0 13.4229 13.4229 0.8427 36707.9728 14 12 10 4 2 0 0 Hydrograph (23 Crest Road East: Un-Developed_25 Year) 200 400 600 800 1000 Time (minutes) 1200 1400 1800 Till.: UN —DEVELOPED 25 YEAR CALCULATION SUMMARY 23 CREST ROAD EAST ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 \13315jtynee\deg\C—Site PIan_2016_C.dwg 7/8/2016 2:29:13 PM i Cll•nl: JAMES P. HYNES UNNG TRUST 4147 MARITIME ROAD RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA 90274 Soften engineering 25834 Nakano e�Ste. 21 Lenito, Co. 10717 Phone (310) 325-5580 Far (310) 325-5581 wt+ntane psy.tsamv.l 'Draw ROI Jett U1315 Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis Fee location: JJ13315_Hynes/DowmentsMHydrWugy Enure Site/23 Crest Read East - Developed_25 Year_v• mad.pdr Verelm: HydroCalc 0.3.1 -bate 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 nlhr) Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) Time of Concentration (min) Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) Bumed Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume ((ac -ft) 24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume cu -ft) 4.39 1.987 0,8383 0.847 9.0 11.8728 11.8728 1.0228 44551.967 12 10- 8- Hydrograph (23 Crest Road East: Developed_25 Year) 0 200 400 800 1000 Time (minutes) 1200 1400 1800 Tilt.: DEVELOPED 25 YEAR CALCULATIONS 23 CREST ROAD EAST ROLUNG HILLS. CA 90274 +.m: STORM JAMES P. HYNES DNNG TRUST 4147 MARITIME ROAD RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90274 J \13315J-iynes\dwg\C-Site Plan_2016_Gdwg 7/8/2016'229:08 PM Elottan o+wraa m 25834 Natrona Menus Ste. 21 aewE A9 a atn Lomita, Cu. 90717 a..a PM Phone (310) 325-5580 lb Far (310)_325-5591 bail OF TI le: HYDROLOGIC MAP kne .UU$ '. ; / ORO,JECT SITE (016 ) 7.2 • DPA-6) Still. CLgIlCaHQ CALCULA11ON SUMMARY 23 CREST ROAD EAST ROUJNG HILLS. CA 90274 i ea ..»ee SAN PEDRO 1.103 a i : 2 Was — -— — ZSYEAR 24-HOIIR ISOHYET REDUCTION FACTOR: 0.878 IDYEAR 24 HOUR ISOHYET REDUCTION FACTOR: 0.714 TORRANCE 50 -YEAR 24 -HOUR ISOHYET ellen.: JAMES P. HYNES LIVING TRUST 4147 MARITIME ROAD RANCHO PAWS VERDES. CA 90274 1-111.4 31`45 s0'• . 21 • ,me ass J: \13315J1ynea\dwg\C—Site Plan. 2018_G.dwg 7/8/2016 229:18 PM Sofa,, Engineering Cary. 25934 Narbonne Avenue Ste. Lomita. Ca 90717 Phone: (310) 325-5580 Fat (310) 325-5581 it45'80" TORRANCE I -Hu _ • • 1?0r:; .fat ;cN4 le ,rl,va•ct ( • DPA - 6 • I 4< I .+r`3Om;.i. , Mi OPA - 7_ - 4#Iv f M1 •. Nn-. • F_ 14 3r 3r 3r W N 016 ) :vR+.I10' avwt. u, • us./ MI s (DPA - I Tx — waft 0 2 IMa 23 -YEAR 24 -HOUR ISORVI:T REDUCTION FACTOR: 0378 18 -YEAR 24 -HOUR ISOHYET REDI,'CUON FACTOR: 0.714 SAN PEDRO 50 -YEAR 24 -HOUR ISOHYET 1-111.2 Till : HYDROLOGIC MAP CALCULATION SUMMARY 23 CREST ROAD EAST ROWNG HILLS, CA 90274 CII..I JAMES P. HYNES LJVIHG TRUST 25834 Habana Mama Sib. 21( 4147 MARITIME ROAD Lomita, Co. 90717.. RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90274 Phone: (310) 325-5580 For (310) 325-5361 J: \13315Jt)TIes\dwq\C—Slte Plon_2016_G.dwg 7/8/2016 2.29:28 PM 04•u24 acne 3—A3 MOAN r Ian a.• 1 on 1. 0 0.9 u 0. 8 I- z w 0. 7 u. u. O 0.8 u. z 0. 5 o 0.4 a 0 w 0.3 0 z 0.2 0.1 0.0 Ce=(0.9• IM P) + (1.0 - IMP) • Cu Where: Co = Developed Runoff Coefficie nt IM P = Proportion Imperviou s Cu = Undeveloped runoff coefficien t I • Los Angeles County Department of Public Works RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CURVE SOIL TYPE NO. 002 • I 1 I ; 00 20 40 6 0 8 0 10.0 12.0 14 .0 RAINFALL INTENSITY (I) INCHES/HOUR File:Soil Curve Data and Gr aphs 0-24 Tab:G N2 HYDROLOGY APPENDIX C 16 .0 18 .0 20.0 BJW: 08/14/2004 I II i N lUi ha rt n c .4 1sW fa s = F dIa 0 ill Li I 4 8 )-i-< we irDso ((fl zoo OFQ rNIX 1 Year Storm Storage of Pre Vs. Post 3,211; 36% 5,611; 64% % of Cistern Filled if Only Storing Difference in Pre Vs. Post Volume Additional Volume Stored (Above Difference in Pre vs Post) Cubic Feet 2 Year Storm Storage of Pre Vs. Post % of Cistern Filled if Only Storing Difference in Pre Vs. Post Volume •4,580; 52% 4,242; 48% ' Additional Volume Stored (Above Difference in Pre vs Post) Cubic Feet 5 Year Storm Storage of Pre Vs. Post 2,884; 33% s 5,938; 67% % of Cistern Filled if Only Storing Difference in Pre Vs. Post Volume I, 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 LIAdditional 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% ;i Additional Volume Stored (Above Difference in Pre vs Post) Cubic Feet 50 Year Storm Storage of Pre Vs. Post 408; 5% % of Cistern Filled if Only Storing Difference in Pre Vs. Post Volume 0 Additional Volume Stored (Above Difference in Pre vs Post) Cubic Feet 8,414;95% 100 Year Storm Storage of Pre Vs. Post 8; 0.09% % of Cistern Filled if Only Storing Difference in Pre Vs. Post Volume .; Additional Volume Stored (Above Difference in Pre vs Post) Cubic Feet 8,814; 99.91% 500 Year Storm Storage of Pre Vs. Post 0;0%_ % of Cistern Filled if Only Storing Difference in Pre Vs. Post Volume r) Additional Volume Stored (Above Difference in Pre vs Post) Cubic Feet 9,533; 100% — - DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECT GENERATED DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS DRAINAGE LAW SAYS A PROJECT MAY NOT ADD, NOR CONCENTRATE DRAINAGE TO THEIR NEIGHBOR. THEREFORE, "ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE" FROM THE DEVELOPMENT MUST BE MITIGATED IN SOME FASHION "ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE" -IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PREDEVELOPMENT AND POST -DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS DUE TO ANY ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS AREA. 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 30 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CORRESPONDENCE 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 consultant to evaluate the possible geological impact of the proposed plan. Sincerely, Renee Martin THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK IJ ❑ PLEASE RESPOND TO: 707 TORRANCE BOULEVARD SUITE 200 REDONDO BEACH. CALIFORNIA 90277-3400 TELEPHONE 1310) 540-3199 TELECOPIER (310) 316.1823 July 14, 2016 SPIERER 1 WOODWARD 1 CORBALIS 1 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 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. 6ih St. Suite 300 San Pedro, CA 90731 Greetings, 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 0 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 Attorne : at Law A Pr 1/4 even 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 driveway 0RHCAP'to Road ®Crack In toad signals start of the "slide gie /ssaasi Little Klondike 81 tos e. LiffleKondikt Y°n es' Big KlondikeCrY° Representedropertis ap ll� ti?ECEIVED .. 1 JUL 1 8.2016 City of Rolling RECEIVED Water 23 Crest Road East July 19, 2016 JUL 1 92016 Cit of Rolling. Hilts By ( j j71?JMirV Frvm C4iorlidPa @ Water generated from Crest Road itself and attributed to 23 Crest- 6,000sf impermeable Water generated on site: 37,000sf of impermeable coverage 43,000sf directs flow to two 33,000 gallon cisterns Calculations assume saturated soil/hardscape and soil retention of 1/6th inch of rain per hour. The cisterns are designed to hold a 25 year storm calculation of 5 inches of rain in a 24 hour period. 5 inches of rain (per calculations below) generates 134,000 gallons of water. After capacity is reached, additional water is then directed to a discharge pipe. Capacity of the two tanks: 66,000 gallons 43,000sf /12 equals 3,583 cubic feet of water. Each cubic foot of water is 7.48 gallons. 3,583cu x 7.48= 26,800 gallons of water captured per inch of rain and a total of 134,000 for 5 inches of rain. Storage capacity of the cisterns is reached with 2.5 inches of rain or in other words, 40 percent utilization with each inch of rain. The "other" 66,000 gallons goes where? Little Klondike Canyon and directly into the slide plane. Barn and Guest House: 3,000sf/ 12 equals 250 cubic feet of water. Each cubic foot of water is 7.48 gallons. 250 cu x 7.48= 1,870 gallons discharged per inch of rain. In a 25 year storm calculation assuming 5 inches of rain in 24 hours the total discharged is 9,350 gallons of water. The destination? Little Klondike Canyon and into the slide plane. The Problem: ANY discharge that adds to the flow into Little Klondike Canyon is too much. The utilized 25 Year Storm calculations project approximately 75,000 gallons of water directed, across already saturated surfaces, into Little Klondike Canyon and the active Flying Triangle landslide area. Page 1 of 2 The Solution: Less captured water achieved by significantly smaller impermeable surfaces via smaller footprints of living area, outbuildings and hardscape. Water from ALL impermeable surfaces must be contained on site and percolated as far as possible from the landslide below, including runoff generated from the barn and guest house, should they be approved. Additionally: We request an independent hydrology report and analysis by appropriate entities and experts determining that the disturbance and redistribution of such vast quantities of soil and redistribution and addition of huge quantities of water will have NO negative affect on the active landslide or residents below, as well as the time for us to have our own experts review and approve or challenge such reports. Page 2 of 2 Charlie Raine 0 The Weinberg Law Group RECEEVED 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 construction of a new 11100 square foot residence 23 Crest Road East (the "Project") Ladies and Gentlemen: Our firm represents the James Hynes and the Hynes Family Trust, the owners of 23 Crest Road East and the applicant for approval of the Project. The Project was last reviewed by the Planning Commission at the hearing on June 21, 2016. At that time, the Planning Commission directed staff to arrange for a site visit to the Hynes property and a further hearing before the Planning Commission. We have received a letter dated July 14, 2016 from Steven Spierer of Spierer, Woodward, Crobalis and Goldberg. Apparently, this letter was also delivered to the Planning Commission. In his letter, Mr. Spierer states that he represents a number of land owners (the "Neighbors") who live westerly and downhill of the 23 Crest Road property. Although the Spierer letter does not contain any substantial evidence upon which the Planning Commission can rely, we thought it important to provide a formal response to the Spierer letter, because it contains allegations of liability and threats of litigation. As the Planning Commission well knows, when considering a discretionary approval such as the application submitted by the Hynes family for approval of the Project, the Planning Commission acts in a quasi-adjudicatory role and accepts evidence during the public hearing process to determine whether the requested Project meets the requirements of the zoning code. In this case, the proposed Hynes Project fits squarely within all of the applicable development standards for a single family home, the Project does not require any variances or administrative waivers, and the Project has been designed with keen attention to the two sensitive issues in this matter — namely hydrology and geology. 2550 Via Tejon l Suite 2B l Pales Verdes 1 CA l 90127.11 :3:0.363.77?5 I hocvard@hveinberg] aw.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 natter). All of the foregoing reports and testimony are expert testimony and so-called "substantial evidence" upon which the Planning Commission can and should rely to conclude that the Project complies with the development standards in the City's zoning code and that the proposed Project can and should be approved. As a challenge to all of this expert evidence before the Planning Commission, Charlie Raine has spoken at prior hearings and has suggested, opined, and speculated, that the Project, if constructed, could create a catastrophic flow of water downhill toward his property. However, Mr. Raine's opinions and speculation cannot be considered "substantial evidence" of any problem or of a valid challenge to the expert evidence provided by the Hynes. Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills July 19, 2016 Page 3 Now, in a final attempt to derail the approval of the Hynes Project, Mr. Raine (and the other Neighbors) have hired an attorney, Steven Spierer, to press their case. In the July 14, 2016 letter from Steven Spierer, the Planning Commission receives an attorney's opinions and speculation about the potential effect of grading and water flow from the Project. Although Mr. Spierer expresses dramatic concern that the construction of the Hynes Project will result in catastrophic failure of the Flying Triangle slide area, his anxiety is not based on science or expert opinion. To the contrary, Mr. Spierer's speculation about the effect of grading activity and storm water flow are the exact opposite of the expert opinions of certified geologists and hydrologists. Moreover, the County's own independent experts have peer reviewed the work of the Hynes' geologists and hydrologists and the County's experts have testified that they agree with the conclusion reached by the geologists and hydrologists. While we are sympathetic to the uneasy state in which the downhill Neighbors live, due to their extraordinary unfortunate experience with the prior Flying Triangle slide problem, we do not agree that their fear of the future (not based in evidence) should guide the conclusion of the Planning Commission. The Neighbors, Mr. Raine, and Mr. Spierer are asking the Planning Commission to speculate along with them that some undefinable bad thing may happen if the Project is approved. This is not the job of the Planning Commission, and would be wholly inappropriate as a conclusion to this zoning matter. The tcns 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 SMI.TII-EMERY COMPANY An Independent Commercial Testing Inborazwy.. 6vahllshed 1904 791. East a'o,hiupton Bh2, lar riths. Ga/fornia 90021-3043. (213)149-3411. Fav 0131 '414520 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. Also, 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 Citybe 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 • 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 additionai comment would be helpful. please he in contact. Very Truly yours,_ lames E. Partridge resident Civil Engineer