Loading...
City Council Agenda 11-13-20178(4 ate zae&to gad INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING Next Resolution No. 1217 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2017 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME Next Ordinance No. 357 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. B. C. Financial Statement for the Month of September 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. Brown Act Complaint filed by Lynn Gill. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. Consideration of Buyout of the City's Contract with MuniTemps for the Purpose to Permanently Hire the Interim City Clerk. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 5. COMMISSION ITEMS A. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-18. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 923, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND VARIANCE TO RETAIN A PORTION OF IMPORTED DIRT FOR THE GRADING AND TO EXPORT THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE DIRT, TO CONSTRUCT GREATER THAN 2:1 SLOPE AND TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT, (ZC NO. 843), AT 38 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 118-RH), (WHEELER). Page 1 of 3 B. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-20. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND VARIANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE, RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION/ADDITION, ADDITION TO AN EXISTING POOL HOUSE, A NEW SPA, NEW RETAINING WALLS, AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED WALL HEIGHT AVERAGE AND DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 925 AT 16 PINE TREE LANE (LOT 81-1-RH), SUNITHA BHARADIA) AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO APPROVE A NEW DRIVEWAY APRON. C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-19. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL AND GARAGE ADDITION, COVERED PORCHES AND TRELLIS IN ZONING CASE NO. 930 AT 52 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 4 -FT), (WACHS). 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE. 7. OLD BUSINESS NONE. 8. NEW BUSINESS NONE. 9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS A. CONSIDERATION OF THE REAPPOINTMENT OF THE INCUMBENT PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO A FOUR-YEAR TERM COMMENCING ON JANUARY 1, 2018. B. UPDATE ON THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA REGIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 9, 2017. (ORAL) 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF A. QUARTERLY SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2017. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS 12. CLOSED SESSION City Council Agenda 11/13/17 Page 2 of 3 A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL Existing Litigation — Government Code Sections 54956.9 (a) and (d)(1) City of Rolling Hills v. California Water Service Company, Case No. 17-08-006 closed session to confer with, or receive advice from, the City Attorney regarding pending litigation due to the fact that discussion in open session concerning this matter would prejudice the City's position in the litigation. 13. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION NONE. 14. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Monday, November 27, 2017 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 11/13/17 Page 3 of 3 RH Balance Sheet FY 2017-18 11/8/2017 3:04 PM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS BALANCE SHEET September 30, 2017 ASSETS Cash & Cash Equivalents Ca h & Cash Equivalents - Capital Project Fund Poppy Trail Grading Bond Accounts Receivable Prepaid Expense & Deposits LIABILITIES FUND BALANCE TOTAL ASSETS GENERAL & DEPOSIT CAPITAL FUND FUND $ 4,335,240 30,757 23,612 $ 4,389,609 Accounts & Contract Payable $ Employee Benefits Payable Deposits Deferred Revenues TOTAL LIABILITIES COPS & CLEEP MUNICIPAL COMMUN. SELF - FACILITIES INSUR. REFUSE COLLECT. TRAFFIC TRANSIT UTILITY SAFETY PROP A, C, M FUND &TDA $ 1,771 $ 94,982 $ 15,951 $ 260,374 $ 231,054 $ 305,000 208,956 - $ 58,721 $ 1,480,700 $306,771 $ 94,982 $ 15,951 $ 260,374 $ 440,010 $ 813 $ - $ $ $ - $ 190,377 $ 5,450 18,852 306,771 25,115 306,771 Unassigned Fund Balance 4,364,494 TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE 4,364,494 190,377 94,982 15,951 260,374 249,633 94,982 15,951 260,374 249,633 $ 58,721 $ 1,480,700 58,721 1,480,700 58,721 1,480,700 TOTAL NASSIGNED FUND BALANCE & LIABILITIE: $ 4,389,609 $306,771 $ 94,982 $ 15,951 $ 260,374 $ 440,010 $ - $ 58,721 $ 1,480,700 COMPOSITION OF CASH Petty Cash OPUS Bank - Checking Account OPUS Bank - Money Market Opus Bank Interest Checking Calif. State Local Agency Investment Fund Malaga Bank - Preferred Bank - CD's $ 1,500 36,543 93,425 1,013,524 4,593,801 740,000 $ 6,478,793 Prepared Terry She inance Director Appr y d By: Raymond R. Cruz, City M eager Date / Date 1/71(7 PRECLOSING BEGINNING YTD OF YEAR TOTAL TOTAL $ 6,478,793 $ 7,144,199 305,000 ' 305,000 239,713 40,586 23,612 37,954 $ 7,047,118 $ 7,527,739 $ 191,190 $ 398,718 5,450 452 325,623 325,623 522,263 724,793 6,524,855 6,802,946 6,524,855 6,802,946 $ 7,047,118 $ 7,527,739 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Actual Compared to Annual Budget July 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017 GENERAL Fund Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue CITIZENS' OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue COMMUNITY FACILITIES Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue MUNICIPAL SELF-INSURANCE Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue REFUSE COLLECTION Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TRAFFIC SAFETY Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TRANSIT - PROPOSITION A, C, M & TDA Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue UTILITY FUND Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TOTAL ALL FUNDS Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue This Year Last Year This Year Better (Worse) Annual Budget & Adj. Remaining Budget $ 84,619 $ 52,918 $ 31,701 1,935,250 $ 1,850,631 520,357 383,364 (136,993) 2,097,250 1,576,893 (435,738) (330,446) (105,292) (162,000) 273,738 4,965 6,000 (1,035) (212,450) (217,415) (430,773) (324,446) (106,327) (374,450) 56,323 39,416 - 39,416.00 140,125 100,709 21,554 17,975 (3,579) 156,500 134,946 17,862 (17,975) 35,837 (16,375) (34,237) - - - - 0 17,862 (17,975) 35,837 (16,375) (34,237) - - - 195,000 195,000.00 - - - (195,000) (195,000.00) - - - 195,000 195,000.00 - - - 100 100 - - - 12,700 12,700 - - - (12,600) (12,600) - - (12,600) (12,600) - - - 3,000 3,000.00 - - - (3,000) (3,000.00) - - (3,000) (3,000.00) 194,192 197,573 (3,381) 771,100 576,908 193,701 190,377 (3,324) 774,800 581,099 491 7,196 (57) (3,700) (4,191) (6,000) (6,000) - (24,000) (18,000) (5,509) 1,196 (57) (27,700) (22,191) - - - 50 50 1,035 547 (488) 41,500 40,465 (1,035) (547) 488 (41,450) (40,415) 1,035 - 1,035 41,450 40,415 (547) 1,523 - 0 23,916 21,003 2,913 113,275 89,359 23,916 21,003 2,913 113,275 89,359 23,916 21,003 2,913 113,275 89,359 - - - 150,000 150,000.00 - - - (150,000) (150,000.00) - - (150,000) (150,000.00) 342,143 271,494 70,649 2,959,900 2,617,757 736,647 592,263 (144,384) 3,430,750 2,694,103 (394,504) (320,769) 215,033 (470,850) (76,346) $ (394,504) $ (320,769) $ 215,033 $ (470,850) $ (76,346) RH Income Statement FY 2017-18 11/8/2017 3:05 PM Rall4i9 gad INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 4-B Mtg. Date: 11/13/17 TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ROLLING HILLS FROM: MICHAEL JENKINS, CITY ATTORNEY NATALIE C. KARPELES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: BROWN ACT COMPLAINT FILED BY LYNN GILL DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2017 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Email dated October 24, 2017 from Lynn Gill 2. Email regarding "More Yes on C signs are coming" dated October 12, 2017 from Yes on C 3. Email regarding "Protect Your Rolling Hills Tax Dollars" dated October 12, 2017 from Yes on C 4. Proposed letter to Mr. Gill RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report; direct City Attorney to send letter pursuant to Government Code §54960.1 (c)(2) communicating the City Council's determination that no Brown Act violation occurred and therefore that the City Council will not take further action. BACKGROUND: Lynn Gill sent an email to the City Manager dated October 24, 2017 alleging violations of the Brown Act. The Brown Act provides that any person may challenge an action taken by the City Council by filing a written demand to cure or correct the action alleged to have been taken in violation of the Brown Act. This report will address the substantive allegations contained in the email. The City takes every Brown Act allegation seriously, even when it would appear on its face to be without merit. The Brown Act dictates that the City Council determine within 30 days of receipt of a demand whether it will cure or correct the challenged action. If the City Council does not act within 30 days, it is deemed to have determined not to take any corrective action. Tonight's meeting is within the 30 day period for response. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54960.1(b), the Council must determine whether a violation occurred and if so, whether to cure the violation. A copy of Mr. Gill's email is attached (Attachment 1); it asserts that: 1. Because the newly adopted view ordinance (Ordinance No. 354) is within the City Council's subject matter jurisdiction and the outcome of Measure C would impact the view ordinance, Measure C is therefore also within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. Because a majority of the City Council has been campaigning collaboratively for Measure C, such actions violate the public meeting requirements of the Act (set forth in Government Code section 54952.2). This is a reiteration of an allegation that was made by Mr. Gill in his email of October 12, 2017 and rejected by the City Council at its meeting of October 23, 2017. 2. Members of the City Council, outside of a properly convened Council meeting, expressed how they would vote on Ordinance No. 354 prior to the second reading of the Ordinance at the October 23, 2017 City Council meeting. ANALYSIS: A. The Emails in Question. The City Council voted on Ordinance No. 354 at its October 9, 2017 meeting - when the Ordinance was introduced. From the time that the Ordinance was introduced on first reading and its enactment on October 23, 2017, two councilmembers circulated an email informing residents about the new view ordinance and encouraging them to vote "yes" on Measure C.1 At or about this time, a second email (endorsed by four members of the City Council) was being circulated promoting Measure C.2 Ordinance No. 354 was enacted on October 23, 2017 following a dully noticed City Council meeting, during which the Council considered public comment. B. The Brown Act. The purpose of the Brown Act (which is found at Government Code Section 54950, et seq.) is to ensure that the deliberations of local governmental legislative bodies are conducted publicly and their actions are taken openly. The City Council is subject to the Brown Act. All City Council deliberations and actions must be made in public, and 1 Email from Yes on C to City residents regarding "Protect Your Rolling Hills Tax Dollars" 2 Email from Yes on C to City residents regarding "Mom s on C signs are coming" all meetings must be open, except for properly noticed "closed sessions" as allowed by • the Brown Act. Under the Brown Act, a meeting is "any congregation of a majority of members of a legislative body at the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body or the local agency to which it pertains." In plain English, this means that a meeting is any gathering of a majority of City Councilmembers to hear or discuss any item of City business. As a result, three Councilmembers may not get together outside of a properly convened meeting to discuss or to develop any ideas for the Council's activities or to otherwise discuss a matter that may come before the Council. A "meeting" need not occur all at one time as a "gathering" of a quorum of the body. Rather, it also includes communication among a majority of a legislative body regarding an item of city business outside of an actual gathering. It can occur in a serial fashion through a series of telephone calls, emails or other communications by which a quorum of the body's membership ultimately is involved. This is known as a "serial meeting." Serial meetings can occur directly among councilmembers or through either one or more persons acting as intermediaries or through use of a technological device (such as a telephone answering machine, or e-mail or voice mail), even though a majority of members never gather in a room at the same time. If any interested person believes that a majority of the members of the City Council have met in violation of the Act, he or she may make a written demand on the City to cure or correct the violation. A written demand for a cure is a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit. Under Section 54960.1, the Council has thirty days to respond to the demand. C. Mr. Gill's Allegations: Because the emails to which Mr. Gill is reacting are dated October 12, 2017, his October 24, 2017 demand is well within the ninety day period allowed by Section 54960.1(c) (1) and is therefore timely. 1. Measure C is not within the Council's Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Mr. Gill does not allege a Brown Act violation because the promotion of a ballot measure is not "City business." (Discussion of Email re: "More Yes on C signs are coming.") Mr. Gill's email implies a violation of Section 54952.2, which prohibits a majority of the members of a legislative body from using a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body outside of a public meeting.3 "As used in this chapter, 'meeting' means any congregation of a 3 See Government Code section 54952.2(b)(1) majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and location... to hear, discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body."4 "A lack of subject matter jurisdiction is 'an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties."'S The City Council's jurisdiction over any matters relative to Measure C has concluded - the Measure was placed on the November ballot and once the Council took that action, it lost jurisdiction over the matter. The disposition of Measure C is a matter for the voters to decide; there is nothing more the Council can do at this point as regards the Measure. If there is no subject matter jurisdiction over the issue, then there is no meeting; and if there is no meeting, then there is no violation of the Brown Act - regardless of the number of Council members participating in the promotion of Measure C. The campaigns regarding Measure C are not a matter of City Council business; they are political campaigns outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. Councilmembers may participate in those campaigns in their capacity as residents, no differently than any other resident may participate in a political campaign. When they do so, they are not functioning on City Council business. Hence, Mr. Gill's allegation is without merit. 2. Mr. Gill does not allege a Brown Act violation because a majority of the Council did not discuss how they would be voting on Ordinance No. 354 prior to the second reading of the ordinance. (Discussion of Email re: "Protect Your Rolling Hills Tax Dollars." Mr. Gill alleges a violation of Section 54952.2, which reads in part as follows: "(b)(1) A majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this chapter, use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. (2) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed as preventing an employee or official of a local agency, from engaging in separate conversations or communications outside of a meeting authorized by this chapter with members of a legislative body in order to answer questions or provide information regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the local agency, if that person does not communicate to members of the legislative body the comments or position of any other member or members of the legislative body." a See Government Code section 54952.2(a); emphasis added 5 City of Lodi v. Randtron (2004) 118 Cal. App. 4th 337, 360; citing Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Ca1.2d 280, 288 In his email, Mr. Gill infers that because the email regarding "More Yes on C signs are coming" was endorsed by a majority of the City Council and was sent by the email handle "Yes on C," said email handle must be a pseudonym for a majority of the Council. Therefore, Mr. Gill concludes, the email regarding "Protect Your Rolling Hills Tax Dollars" - which discusses both Measure C and Ordinance No. 354 - reflects a series of communications of a majority of the Council on an item of business that is within its subject matter jurisdiction and reveals how that majority intended to vote prior to the second reading of the ordinance. From the time that Ordinance No. 354 was introduced on first reading, and its enactment on October 23, 2017, two councilmembers were responsible for circulating an email informing residents about the new ordinance and encouraging them to vote "yes" on Measure C (i.e., "Protect Your Rolling Hills Tax Dollars").6 A violation occurs only if "a majority of the members of a legislative body" use serial communications, directly or indirectly. The allegation involves (at most) only two councilmembers; the Brown Act regulates the conduct of a majority of members, as set out above. There is no evidence from either Mr. Gill or the "Protect -Your -Rolling -Hills -Tax -Dollars" email that more than two Councilmembers participated in and/or were responsible for its circulation. Furthermore, a Councilmember's position relative to Measure C does not unequivocally indicate that Councilmember's position on Ordinance No. 354; in other words, simply because a Councilmember campaigns for the passage of Measure C does not mean that the same Councilmember will vote for the passage of Ordinance No. 354 - as indicated by the vote enacting Ordinance No. 354 on October 23, 2017.7 The circulation of these emails does not equate to "sessions at which a legislative body commits itself collectively to a particular future decision concerning the public business."8 The fact that the effectiveness of Ordinance No. 354 is dependent on the passage of Measure C has no bearing on whether a majority of the Council communicated outside of a meeting regarding how they intended to vote on the Ordinance; we are not aware of any evidence that a majority did so communicate regarding the vote on the Ordinance. For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Gill does not allege an actual violation of the Brown Act. CONCLUSION: Based on the foregoing, the Mr. Gill's email is without merit. No violation of the Brown Act occurred and no cure is required. Accordingly, I recommend that the Council receive and file this report and direct me to send the letter attached to this staff report (Attachment 4) to Mr. Gill. 6 The email states: "Contact Councilmembers Jeff Pieper (213.399.0505, jeff.pieper@pieper.com) or Leah Mirsch (310.541.8641, leahmirsch@verizon.net) ] if you have any questions or would like to discuss this further. Thank you for your consideration." 7 Mayor Black twice voted against Ordinance No. 354 but supports passage of Measure C. 8 Stockton Newspapers, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency (1 : ) 171 Ca1.App.3d 95, 100, 102 (emphasis added) From: Lynn Gill Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 5:53 PM To: Raymond Cruz <rcruzPcityofrh.net> Cc: Richard Colyear Subject: New Brown Act Complaint Hello Ray, In Consent Item 4-C dated 10/2.3/2017, City Attorney Michael Jenkins found my complaint dated October 12, 2017 without merit. This appears to be primarily related to the incompleteness of my complaint. This is a new complaint to clarify the complaint issues. Attached or referenced are: 1. "Protect Your Rolling Hills Tax Dollars", e-mail from Councilmembers Pieper and Mirsch dated October 10, 2017 2. "FW_More Yes on C signs are coming," e-mail from Councilmembers Black, Wilson, Mirsch, and Pieper dated October 12, 2017 (a majority of: the Council) 3. "FW_Protect Your Rolling Hills Tax Dollars," e-mail from Lynn Gill to Yvette Hall dated October 12, 2017 4. "FW_Address Correction" from Yes on C dated October 13, 2017 5. Reference- ORDINANCE NO 354 adopted by the City Council October 23, 2017: Sec. 7. "The City Council hereby adopts an ordinance " [the view ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission] Sec. 8. "In the event Measure C...." In accordance with provisions of the Brown Act, this is a written demand that the City Council cure or correct apparent violations of the Brown Act: 1. Section 54952.2, which prohibits a majority of the members of a legislative body from using a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries [i.e. yes.on.cand Yes on C], to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body outside of a public meeting. A. Attached #2: Councilmembers Black, Wilson Mirsch, and Pieper are a majority of the council B. Attached # 1: This e-mail references both the proposed Planning Commission view ordinance that the City Council was considering adopting; and Measure C, passage of which the City Council was considering making adoption of the view ordinance contingent upon. C. Reference #5: Both the view ordinance proposed by the Planning Commission (Sec.7) and Measure C (Sec.8) were subject matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative body. Between the October 9, 2017 public Council meeting and the October 23, 2017 public Council meeting, the four councilmembers conspired to discuss subject matter within their jurisdiction outside of a public meeting, as the subject matter was what they would be voting on in ORDINANCE No 354 on October 23, 2017. Attachment #2 clearly shows that there was communication among a majority of the councilmembers, outside of a public meeting, after the public Council meeting of October 9, and before the public October 23, 2017 council meeting. 2. Use of City property without authorization, i.e., use of City e-mail lists of Rolling Hills property owners who have opted into the City e-mail database 3. Councilmembers represented their communications and that of their pseudonym yes.on.c or Yes on C as coming from the City, by identifying themselves as Council Members and giving an address of 2 Portuguese Bend Road, which is City Hall (Attachment #1, Attachment #2). The address was later changed to 3 Eucalyptus Lane, the residence of Councilperson Pieper (attachment #4) Sincerely, Lynn E. Gill 31 Chuckwagon Road From: Ray Cruz Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 8:52 PM To: Lynn Gill Subject: Re: More Yes on C signs are coming Good evening Lynn, I am off until Monday, but I will consult with Mike Jenkins on your concerns. I will be in contact with you in the morning. Best regards, Ray Sent from my iPhone On Oct 12, 2017, at 7:55 PM, Lynn Gill < wrote: Dear Ray, In accordance with provisions of the Brown Act, this is intended to be a written demand that the City Council cure or correct the apparent violations of the Brown Act. • Violation of open meeting rules • Use of City property without authorization, i.e., e-mail lists • Representing their communications as coming from the City, by identifying themselves as Council Members and giving an address of 2 Portuguese Bend Road, which is City Hall Sincerely, • Lynn Gill 31 Chuckwagon Road From: Lynn Gill Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 5:30 PM To: Ray Cruz Cc: Richard Colyear ; Bea Dieringer Subject: Fw: More Yes on C signs are coming Hello Ray, We now have a Brown Act violation! More than 2 councilpersons collaborating outside of public meeting I suggest that you contact Michael Jenkins, City attorney immediately. He should tell them to cease and desist. You seem to have a run -away council. Sincerely, Lynn Gill 31 Chuckwagon Road From: Sheri Gill Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 5:20 PM To: Lynn Gill Subject: FW: More Yes on C signs are coming From: Yes on C [mailto:yes.on.c.rh=amail.com@ mai1203.at181.rsgsv.net] On Behalf Of Yes on C Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 4:18 PM To: sherigillk Subject: More Yes on C signs are coming We did not anticipate the high demand for signs. We have doubled our order and should have them for the weekend. Send me a sign so I can join the people trying to protect your Rolling Hills tax dollars If you already requested a sign and did not get one yet, look out your window Saturday! Thank you for voting. Yes on C Rolling Hills City Council Members Jim Black, Mayor Patrick Wilson, Mayor Pro Tem Leah Mirsh Jeff Pieper Copyright © 2017 yes.on.c, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Our mailing address is: yes.on.c 2 Portuguese Bend Rd Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Monday, November 6, 2017 at 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Protect Your Rolling Hills Tax Dollars Date: Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 8:01:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Yes on C <yes.on.c.test@gmail.com> (sent by Yes on C <yes.on.c.test=gmail.com@mai193.at1161.mcsv.net>) To: Iynn.gill@ .. Vote YES on Measure C UPDATE: 10/10/2017 On October 9th your Rolling Hills City Council voted to adopt a new View Ordinance that was unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission. But it can only become law if Measure C passes. Two Major Points Regarding the New Ordinance 1. It provides that view seekers are not entitled to a view that existed prior to the acquisition of the property — a major principle of Measure B. 2. The City's capacity in view restoration issues will only be advisory. This will reduce the risk of the City becoming involved in costly litigation. NOTE: If Measure C fails, the existing ordinance will remain in effect; the City will continue to using your tax dollars to pay for view/tree litigation. Protect Your Rolling Hills Tax Dollars and Vote Yes on Measure C Under California law, once an initiative (Measure B) is passed it becomes law exactly as written and cannot be modified in any way, except by another initiative and election. The newly approved ordinance is inconsistent with Measure B and therefore cannot be put in place unless Measure B is repealed. Your City Council proposed Measure C to enable the implementation of a workable, fair and balanced view ordinance. We all believe trees and views are both integral to the beauty of our city, enjoyment of our properties and property values. Please join with City Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, RHCA Directors, and many concerned residents in supporting Measure C. This fact cannot be stated too many times: the new ordinance designed to protect your tax dollars cannot be implemented if Measure C does not pass. All of the time, resources and collaborative efforts with residents, Measure B proponents and the City- along with a great opportunity to move forward - will have been wasted if we fail to approve Measure C. Please do not let that happen. Contact Councilmembers Jeff Pieper (213.399.0505, jeff.pieper@pieper.com) or Leah Mirsch (310.541.8641, leahmirsch@verizon.net) ] if you have any questions or would like to discuss this further. Thank you for your consideration. Send me a sign so I can join the people trying to protect your Rolling Hills tax dollars Protect Your Rolling Hills Tax Dollars Vote YES on City Council initiated Measure C Copyright © 2017 yes.on.c, Ail rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Our mailing address is: yes.on.c 2 Portuguese Bend Rd Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Monday, November 6, 2017 at 10:34:09 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: FW: More Yes on C signs are coming Date: Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 4:20:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Sheri Gill To: Lynn Gill From: Yes on C [mailto:yes.on.c.rh=gmail.com@maiI203.at181.rsgsv.net] On Behalf Of Yes on C Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 4:18 PM To: sherigill Subject: More Yes on C signs are coming We did not anticipate the high demand for signs. We have doubled our order and should have them for the weekend. Send me a sign so I can join the people trying to protect your Rolling Hills tax dollars If you already requested a sign and did not get one yet, look out your window Saturday! Thank you for voting. Yes on C Rolling Hills City Council Members Jim Black, Mayor Patrick Wilson, Mayor Pro Tem Leah Mirsh Jeff Pieper Copyright © 2017 yes.on.c, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website_ Our mailing address is: yes.on.c 2 Portuguese Bend Rd Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Monday, November 6, 2017 at 10:35:27 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Fw: Protect Your Rolling Hills Tax Dollars Date: Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:21:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Lynn Gill To: yhall`Mcityofrh.net, Ray Cruz <rcruz@cityofrh.net> CC: Richard Colyear ' _ _. Hello Yvette, I enjoyed meeting you more formally. The attached e-mail represents itself to be from the City. The mailing address at the bottom is 2 Portuguese Bend Road, which is City Hall. I request that the City inform residents that this is not an official City communication, ASAP! Absentee ballots will be mailed soon! As we discussed: 1. The red Yes on Measure C signs were not purchased at City expense 2. To your knowledge, the City e-mail list was not provided for the purpose of sending the e- mail below. Since the communication appears to be from Councilpersons Pieper and Mirisch, could you please verify that those two persons did not utilize the City e-mail list, and get back to Richard and me. If the e- mail was sent using a City e-mail list, we request equal opportunity to rebut. 3. No on Measure C proponents obtained permission from property owners before placing the green signs. Since one of the red signs is in front of the Howard Hall residence (Hall vs. City of Rolling Hills), I'm suspicious that the red signs were placed without permission of owners? Many seem to be stuck in the ground next to stop signs. In your communication to residents above, please instruct residents that if either the red or green sign is on their property without their permission, to please remove the sign. I'll send you a picture of the red and green sign. Sincerely, Lynn Gill From: Yes on C Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 9:01 AM To: lynn.gillk Subject: Protect Your Rolling Hills Tax Dollars Vote YES on Measure C UPDATE: 10/10/2017 On October 9th your Rolling Hills City Council voted to adopt a new View Ordinance that was unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission. But it can only become law if Measure C passes. Two Major Points Regarding the New Ordinance 1. It provides that view seekers are not entitled to a view that existed prior to the acquisition of the property — a major principle of Measure B. 2. The City's capacity in view restoration issues will only be advisory. This will reduce the risk of the City becoming involved in costly litigation. NOTE: If Measure C fails, the existing ordinance will remain in effect; the City will continue to using your tax dollars to pay for view/tree litigation. Protect Your Rolling Hills Tax Dollars and Vote Yes on Measure C Under California law, once an initiative (Measure B) is passed it becomes law exactly as written and cannot be modified in any way, except by another initiative and election. The newly approved ordinance is inconsistent with Measure B and therefore cannot be put in place unless Measure B is repealed. Your City Council proposed Measure C to enable the implementation of a workable, fair and balanced view ordinance. We all believe trees and views are both integral to the beauty of our city, enjoyment of our properties and property values. Please join with City Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, RHCA Directors, and many concerned residents in supporting Measure C. This fact cannot be stated too many times: the new ordinance designed to protect your tax dollars cannot be implemented if Measure C does not pass. All of the time, resources and collaborative efforts with residents, Measure B proponents and the City- along with a great opportunity to move forward - will have been wasted if we fail to approve Measure C. Please do not let that happen. Contact Councilmembers Jeff Pieper (213.399.0505,mailto:jeff.pieper@pieper.com? subject=More%20YES%20on%20C%20info) or Leah Mirsch (310.541.8641,mailto:leahmirsch@verizon.net? subject=More%20info%20on%20YES%20on%20C) ] if you have any questions or would like to discuss this further. Thank you for your consideration. Send me a sign so I can join the people trying to protect your Rolling Hills tax dollars Protect Your Rolling Hills Tax Dollars Vote YES on City Council initiated Measure C Copyright © 2017 yes.on.c, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Our mailing address is: yes.on.c 2 Portuguese Bend Rd Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Monday, November 6, 2017 at 9:47:55 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: FW: Address Correction Date: Friday, October 13, 2017 at 9:35:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Sheri Gill To: Lynn Gill From: Yes on C [maiito:yes.on.c.rh=gmail.com@mai1203.at181.rsgsv.net] On Behalf Of Yes on C Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 10:20 AM To: sherigill@ _- Subject: Address Correction Address Correction The correct address for the Yes on C campaign is Yes on C 3 Eucalyptus Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Copyright @ 2017 yes.on.c, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Our mailing address is: yes.on.c 3 Eucalyptus Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Monday, November 6, 2017 at 10:02:38 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: FW: More Yes on C signs are coming Date: Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 4:20:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Sheri Gill < To: Lynn Gill From: Yes on C [maiito:yes.on.c.rh=gmail.com@maiI203.at181.rsgsv.net] On Behalf Of Yes on C Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 4:18 PM To: sherigill(_ Subject: More Yes on C signs are coming We did not anticipate the high demand for signs. We have doubled our order and should have them for the weekend. Send me a sign so I can join the people trying to protect your Rolling Hills tax dollars If you already requested a sign and did not get one yet, look out your window Saturday! Thank you for voting. Yes on C Rolling Hills City Council Members Jim Black, Mayor Patrick Wilson, Mayor Pro Tem Leah Mirsh Jeff Pieper Copyright © 2017 yes.on.c, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Our mailing address is: yes.on.c 2 Portuguese Bend Rd Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Monday, November 6, 2017 at 10:18:37 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Protect Your Rolling Hills Tax Dollars Date: Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 8:01:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Yes on C <yes.on.c.test@gmail.com> (sent by Yes on C <yes.on.c.test=gmail.com@mai193.at1161.mcsv.net>) To: lynn.gilli Vote YES on Measure C UPDATE: 10/10/2017 On October 9th your Rolling Hills City Council voted to adopt a new View Ordinance that was unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission. But it can only become law if Measure C passes. Two Major Points Regarding the New Ordinance 1. It provides that view seekers are not entitled to a view that existed prior to the acquisition of the property — a major principle of Measure B. 2. The City's capacity in view restoration issues will only be advisory. This will reduce the risk of the City becoming involved in costly litigation. NOTE: If Measure C fails, the existing ordinance will remain in effect; the City will continue to using your tax dollars to pay for view/tree litigation. Protect Your Rolling Hills Tax Dollars and Vote Yes on Measure C Under California law, once an initiative (Measure B) is passed it becomes law exactly as written and cannot be modified in any way, except by another initiative and election. The newly approved ordinance is inconsistent with Measure B and therefore cannot be put in place unless Measure B is repealed. Your City Council proposed Measure C to enable the implementation of a workable, fair and balanced view ordinance. We all believe trees and views are both integral to the beauty of our city, enjoyment of our properties and property values. Please join with City Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, RHCA Directors, and many concerned residents in supporting Measure C. This fact cannot be stated too many times: the new ordinance designed to protect your tax dollars cannot be implemented if Measure C does not pass. All of the time, resources and collaborative efforts with residents, Measure B proponents and the City- along with a great opportunity to move forward - will have been wasted if we fail to approve Measure C. Please do not let that happen. Contact Councilmembers Jeff Pieper (213.399.0505, jeff.pieper@pieper.com) or Leah Mirsch (310.541.8641, leahmirsch@verizon.net) ] if you have any questions or would like to discuss this further. Thank you for your consideration. Send me a sign so I can join the people trying to protect your Rolling Hills tax dollars Protect Your Rolling Hills Tax Dollars Vote YES on City Council initiated Measure C Copyright © 2017 yes.on.c, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Our mailing address is: yes.on.c 2 Portuguese Bend Rd Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. JENKINS & HOG1N, LLP A LAW PARTNERSHIP MICHAEL JENKINS CHRISTI HOGIN JOHN C. COTTI GREGG KETTLES LAUREN LANGER TREVOR ROSIN NATALIE C. KARPELES PATRICKDONEGAN JANE F. ABZUG Lynn Gill 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 MANHATTAN TOWERS 1230 ROSECRANSAVENUE, SUITE 110 MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90266 (310) 643-8448. • FAx(31o) 643-8441 WWW.LOCALGOVLAW.COM November 6, 2017 WRITER'S EMAIL ADDRESS: MJENKINS@LOCALGOVLAW.COM Re: Brown Act ComplaintAgainst City of Rolling Hills Dear Mr. Gill: The complaint that you delivered to Mr. Cruz on October 24, 2017 was considered by the City Council at its meeting of November 13, 2017. A copy of the staff report delivered to the City Council is attached to this letter. For the reasons set forth in the staff report, the Council has directed me to advise you that the Council has determined that the actions you challenge do not violate the Brown Act. Hence, the City Council will not take any action to cure or correct the challenged actions. Very truly yours, Michael Jenkins City Attorney City of Rolling Hills cc: Ray Cruz City Manager ailRafialf qice4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 Agenda Item No: 4-C Mtg. Date: 11/13/17 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF BUYOUT OF THE CITY'S CONTRACT WITH MUNITEMPS FOR THE PURPOSE TO PERMANENTLY HIRE THE INTERIM CITY CLERK. DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2017 ATTACHMENTS: MuniTemps Municipal Staffing Agreement Buyout Options RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council direct and provide the City Manager the authority to buyout of its contract at the amount of $6,480, effective February 5, 2018, with MuniTemps for the purpose to hire its Interim City Clerk/Executive Assistant as a regular employee on a permanent basis. BACKGROUND The City of Rolling Hills recently concluded its recruitment for its open City Clerk/Executive Assistant position. The City received seven applications and the interview panel (consisting of the City Manager, Planning Director and former City Clerk/Executive Assistant) interviewed three candidates. It was agreed by the entire panel that the Interim City Clerk/Executive Assistant, Yvette Hall, was the best and recommended candidate. However, to hire Ms. Hall, the City would have to purchase a buyout of its contract with MuniTemps. The City Manager made a tentative job offer to Ms. Hall (and was accepted by her) with the stipulation that the buyout purchase of the contract would need to be approved by the City Council before she could be officially hired. DISCUSSION The City of Rolling Hills entered into a municipal staffing agreement with MuniTemps in order to hire a qualified Interim City Clerk/Executive Assistant on July 27, 2017. This option was chosen because the City Manager found no interested individuals utilizing the City's website and the ListSery email system that reaches most City Clerk professionals in the State of California. The City was very fortunate when MuniTemps provided it a very qualified City Clerk/Executive Assistant in Yvette Hall. Ms. Hall has experience as a City Clerk in four other cities and has done a very good job with the City the last three months. Since Rolling Hills has a great need for an experienced City Clerk/Executive Assistant, it is considered prudent for the City to pay the buyout to hire Yvette in order to keep the City's operation moving efficiently and effectively. The alternative will be to hire a candidate with no City Clerk experience who would need the time to overcome the learning curve. FISCAL IMPACT The $66.20 an hour fee the City pays MuniTemps for Ms. Hall's services is the totally loaded cost (Salary, Benefits, and Overtime) the City has budgeted for the position for FY 2017/18. The City Manager had to negotiate hard with MuniTemps to accept the $66.20 an hour because they typically receive over $80 an hour for this type of position. The Finance Director in the enclosed spread sheet illustrates the cost of hiring Ms. Hall effective November 13, 2017 (including the 18% of annual salary buyout charge) vs. on February 5, 2018 when she has accumulated 980 hours of employment under the contract (that includes the 9% of annual salary buyout charge). Staff recommends that the City defer its hiring of Ms. Hall until February 5, 2018 in order to save $1,667.10 and not risk the City having paid the 18% buyout charge if Ms. Hall does not successfully complete her probation. Regardless of the decision, the City has the funding for the position in the FY 17/18 budget to cover either buyout percentage. 0 JUL 2 7 2017 Municipal Zii'cOrig Solutions ByCity of Rolling Hills Municipal Staffing Agreement GOVERNMENT STAFFING SERVICES, INC., dba MuniTemps, with its Corporate Mailing Address at MuniTemps Corporate Lockbox, PO Box 718, Imperial Beach, CA 91933 ("STAFFING FIRM"), and the CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, with its principal municipal office located at 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. CA 90274 ("CITY") agree to the terms and conditions set forth in this Municipal Staffing Agreement (the "Agreement'). STAFFING FIRM's Duties and Responsibilities 1. STAFFING FIRM will: a. Recruit, screen, interview, and assign its employees ("Assigned Employees") to perform the type of work described on Exhibit A under CITY's supervision at the locations specified on Exhibit A; b. Pay Assigned Employees' wages and provide them with the benefits that STAFFING FIRM offers to them; c. Pay, withhold, and transmit payroll taxes; provide unemployment insurance and workers' compensation benefits; and handle unemployment and workers' compensation claims involving Assigned Employees; CITY's Duties and Responsibilities 2. CITY will: a. Property supervise Assigned Employees performing its work and be responsible for its business operations, products, services, and intellectual properly; b. Properly supervise, control, and safeguard its premises, processes, or systems, and not permit STAFFING FIRM employees to operate any vehicle or mobile equipment (unless authorized under section 2.f. below), or entrust them with unattended premises, cash, checks, keys,, credit cards, merchandise, confidential or trade secret information, negotiable instruments, or other valuables without STAFFING FIRM's express prior written approval or as strictly required by the job description provided to STAFFING FIRM; c. Provide Assigned Employees with a safe work site and provide appropriate safety information, training, and safety equipment with respect to any hazardous substances or conditions to which they may be exposed at the work site; d. Not change Assigned Employees' job duties without STAFFING FIRM's express prior written approval; and e. Exclude Assigned Employees from CITY's benefit plans, policies, and practices, and not make any offer or promise relating to Assigned Employees' compensation or benefits. Rev. 5/13 Page 1 A i 1 ° Temps: Mi ntep:4 s?smng Solutions Corpora:, t.,,, iing AMJa Brx 718, ;Itpaid Berr..h, CA 91933 fi.one: 1-8S6-40.6-6864 • Fox : 1-866-498.6678 W ir;i41: rww.mmrteans.caai f. CITY is authorized to direct STAFFING FIRM's employees to drive CITY vehicles and equipment if CITY assumes liability for STAFFING FIRM's employees under CITY's auto insurance policy and names STAFFING FIRM as "additionally insured". Payment Terms, Bill Rates, and Fees 3. CITY will pay STAFFING FIRM for its performance at the rates set forth on Exhibit A and will also pay any additional costs or fees set forth in this Agreement. STAFFING FIRM will invoice CITY for services provided under this Agreement on a Semi -Monthly basis. Payment is due on receipt of invoice. Invoices will be supported by the pertinent time sheets or other agreed system for documenting time worked by the Assigned Employees. CITY's signature or other agreed method of approval of the work time submitted for Assigned Employees certifies that the documented hours are correct and authorizes STAFFING FIRM to bill CITY for those hours. If a portion of any invoice is disputed, CITY will pay the undisputed portion. 4. STAFFING FIRM shall email invoices and supporting timesheets directly to the CITY's Accounts Payable office with a copy sent to any designated Department of the CITY. 5. STAFFING FIRM may assign two classes of Employees at CITY: (1) "Executive" Employees are presumed to be exempt from laws requiring premium pay for overtime, holiday work, or weekend work. These Employees are assigned on a fixed monthly salary contract which will be paid and pro rated on a bi-weekly pay cycle. When assigned Employee completes project at CITY, CITY will be required to pay the pro rated amount of the monthly salary contract agreed to in Exhibit A as of the full week ending last day worked at the CITY. (2) "Non -Executive" Employees are presumed to be nonexempt from laws requiring premium pay for overtime, holiday work, or weekend work. STAFFING FIRM will charge CITY special rates for premium work time only when an Assigned Employee's work on assignment to CITY, viewed by itself, would legally require premium pay and CITY has authorized, directed, or allowed the Assigned Employee to work such premium work time. CITY's special billing rate for premium hours will bethe same multiple of the regular billing rate as STAFFING FIRM is required to apply to the Assigned Employee's regular pay rate. (For example, when federal law requires 150% of pay for work exceeding 40 hours in a week, CITY will be billed at 150% of the regular bill rate.) Confidential Information 6. Both parties may receive information that is proprietary to or confidential to the other party or its affiliated companies and their CITYs. Both parties agree to hold such information in strict confidence and not to disclose such information to third parties or to use such information for any purpose whatsoever other than performing under this Agreement or as required by law. No knowledge, possession, or use of CITY's confidential information will be imputed to STAFFING FIRM as a result of Assigned Employees' access to such information. Cooperation 7. The parties agree to cooperate fully and to provide assistance to the other party in the investigation and resolution of any complaints, claims, actions, or proceedings that may be brought by or that may involve Assigned Employees. Indemnification and Limitation of Liability 8. To the extent permitted by law, STAFFING FIRM will defend, indemnify, and hold CITY and its directors, officers, agents, representatives, and employees harmless from ail claims, losses, and liabilities (including reasonable attorneys' fees) to the extent caused Rev. 5/13 (D/ Page 2 mcipai Temoh,H MOilirre Add,- cc. PO Box 718, !.sF264d Bead; CA 91933 r-tmne:.1.864-4t'1 -6364 • fz•.: 1.816.498.6678 www.muni!er stem by STAFFING FIRM's breach of this Agreement; its failure to discharge its duties and responsibilities set forth in paragraph 1; or the negligence, gross negligence, or willful misconduct of STAFFING FIRM or STAFFING FIRM's officers, employees, or authorized agents in the discharge of those duties and responsibilities. 9. To the extent permitted by law, CITY will defend, indemnify, and hold STAFFING FIRM and its parent, subsidiaries, directors, officers, agents, representatives, and employees harmless from all claims, losses, and liabilities (including reasonable attorneys' fees) to the extent caused by CITY's breach of this Agreement; its failure to discharge its duties and responsibilities set forth in paragraph 2; or the negligence, gross negligence, or willful misconduct of CITY or CITY's officers, employees, or authorized agents in the discharge of those duties and responsibilities. 10. Neither party shall be liable for or be required to indemnify the other party for any incidental, consequential, exemplary, special, punitive, or lost profit damages that arise in connection with this Agreement, regardless of the form of action (whether in contract, tort, negligence, strict liability, or otherwise) and regardless of how characterized, even if such party has been advised of the possibility of such damages. 11 As a condition precedent to indemnification, the party seeking indemnification will inform the other party within 15 business days after it receives notice of any claim, loss, liability, or demand for which it seeks indemnification from the other party; and the party seeking indemnification will cooperate in the investigation and defense of any such matter. 12. The provisions in paragraphs 9 through 13 of this Agreement constitute the complete agreement between the parties with respect to indemnification, and each party waives its right to assert any common-law indemnification or contribution claim against the other party. Miscellaneous 13. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the provisions of paragraphs 9 -13 shall remain effective after termination or renewal of this Agreement. 14. No provision of this Agreement may be amended or waived unless agreed to in a writing signed by the parties. 15. Each provision of this Agreement will be considered severable, such that if any one provision or clause conflicts with existing or future applicable law or may not be given full effect because of such law, no other provision that can operate without the conflicting provision or clause will be affected. 16. This Agreement and the exhibits attached to it contain the entire understanding between the parties and supersede alt prior agreements and understandings relating to the subject matter of the Agreement. 17. The provisions of this Agreement will inure to the benefit of and be binding on the parties and their respective representatives, successors, and assigns. 18. The failure of a party to enforce the provisions of this Agreement will not be a waiver of any provision or the right of such party thereafter to enforce each and every provision of this Agreement. 19. CITY will not transfer or assign this Agreement without STAFFING FIRM's written consent. '\a/V- ,. ifremps' Municipal S'tchSn^a SoleOn Corporal.: Mnairr� Add , PO Sat 7? 8. Zmperidl8,=rh,. CA 91933 f cne: 1-U6.40548�6f1 • Fce 1.366-493-6678 rewvatitinkvnpsscri 20. Any notice or other communication will be deemed to be properly given only when sent via the United States Postal Service or a nationally recognized courier, addressed as shown on the first page of this Agreement. 21. Neither party will be responsible for failure or delay in performance of this Agreement if the failure or delay is due to labor disputes, strikes, fire, riot, war, terrorism, acts of God, or any other causes beyond the control of the nonperforming party. 22. The provisions of this agreement shall be entered into according to the laws of the State of California. Term of Agreement 23. This Agreement shall remain valid until terminated by either party upon 7 days written notice. The Exhibit "A" can be terminated upon 1 day written notice. Authorized representatives of the parties have executed this Agreement below to express the parties' agreement to its terms. CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Signature 2ayi mc/ fl•-• crU Printed Name %/1e4.14. c, Title 7 F2-- 7//7 Date Rev. 5/13 GOVERNMENT STAFFING SERVICES, INC. Signature • john Herrera, CPA Printed Name Presiciewt / cEo Title Date 07/26/2017 Page 4 GOVERNMENT STAFFING SERVICES, INC. 0 0 a5 Municipal iz ianr g Solutions Municipality: Municipality: Client Contact: Interim Position: Hill Rate per Hour: Hours per Week: Start Date: Expected Duration: EXHIBIT "A" of Municipal Staffing Agreement Corpara;a PO pox 718, Imperial Beach, CA 91933 i ",o ne : 1.866.406-6864 • i cx,: 1-866-498.6678 www.munitemps.com City of Rolling Hills, CA Notes Raymond Cruz City Manager City Clerk Yvette Hall $66.20 40 Regular City Hall Work Schedule 6/1/2017 3+ Months Depending on Needs of City. CITY may hire Yvette Hall ea its direct employee, as an independent contractor, or through any third party by paying a buyout fee equal to (a) 9% of tha annual salary offered by CITY to Yvette Hall if she has worked a minimum of 880 hours on MuruTempa' payroll at the CITY, or (b) 18% of the annual salary offered by CITY to Yvette Hall if she has worked less than 880 hours on MunTemps' payroll at the CITY. City will properly supervise MunTTemps employee(s) performing its work and be responsible for Its business operations, services, and intellectual property. City will also property supervise,.control, and safeguard its premises, processes, or systems, and not penult MunTTemps employees to operate any vehicle or mobile equipment unless approved byMunTempa in writing. Job Description Organizes, plane, manages and directs all activities of the City Clerk's office and performs high-level administrative support to the City Manager and City Council. Responsible for administering citywide records management program and agenda and minutes management processes; election management compliance with State and Federal requirements such es Political Reform Act, Brown Act, Conflict of Interest Codes, Falr Political Practices; and will provide prompt and courteous service to citizen and public requests for assistance and Information. The position requires taking minutes for City Council, Planning Commission and Traffic Commission that necessitates attendance at three night meetings per month. INVOICING INFORMATION: Let us know who needs to receive a copy of involces. Note; A/Pmust be copied also. Name: Name: A/ Pr iV t EG o l5 t; Y»1 lltle: Title: k b M 1 N. A c i TYkN Email: Email; G N i K O bE lAll C y o P RH.N E —r Authorized Signature: CI Representative 7/21/1? Date Municipal Staffing Agreement City of Rolling HIlls - Exhibit A (City Clerk) Yvette Hall 7/20/2017 3:54 PM GOVERNMENT STAFFING SERVICES, INC. EXHIBIT "A" of Municipal Staffing Agreement ern psM Municipal :al 1 ;°;in l Solutions Municipality: Client Contact: Interim Position: Bill Rate per Hour: Hours per Week: Start Date: Expected Duration: Corporc: 7-r'�ailitor� ,d'dass; PO Box 718, Imperial Beach, CA 91933 Phone: 1-866-406-6864 • Fag.: 1-866-498.6678 Wehsitc: www,munitcmps.com City of Rolling Hills, CA Notes Raymond Cruz City Manager City Clerk Yvette Hall $66.20 40 Regular City Hall Work Schedule 81/2017 3+ Months Depending on Needs of City. CITY may hire Yvette Hall as Its direct employee, as en independent contractor, or through any third party by paying a buyout fee equal to (a) 9% of the annual salary offered by CfTY to Yvette Hell if she has worked a minimum of 980 hours on MuniTemps' payroll at the CITY, or (b) 18% of the annual salary offered by CITY to Yvette Hall if she has worked less than 980 hours on MuniTemps' payroll at the CITY. City will properly supervise MunlTemps smpkryee(e) performing its work and be responsible for its business operations, services, and intellectual property. City will also property supervise, control, and safeguard its premises, processes, or systems, and not permit MuniTemps employees to operate any vehicle or mobile equipment unless approved by MuniTemps in writing. Job Deacripiton Organizes, plans, manages end directs all activities of the City Clerk's office and performs high-level administrative support to the City Manager and City Council. Responsible for administering citywide records management program and agenda and minutes management processes; election management compliance with State and Federal requirements such as Political Reform Act, Brown Act, Conflict of Interest Codes, Fair Political Practices; and will provide prompt and courteous service to citizen and public requests for assistance and information. The position requires taking minutes for City Council, Planning Commission and Traffic Commission that necessitates attendance at three night meetings per month. INVOICINGINFORMATiON:Letusknowwhoneedstoreceiveacopyofinvoices. Note; A/P must be copied also. ' Name: Name: Tom: Title: Email: Email: Authorized Signature: City Representative Date Municipal Stalling Agreement City of Rolling Hills - Exhibit A (City Clerk) Yvette Hall 7!26/2017 154 PM • Hired Full-time on February 5th 2018 New Position Contract Buyout Employee Employee Benefits 980 $ 66.20 $ 64,876.00 6,480.00 13,846.13 9,792.46 One month of Heidi 94,994.58 9,911.34 104,905.92 City Clerk Budget Salary Retirement CaIPERS - Employer Retirement CalPERS - Employer Worker's Compensation Insurance CalPers Health -Active HealthSmart Benefit Solutions, Inc. - Metlife - Dental Sun Life Assurance of Canada Deferred Compensation Employer Payroll Taxes $ 87,100 6,837 3,723 1,700 9,100 334 106 455 2,613 6,968 $ 118,936 Aug 2017 to Feb 2,2018 9% Buyout Salary Feby 2, 2018 forward Benefits Hired Full-time on November 13, 2017 New Position Contract Buyout Employee One month of Heidi 548 $ 66.20 $ 36,277.60 Augt 2017 to Nov10, 2017 12,960.00 Buyout at 18% 30,461.48 Salary Nov 13, 2017 forward 16,962.61 Benefits City Clerk Budget Salary Retirement CaIPERS - Employer Retirement CaIPERS - Employer Worker's Compensation Insurance CalPers Health - Active HealthSmart Benefit Solutions, Inc. - Vision Metlife - Dental Sun Life Assurance of Canada Deferred Compensation Employer Payroll Taxes 96,661.68 9,911.34 106,573.02 $ 87,100 6,837 3,723 1,700 9,100 334 106 455 2,613 6,968 $ 118,936 ge't R'afiewf INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJECT: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 5-A Mtg. Date: 11-13-17 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-18. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 923, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND VARIANCE TO RETAIN A PORTION OF IMPORTED DIRT FOR THE GRADING AND TO EXPORT THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE DIRT, TO CONSTRUCT GREATER THAN 2:1 SLOPE AND TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT, (ZC NO. 843), AT 38 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 118-RH), (WHEELER). PUBLISHED: MAY 4, 2017 Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide other direction to staff. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1. The lot is 5.08 -acre in size in the RAS-2 zoning district. Portuguese Bend Road divides the property, where approximately 47,500 square feet of the lot (1.07 acres) is located on the west side of the road and the remaining on the east side of the road. Portuguese Bend Road roadway easement along this lot is 80 feet wide. The portion east of Portuguese Bend Road is developed with 5,112 square foot residence, 761 square foot garage, 848 square foot swimming pool, 653 square foot guest house, covered porches, entryway and service yard. Along the bottom of this portion of the lot is a natural watercourse that collects storm water from above and carries it down the canyon. The portion of the lot west of the road is undeveloped and steep. ZC NO. 923 Portuguese Bend Rd. 2. The net lot area for development purposes is 4.43 acres or 192,980 square feet, which excludes the roadway easement. Records indicate that the residence was constructed in 1951. An addition to the house and the pool were constructed in 1961. A pool house was constructed in 1962 and in 1976 an addition to the pool house was constructed. The structure is currently used as a guest house. At that time no differentiation was made between a recreation room, pool house or guest house. A new septic system was installed in 1999. PREVIOUS ACTIONS 3. In February 2014, after several modifications, the Planning Commission approved balanced cut and fill to enlarge the swimming pool pad from 7,185 square feet to 9,318 square feet and to construct an 860 square foot covered patio that would contain an outdoor kitchen and other outdoor amenities. A spa on a lower pad behind the swimming pool and two 2'6" retaining walls along the building pad were also approved. Grading for this project was approved at 810 cubic yards total, which included the grading for the walls along the sides of the stair/fountain structure, which was approved under a separate zoning case, following a code enforcement action by the City. These features, including the wing walls have not been completed yet, however the applicants obtained building permits, which were recently renewed, and are therefore still effective. A 720 square foot stable and adjacent corral was set -aside at the northern corner of the property, with access through a gravel access way along the pool pad. 4. Since the 2014 approval, the applicants engineer estimated that approximately 3,700 cy of dirt was imported to the lot, which caused the property to be subject to code enforcement proceedings and, ultimately the applicants submitted plans to the Planning Commission to amend the previously approved project and requested to utilize most of the imported dirt. 5. During the code enforcement process, the applicants decided that they would like to keep the dirt to enlarge the swimming pool pad and relocate the covered patio onto the enlarged portion of the pad. While preparing plans for building department's review of the approved development, they found that the seepage pit for the septic tank is located in the area of the previously approved covered patio. The Public Health Department requires 5' separation between any structure and a septic tank and an 8' distance to a seepage pit. Failing to comply with staff's code enforcement directions, the case was referred to the City Council for a determination and direction. At the March 9, 2017 City Council meeting the City Council declared the situation a nuisance and directed the applicants to abate the nuisance within date specific. time line, by either removing the dirt from the sides of the canyon, stock piling it on the pad and applying to the Planning Commission for project modification; or removing the dirt from the canyon and the property and returning the slope and the swimming pool pad to the condition that existed prior to the dirt being deposited there. ZC No. 923 38 Portuguese Bend Rd. Following City Council's decision, in April 2017 the applicants submitted an application for Planning Commission consideration to keep the dirt on the lot by expanding the previously approved swimming pool pad. 6. The Planning Commission held several public hearings including two field trips. The applicants requested to enlarge the size of the swimming pool pad beyond what was originally approved. That would allow them to relocate the covered structure on the pad and to utilize most of the imported dirt. However, the Planning Commission indicated that they would not approve an enlarged pad and required that the applicants amend the scope of the project so that it resembles the previously approved entitlement. 7. After several revisions, the applicants submitted a project, which included the same size and shape of the swimming pool building pad as was previously approved, (9,318 sq.ft.). The project also entails a Site Plan Review for the grading and remediation of the slopes and Variances for the Import of the dirt, (3,700 cy); to allow Export of some of the dirt (2,370 cy) and to grade out one area of the slopes to 1.5:1 grade. 8. At the October 17, 2017 meeting the Planning Commission by a 4-0-1 (Commissioner Kirkpatrick was absent) adopted Resolution approving the request with conditions. The conditions include requirement that prior to finaling the project the applicants must certify grading and slopes, that the slopes be vegetated, that the applicants inform City and RHCA staff when the dirt is to be exported and that Best Management Practices be implemented during the hauling of the dirt. The Planning Commission found that with the approval there are no substantial changes to the previously approved project; that it is desirable to eliminate the 2 retaining walls that were previously approved around the building pad; that in order to accommodate the health department requirement for the location of the covered patio in relationship to the septic tank and seepage pit, it is necessary to relocate the covered patio, and in order to preserve the slopes above the canyon, they need to be repaired and the dirt compacted; thus the need to retain some of the dirt. PROJECT ELEMENTS AND MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 9. The revised plans submitted with this application show the existing size of the swimming pool building pad (7,185 sq.ft.) and the previously approved pad (9,318 sq.ft. approved in Feb. 2014), which the applicants propose to improve, and which has been already partially expanded and graded. The applicants propose to utilize 1,330 cubic yards of the imported dirt that is currently stocked piled on the pad for the grading of the slopes, and export the remaining dirt. They have submitted a certification from a soils consultant stating that the imported dirt is suitable for compaction and use in the project, subject to field inspection and applicable compaction methods. 10. The applicants propose to keep the previously approved 860 square foot covered patio but to rotate it, to avoid septic tank setbacks. ZC No. 923 38 Portuguese Bend Rd. 11. The applicants request a Variance to construct steeper than 2:1 slope in one area of the existing slope, the slope south west of the covered patio. This slope would be 1.5:1 grade, (67% slope). The previously approved enlargement of the swimming pool building pad would result in grading out to a 2:1 slopes, with two 2.5' high retaining walls. The current proposal eliminates the retaining walls. The re -compaction of the existing material is proposed to bring the existing grade up to the elevation of the current pool and deck. The distance between the top of the proposed pad and the easement line does not allow for a gentler slope in tone area of the slope. Grading beyond the easement line would require RHCA approval, would cause more disturbance of the slopes and greater dirt movement. The applicants' agent states, in part, that the existing imported material has been placed throughout the area requested for a variance already, and in order to eliminate the previously approved walls, possible need for higher walls, and to avoid export of large quantities of dirt, greater than 2:1 slope in one area is necessary. 12. With this application the flow line of the watercourse will be reestablished. Water from the swimming pool pad will be collected in underground pipes and discharged into an outlet (dissipater) to be located along the slopes. A detailed drainage plan will be submitted to the Building Department at time of plan check. 13. The building coverage on the proposed 9,318 square foot pad will be 2,451 square feet or 26.3%, which includes the covered patio structure, the existing guest house, swimming pool and pool equipment. The residential building pad will remain as is at 17.7% and the future stable pad at 26.8%. 14. Structural coverage on the lot is proposed to be 9,769 square feet or 5.06%, which includes all of the structures (including future 720 sq.ft. stable). The total lot coverage, including structures and hardscape will be 26,823 square feet or 13.9%. 15. For development purposes the lot is 192,980 square feet. Before any approvals or the import of dirt 30.3% of the lot was disturbed. If approved, the project would add additional 8.84% disturbance or 17,055 square feet surface area for a total disturbance of 39.1%. 35.2% disturbance was previously approved. Maximum permitted disturbance is 40% of the net lot area. 16. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA). 17. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission consider whether the proposed project meets the Site Plan and Variance criteria of the Zoning Ordinance. ZC No. 923 38 Portuguese Bend Rd. ZONING CASE NO. 923 SITE PLAN REVIEW & VR EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, GARAGE, POOL, GUEST HOUSE COVERED PATIO, IMPORT/EXPORT OF DIRT, GRADING Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from side property line Rear: 50 ft. from rear property line SPR required for grading, pool, covered patio, misc. structures & walls. Variance is required for height of walls and import of dirt. Residence Garage Pool/ spa Guest House Pool equip. Stable Attch. Porch -Hs Entry Service yard 5112 sq.ft. 761 sq.ft. 848 sq.ft. 653 sq.ft. 0 525 sq.ft. 87 sq.ft. 113 sq.ft. Residence Garages Pool/ spa Guest House Pool equip. Stable -future Attch porch -Hs Entry Covered Porch Service yard 5112 sq.ft. 761 sq.ft. 848 sq.ft. 653 sq.ft. 90 sq.ft. 720 sq.ft. 525 sq.ft. 87 sq.ft. 860 sq.ft. 113 sq.ft. TOTAL 8,099 sq.ft TOTAL 9,769 sq.ft GRADING N/A 3,700 cy of dirt -imported. 2,370 cy cubic yards of dirt to be exported and 1,330 cubic yards utilized for the restored/repaired slopes and the pad (Variance requested) 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. STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 4.2% 5.06% of 192,980 s.f. net lot area (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 12.22 % 13.9% of 192,980 s.f. net lot area (35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% 17.7% of 34,363 sq.ft. pad 20.9% of 7,185 sq.ft. pad N/A • 17.7% of 34,363 sq.ft. pad 26.3% of 9,318 sq.ft. pad Future maximum -guideline) Residential Pool pad Stable pad DISTURBED AREA 30.3 % or 58,453 sq. ft. (192,980 sq. ft. net lot area) 39.1 % or 75,520 sq.ft. incl.future stable (192,980 sq. ft. net lot area) (previously approved 35. 2% or 67,963 sq.ft.) (40 % maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any non -graded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. N/A Future 720 sq.f.t & min 550 sq.ft. corral & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS Proposed from Port. Bnd Rd ROADWAY ACCESS Existing driveway approach Existing driveway approach VIEWS N/A Planning Commission condition PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission condition ZC No. 923 38 Portuguese Bend Rd. SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 1146.010 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. 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; ZC No. 923 38 Portuguese Bend Rd. E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC No. 923 38 Portuguese Bend Rd. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RESOLUTION NO. 2017-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 923, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND VARIANCE TO RETAIN A PORTION OF IMPOR FED DIRT FOR THE GRADING AND TO EXPORT THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE DIRT, TO CONSTRUCT GREATER THAN 2:1 SLOPE AND TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT, (ZC NO. 843), AT 38 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 118-RH), (WHEELER). The Planning Commission does hereby find, resolve and order as follows: Section 1. In February 2014, after several modifications, the Planning Commission, in Zoning Case No. 843, approved balanced cut and fill to enlarge the swimming pool building pad from 7,185 square feet to 9,318 square feet and to construct an 860 square foot covered patio that would contain an outdoor kitchen and other outdoor amenities. A spa on a lower pad behind the swimming pool and two 2'6" retaining walls along the building pad were also approved. Grading for this project was approved at 810 cubic yards total, which included the grading for the walls along the sides of the stair/fountain structure, which was approved under a separate zoning case, following a code enforcement action by the City. Section 2. On or about July 13, 2016, City Staff was alerted to the fact that a large amount of unpermitted dirt, rocks, and loose concrete had been deposited and was being stored along the slope of, and in the canyon at 38 Portuguese Bend Road. A visit to the site revealed that the loose dirt, rocks and concrete pieces being stored along the slope of the Subject Property and the canyon adjacent thereto had the potential to fall to the bottom of the canyon and become part of the natural drainage course. Furthermore, the loose dirt, rocks and concrete pieces covered the existing vegetation along the slope and canyon, thereby facilitating potential erosion of the slopes into the canyon. City Staff notified the owners that the imported dirt and storage of dirt along the slope of the Subject Property and the canyon adjacent thereto was a violation of Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 8.32.060(B) and Section 15.04.150(1) and requested that they abate this condition. Despite continued attempts to gain the Property Owners' compliance, the dirt, rocks, and loose concrete remain along the slope of the Subject Property and in the canyon adjacent thereto. The engineer for the project estimated that since the 2014 approval, approximately 3,700 cubic yards of dirt was imported to the lot, which caused the property to be subject to code enforcement proceedings, and ultimately the request for modification and restoration of the slopes. Section 3. The code enforcement efforts by staff continued under the nuisance provisions of the Municipal Code, and the owners were now required to remove the dirt from the sides of the canyon, stock pile it on the flat area of the pad, cover it and apply to the Planning Commission for a variance to keep the imported dirt, if they wished to keep it, and for modification to the previously approved project. The applicants did not comply with staff's direction towards abatement of the nuisance condition. The case was referred to the City Council for a determination and direction. At the March 9, 2017 City Council meeting the City Council directed the applicants to abate the nuisance within date specific time line, by either removing the dirt from the sides of the canyon, stock piling it on the pad and applying to the Planning Commission for project modification; or removing the dirt from the canyon and the property and returning the slope and the swimming pool pad to the condition that existed prior to the dirt being deposited there. Following City Council's decision, the applicants, to the best of their ability removed the dirt from the sides of the canyon, stocked piled it on the flat area by the pool and submitted an application for Planning Commission consideration to modify the previously approved project, restore the slopes where the dirt was placed and keep some of the unpermitted dirt and export the balance. Section 4. The Planning Commission considered this item at. duly noticed public hearings on May 16, 2017, June 20, 2017 July 18, 2017, September 19, 2017 and at a field trip on June 20, 2017. The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the staff reports, reviewed and considered the Applicants' request, public testimony, and other information on the record and directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval for the project. 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 and their representative were in attendance at the hearing. Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project to modify Zoning Case No. 923 qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption, and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Neighbors within 1,000 -foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on May 4, 2017. Section 6. The lot is 5.08 -acre in size in the RAS-2 zoning district. Portuguese Bend Road divides the property, where approximately 47,500 square feet of the lot (1.07 acres) is located on the west side of the road and the remaining on the east side of the road. Portuguese Bend Road roadway easement along this lot is 80 feet wide. The portion east of Portuguese Bend Road is developed with 5,112 square foot residence, 761 square foot garage, 773 square foot swimming pool, 653 square foot guest house, covered porches, entryway and service yard. The portion of the lot west of the road is undeveloped. 2 Section 7. Findings for Approval of Variances to keep 1,330 cubic yards of dirt and to export 2,370 cubic yards of dirt; and create a slope greater than 2:1 gradient in one area of the restored slope. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. In the subject application, the Applicants requested variances to exempt them from strict compliance with Section 17.16.230 and Section 17.16.220 (which require balanced grading on site and slopes to be no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical). The Applicants are requesting a Variance to import 1,330 cubic yards of soil and export 2,370 cubic yards of soil. Additionally, the Applicants are proposing a slope of 1.5:1 for a short distance of the disturbed slope, where the unpermitted dirt was placed. The resulting slope for a short distance is necessary as there isn't enough vertical distance between the bottom of the canyon and the building pad area to create gentler and less vertical slope in only one area. With respect to these requests for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and .extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same zone because the existing dirt must be integrated into the approved project in a way that allows the property to be developed. B. Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the Applicants of the right and benefits enjoyed by similarly situated properties in the same vicinity and zone. Integration of the existing soil into the development of the project permits the use of the lot to the extent allowed for other properties in the vicinity and will otherwise avoid the environmental impacts related to the removal of all 3,700 cubic yards of dirt from the City. C. The granting of the Variances would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements_ in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Integration of the existing soil into the development of the project permits the use of the lot to the extent allowed for other properties in the vicinity and will otherwise avoid the environmental impacts related to the removal of all 3,700 cubic yards of dirt from the City. Furthermore, implementation of the existing dirt would eliminate the need for the two previously approved 21/2 foot retaining walls and would therefore increase the aesthetics of. the project and result in less environmental impacts. D. In granting the Variances, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code will be observed because the integration of the existing soil permits the use of the lot to the extent allowed for other properties in the vicinity. Furthermore, implementation of the existing dirt would eliminate the need for the two previously approved 21/2 foot 3 retaining walls and would therefore increase the aesthetics of the project and result in less environmental impacts. E. The Variances do not grant any special privilege(s) to the Applicants; the Applicants are required to integrate the existing soil on the property in order to bring the property into compliance with a City Council directive. Specifically, Applicants have been directed to use the existing dirt to repair the slopes west of the proposed building pad which became damaged when the dirt was impermissibly imported. Due to the location of bottom of the canyon to the top of the building pad, there isn't enough vertical distance between the bottom of the canyon and the building pad area to create gentler than 1.5:1 slope in only one area along the building pad. F. . The Variances are consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because there are no hazardous waste facilities involved. G. The Variances requested are consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills because the proposed improvements will repair and preserve the stability of the slopes which were damaged by the impermissible import of dirt. Furthermore, the slopes will be landscaped in order to prevent erosion. Lastly, implementation of the existing dirt would eliminate the need for the two previously approved 21 foot retaining walls and would therefore increase the aesthetics of the project and result in less environmental impacts. Section 8. Findings for Approval of Site Plan Review to use the dirt to grade the slopes, so that the walls could be moved and slopes repaired from the dumped dirt, as required by Section 17.46.050. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The proposed grading complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance. The proposed grading will repair and preserve the stability of the slopes, which will be landscaped in order to prevent erosion. Coupled with the fact that the implementation of the existing dirt would eliminate the need for the two previously approved 21/2 foot retaining walls, this will increase the aesthetics of the project. B. The proposed grading will substantially preserve the natural and undeveloped state of the lot because it will be conducted on the slope above the canyon adjacent to the property. In other words, the proposed grading will not affect the previously approved building coverage because the proposed covered patio will be constructed on the previously approved building pad and the grading will be conducted on the canyon slopes, where no greater development will take place; only slope restoration due to the disturbance of the slopes by the unpermitted dirt. C. The proposed grading is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences because nothing will be constructed on the 4 slope which is proposed to be graded. The proposed grading will repair and preserve the stability of the slopes and return them to a 2:1 gradient, except for one short span. The slopes will also be landscaped and therefore will not impact the aesthetics of the surrounding canyon. D. The proposed grading will not impact existing topographic features of the site, and integrates draining courses and land forms into the site design. Implementation of the existing dirt would eliminate the need for the two previously approved 21 foot retaining walls and would therefore increase the aesthetics of the project and result in less environmental impacts. E. The proposed grading has been designed to follow the natural contours of the site and will mimic the existing 2:1 gradient slopes. Furthermore, the proposed grading will minimize the amount of dirt required to create the building area because of the 3,700 cubic yards of dirt existing on the property, 1,330 cubic yards will be incorporated into the development of the project while the remaining 2,370 will be exported. F. The proposed project will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect the drainage flow. The proposed grading along the canyon slope will restore the existing drainage course by cleaning most of the dirt out of the canyon and reestablishing the existing water course. G. As part of the overall approval of the project, the proposed grading must preserve the surrounding native vegetation and mature trees by supplementing these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping (which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community while providing a buffer/transition area between private and public areas). H. The proposed grading is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles because it will not be conducted on or near any existing driveway or pedestrian walkway. Nor will the grading along the slope impact any hiking or horse trails. I. The proposed grading conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption, and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings in Sections 7 and 8 the Planning Commissionhereby approves the Site Plan Review and Variance application in Zoning Case No. 923 subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review 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 Sections 17.46.080(A) and 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. B. If any condition of this resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by this resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the violation. The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee's determination that a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for which the agenda has not yet been posted, the Applicant shall be provided written notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, the Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on the property until and unless the violation is cured by the deadline, other than work designated by the Council to accomplish the cure. If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at the Applicant's request or schedule a hearing for therevocation of the entitlements granted by this Resolution pursuant to Chapter 17.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Code, the Zoning Code, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, including the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, unless otherwise set forth in this approval, 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 12, 2017. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to the Building and Safety Department for issuance of grading and/or building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on all construction plans and shall be available at the construction site at all times. E. The licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform 6 in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building and/ or grading permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. F. The project must be reviewed and approved by RHCA. G. Grading shall not exceed 1,330 cubic yards of cut and fill total; export of 2,370 cubic yards of the unpermitted dirt shall be exported from the site. No additional grading or disturbance, including for access to the construction site shall be permitted. H. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 9,769 square feet or 5.1 % of the net lot area, including the future 720 square foot stable, in conformance with the zoning. requirement. The structural coverage on the proposed 9,318 square foot swimming pool building pad shall not exceed 2,451 square feet or 26.3%. I. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 26,823 square feet, or 14.0% in conformance with the zoning ordinance. J. The two previously approved 2.5' high retaining walls, which were to encircle the swimming pool pad and the previously approved spa shall be eliminated with this approval. K. The disturbance of the net lot shall not exceed 17,055 square feet of surface area or 39.1 % of the net lot area, which includes the future stable, corral and access thereto. L. Prior to hauling away the dirt from the property, the applicants shall inform the City and RHCA staff of the date and time of this activity. The hauler shall implement Best Management Practices to assure that the dirt is not spilled onto the street during. transport. M. The solid roof covered patio shall not exceed 860 square feet, as measured from the finished exterior surface of the posts. The patio may not be enclosed on any side. Any utility line to the structure shall be placed underground. N. Pursuant to Chapter 8.30 of the RHMC the property shall at all times be maintained free of dead trees and vegetation. O. If applicable, the applicant shall be required to conform to .the City of Rolling Hills Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, Chapter 13.18 of the Municipal Code. 7 OS P. The graded areas shall be landscaped and continually maintained in good condition. Any trees and shrubs used in the landscaping scheme for this project shall be planted in a way that will not result in a hedge like screening and will not impair views from neighboring properties but will screen the project site, including the covered patio. Prior to issuance of a grading permit a detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to City staff for review. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area, are water -wise and are consistent with the rural character of the community. A final inspection shall not be granted unless the slopes are vegetated, the patio area screened from neighbors and the vegetation established. Q. The applicants shall submit a detailed drainage plan to the City's drainage engineer. This project shall meet the requirements of the City's Low Impact Development portion of the Storm Water Management and Pollution Control ordinance, if applicable. The applicant shall comply with grading requirements relative to submittal of grading and construction reports as required by the Building Official. In order to prevent sediments and water run-off from reaching the canyon from the disturbed slopes, by November 1, 2017 an erosion control plan shall be submitted to the Building Department and implemented, even if grading permits have not been issued by that time. R. Minimum of 65% of the construction material spoils shall be recycled and diverted from landfills. The hauler shall obtain a Construction and Demolition permit from the City and provide proof of recycling. S. There shall be no discarding of any debris, trash, soil and construction spoils or any other material into the canyon or deposited anywhere on the property, including easements. No grading, planting, structures, drainage devices or hardscape, including driveways, or storage of any objects including building materials shall take place in the easements, unless approved by the RHCA. T. The City or the Building Department may require a construction fence for the duration of the grading for this project. Such fence shall not be located in any easement or cross over trails or natural drainage course and shall be removed immediately upon completion of the grading work. In addition, any construction facility, such as a construction trailer/office or portable toilets, to a maximum extent practicable, shall be located in a manner not visible from the street, and be in a location satisfactory to City staff. U. 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. 8 OD. V. Construction vehicles or equipment, employees vehicles, delivery trucks shall not impede any traffic lanes to maximum extend practical; if traffic. must be blocked in order to aid in the construction, no more than a single lane may be blocked for a short period of time and flagmen utilized on both sides of the impeded area to direct traffic. W. During construction, all parking shall take place on the project site, and, if necessary, any overflow parking may take place within the unimproved roadway easement along Portuguese Bend Road, and shall not obstruct neighboring driveways or pedestrian and equestrian passage. During construction, to the maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City. A minimum of 4' wide path, from the edge of the roadway pavement, for pedestrian and equestrian passage shall be available and clear at all times. X. No drainage device may be located in such a manner as to contribute to erosion or in any way affect a slope, an easement, trail or adjacent properties. The energy dissipaters shall be designed in such a manner as to not cross over any equestrian trails or easements. The drainage system(s) shall not discharge water onto a trail, shall incorporate earth tone colors, including in the design of the dissipater and shall be screened from any trail and neighbors views to the maximum extent practicable, without impairing the function of the drainage system. Y. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department requirements for the installation' of best management practices (BMPs) related to solid waste and storm water management, including erosion control measures, and post construction maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. Z. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements shall be complied with, so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors. AA. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the no -smoking provisions in the Municipal Code. AB. 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#FIR E. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. AC. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of minimum of 1,000 square feet to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable (450 square feet) and corral (550 square feet) with access thereto. 9 �� AD. Until the applicants execute and record an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan Review and Variances approvals, as required by the Municipal Code, the approvals shall not be effective. AE. Prior to final inspection of the project, "as graded" and "as constructed" plans and certifications shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed project is in compliance with the Planning Commission approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during construction, shall be depicted on the "as built/as graded" plan. AF. There shall be no further modifications, changes or variations to the project approved by this resolution, or any further development on the property, not approved previously, without Planning Commission review and approval. AG. All conditions of the Site Plan and Variances approvals, that apply, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of grading or building permit. AH. All conditions of Resolution No. 2014-04 adopted by the Planning Commission on February 18, 2014, Resolution No. 2014-13 adopted by the Planning Commission on June 17, 2014 and of Resolution No. 1169, adopted by the City Council on February 23, 2015, unless amended by this resolution, shall be in full force and effect PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17th DAY BER 017. BRAD ELF, CHAI AN AT I'EST: TTE HALL, INTERIM 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 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2017-18 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 923, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND VARIANCE TO RETAIN A PORTION OF IMPORTED DIRT FOR THE GRADING AND TO EXPORT THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE DIRT, TO CONSTRUCT GREATER THAN 2:1 SLOPE AND TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT, (ZC NO. 843), AT 38 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 118-RH), (WHEELER). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 17, 2017 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Cooley, Seaburn and Chair Chelf. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirkpatrick. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. TE HALL, INTERIM CITY CLERK 11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Agenda Item No: 7-B Mtg. Date: 07/18/17 From: Christine Evers <> Date: Sunday, July 16, 2017 3:24 AM To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@citvofrh.net> Subject: Fwd: Zoning Case 923 - Wheeler, #38 Portuguese Bend Road Sorry, Yolanda, my last dot -point question was cut off ...please see below. Thanks Begin forwarded message: From: Christine Evers <> Subject: Zoning Case 923 - Wheeler, #38 Portuguese Bend Road Date: 16 July 2017 8:21:33 pm AEST To: vs@citvofrh.net Dear Yolanta, RECEIVE JUL ,17 2017 City of Rolling Hilts By I am writing to you regarding Zoning Case 923 - Wheeler, #38 Portuguese Bend Road. My father John Husnak has owned and lived at 34 Portuguese Bend Road for about 45 years. My sister Heidi Husnak has informed me that the Zoning Case is before you on July 18th and that the Wheelers now "request to modify a previously approved project for a site plan review to reconfigure the swimming pool pad and Variances to allow the use of non -permitted imported dirt, to construct slopes steeper than 2:1 gradient and to export dirt." I am concerned for our father who -is elderly and feeling powerless in the face of changes he has endured to his home's once private and bucolic outlook over the last two years. He has seen his outlook diminish from a peaceful, tree -filled, private canyon to a full view of a neighbor's pool and massive spa/grotto plus tons of imported dirt being dumped into the canyon to produce a huge imported dirt pad. (Can you or anyone explain how so many trucks of dirt were allowed past the security guards at Main Gate if it was not "permitted"?) Most importantly, the dumping and shifting of dirt moved the existing creek -line and encroached on our father's property and was done without the Council's consent. I'm shocked that this sort of illegal dumping and property encroachment/alteration would be allowed to go on in Rolling Hills. I am perplexed as it seems the Wheelers are now just asking for a permit to do what was previously done flagrantly without consent. I have the following questions: • Why would the Council approve a greater than 2:1 gradient? This seems dangerous in a City and geography that has already endured slippage events. If they do not feel that their property is large enough without changing the topography of the entire canyon and ecosystem, perhaps they should have purchased a flatter plot of land. • The work already done has brought the Wheeler property horizontally further out into many neighbours' views. Since the removal of all trees and their dumping of imported non - permitted dirt and building, my father - from all his living and entertaining areas, already hears and sees everything that goes on at the Wheeler's pool and pool -house, unfettered by trees or any buffer. It appears the proposed work will increase that lack of privacy and encroachment into the Wheeler's neighbors' vision even further. • This does not comport with the privacy inherent in Rolling Hills property configurations and the City's philosophies. • Has the original creek -bed, which would have been shown on surveys in the early 1970's been restored or protected? I would appreciate the City having the strength to stand by its historic and unique ethos. My father does not want trouble with his neighbors but it is not fair to do/build what you like in Rolling Hills (God knows we weren't even allowed to build our father a portico at his front door when we went through the correct channels at Council about 4 years ago.) Have times changed so much now that people do what they like no matter how dirty or dangerous it is and then ask for permission only when they get caught...and that's OK? It would be a very sad day for Rolling Hills indeed. Regards Christine Husnak cL.3 JUL-142017 From: Christine Evers < > City of Bolling Hills Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 2:49 AM By To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> Subject Re: Zoning Case 923 - Wheeler, #38 Portuguese Bend Road Thanks for your email reply, Yolanta. If the 2:1 slope is graded only facing my father's property, that means they are coming closer to my father's property than to their other boundaries. Hence my father's privacy is encroached upon more than the other neighbors. Other pools in Rolling Hills are open to the canyons but not within such close proximity to neighbors. This on top of there being no screening / planting of trees/bushes to buffer noise means a loss of his once peaceful situation. Unfortunately, I cannot attend the meeting as I am in another timezone at the moment (thus my overnight responses). But I sincerely hope that the City of Rolling Hills will consider upholding its duty and remember the nature of why people moved to Rolling Hills in the first place. It was not to have their land encroached upon, property lines moved and neighbors bathing within easy . eyesight. Thank you, Christine On 7/17/17 7:08 PM, "h husnak" < > wrote: JUL 1 8 2017 City of Rolling Hills By Hello Yolanta- thanks for your clarifications. As a landscaper it is good to hear the City has a professional plan for erosion control plantings which I'm sure are also on point with fire safety plantings. I'd love to see the list. We're a big fan of recumbent coyote bush. The issue that seems ignored is screening . The Wheeler property's pool and proposed cabana/entertaining area is much more visible and "in your face" than others in the area. We are painfully aware of little barks constantly Bella dog because we can hear the entire verbal exchange as an example. Thus we ask you to consider requiring screening landscaping at least towards us- it does not affect the Wheeler view of the city which appears to be paramount in their concerns and is in line with RH privacy core principles as the Wheelers artificially extend their property into the canyon - Heidi Husnak Sent from my iPhone ADDETIONAL INFORMATION Agers:a item No. 7-A Mtg. Date: 09119117 From: Steve Wheeler Reply -To: Steve Wheeler Date: Monday, September 18, 2017 10:12 AM To: Yolanta Schwartz Subject: Planning meeting Zoning Case No. 923 pk ua 11,1 , _ 7 .: SEP 182817 City of Rolling Hills By Hi Yolanta, Thank you for sending the 9-19-2017 notice for zoning case number 923. 1 have some questions regarding item 7 and the natural watercourse from Portuguese Bend Road (PBR). It appears that during the construction at 40 PBR, the watercourse was redirected into the street easement on PBR. Part of the construction at 40 PBR was to construct a stormwater basin for discharge of water into the flowline within the street easement on the eastside of PBR. This redirection also incorporated the stormwater from above PBR eliminating this stormwater from being discharged into our gully on the East and North side of 38 PBR. This redirection results in a substantial decrease In gully erosion and also reduces erosion of the Georgeff trail located on the eastside of 38 PBR. We have supplied a few pictures, so that you can clearly see the redirection and impact. The first picture shows water discharged into the natural flowline within the street easement on PBR. Picture 2 and 3; show the basin at 40 PBR and the natural watercourse flowline and piping. The final picture shows the Georgeff trail and the absence of trail erosion that would have been present if the redirection was -not done. Sincerely, Steven Wheeler Scigen Inc. Gardena CA USA Phone The Information transmitted (including attachments) Is covered by the Electronic Communications privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, Is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this Information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) Is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. • 64 al Refle:09 qeek INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJECT: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 5B Mtg. Date: 11-13-17 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR ''y JULIA STEWART, ASSISTANT PLANNER RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER RESOLUTION NO. 2017-20. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND VARIANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE, RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION/ADDITION, ADDITION TO AN EXISTING POOL HOUSE, A NEW SPA, NEW RETAINING WALLS, AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED WALL HEIGHT AVERAGE AND DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 925 AT 16 PINE TREE LANE (LOT 81-1-RH), SUNITHA BHARADIA) AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO APPROVE A NEW DRIVEWAY APRON APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: DATE PUBLISHED: ATTACHMENT: ZONING CASE NO. 925 16 PINE TREE LANE (LOT 81-1-RH) RAS-2, 2.73 ACRES (GROSS) SUNITHA BHARADIA BIZHAN KHALEELI, ARCHITECT JULY 6, 2017 Resolution No. 2017-20 RECOMMENDATION AND PROTECT DESCRIPTION Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide other direction to staff. ZC NO.92516 Pine Tree Lane 1 Proposed Project The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review to construct a new approximately 938 square foot residential addition and 982 square foot basement, conversion of a 484 square foot garage to a new residential entry, new spa, which when added to the existing swimming pool causes the pool/spa to be over 800 square feet, and two retaining walls, one at three feet and one at 30 inches in height. Grading for this project is proposed at a total of 491 cubic yards of dirt. A Conditional Use Permit is requested for the addition of 352 square feet to an existing 430 square foot pool house resulting in a 782 square foot pool house. Also, the applicant is requesting Variances for disturbance that exceeds the allowable 40% limit and an average wall height higher than 21/2 feet. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission continued the public hearing item for the project at the July 18, 2017 Planning Commission meeting and officially opened the public hearing at the August 15, 2017 regular Planning Commission meeting. The Commission then viewed the project in the field, opened the hearing to enable brief public testimony and continued the meeting to the evening meeting of the Planning Commission on September 19, 2017. At the field visit, the Planning Commission questioned the proposed grading in the front of the residence, where the existing driveway is proposed to be filled in, the slope gradient and the resulting walls, if any. At the evening meeting, the Planning Commission provided direction to staff to prepare a resolution of approval for the proposed project. On October 7, 2017, an additional variance to allow for walls averaging above 21/2 feet in height, was duly noticed. Special Consideration During Resolution Preparation The Applicant proposed some potential additional project elements that had not been officially noticed to the public so it was unclear whether or not they would be kept as part of the project. Not being able to discuss these items at their September meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution contingent upon proper noticing for any additional project items and subject to the Architect's explanation of the grading, slopes and walls and submittal of a new plan for the Commission's consideration at the October meeting. In response to concerns raised by the Commission, the Architect reduced the internal retaining wall from 5 feet to 3 feet. He considered eliminating the wall altogether but that would have mostly eliminated the stable and corral set aside. So, by keeping the 3 foot wall the slope is maintained at 2:1 and the set aside area is preserved. Also, a taller wall in the front of the property along the driveway had been considered but only a 30 inch wall is now part of the proposed project. City staff issued a new public notice for an additional variance required by the alteration of a project retaining wall which pushes the average wall height to 2.7 rather ZC No. 92516 Pine Tree Lane 2 than 2.5 feet. This change along with the addition of a new 30 inch retaining wall along the driveway was incorporated into the resolution. Traffic Commission Review The applicants propose to retain a portion of the existing driveway, and to construct a new driveway apron leading to the new garage. The remainder of the unused on -site driveway will be converted into landscaping. The Traffic Commission reviewed the new driveway approach at the July 27, 2017 meeting and recommended approval. BACKGROUND Zoning and Land Size The property is zoned RAS-2 and the lot area is 2.73 gross acres. The net lot area of the lot is 97,812 square feet or 2.24 acres. The lot is located off of a cul-de-sac and is adjacent to three vacant properties. Past Property Approval Previously approved improvements on the property include a residence and attached garage, swimming pool, pool house, and tennis court. The proposed additions will be to some of these existing structures on the property. Demolition No demolition is proposed beyond that needed for the additions for the garage and the pool house. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE Grading The total combined grading for this project will consist of 491 cubic yards of cut and fill. Construction activities will include grading of 229.2 cubic yards of cut and 229.2 cubic yards of fill and 600 cubic yards will be excavated for the basement. No dirt will be exported. Disturbance An additional 3,909 square feet of the lot is proposed to be disturbed or 4%, which includes grading for the new garage, basement, and spa area. The existing disturbance on the property is 41.7%. With the proposed project the disturbance will be 45.7%. Since the proposed project will require additional disturbance, the applicant is seeking a variance. Height The finished height of the existing residence ridgeline is to remain at 15.25 feet. The highest garage ridgeline height from the ground will be 19 feet 3 inches. ZC No. 92516 Pine Tree Lane 3 Drainage There will be no change to the existing drainage plan. The current drainage system includes a dissipater located behind the existing tennis court. Lot Coverage The project conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements. The net lot area of the property is 97,812 square feet. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 16.15%, with allowance for permitted deductions, (20% max. permitted); and the total .lot coverage proposed, including the driveway would be 33.64%, (35% max. permitted). The residential building pad is proposed at 12,800 square feet and shall not exceed coverage of 6,975 square feet or 54.49% with allowed deductions. Walls The applicant seeks a variance because the walls being proposed average less than 21h feet in height. The allowable wall height average is 2.5 feet and the proposed wall height average is 2.7 feet. Two retaining walls are being proposed for the project, one at three feet and one at 30 inches in height. The three foot heigh wall is located in the interior portion of the property and is likely only visible to the residents of the subject property. The 30 inch high wall runs along the driveway. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUMMARIES A Conditional Use Permit is required for the increased square footage of the existing pool house. Section 17.18.060 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a pool house with a Conditional Use Permit. Pool House Requirements The applicant is proposing an addition of 352 square feet to an existing 430 square foot pool house resulting in a 782 square foot pool house. The following are conditions for a pool house, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED Shall not exceed eight hundred square feet An 782 square foot pool house is proposed. Shall not be located in the front yard or any setback. The pool house (both existing and proposed addition) is not in the front yard or any setback. A kitchenette and sanitary facility consisting of a shower, sink and toilet shall be permitted. Applicant proposes a kitchenette with a sink and a bathroom with a shower No slee m uarters allowed p g q This is a standard condition of approval. Renting of a pool house is prohibited. This is a standard condition of approval. ZC No. 92516 Pine Tree Lane 4 Utility Lines/ Septic Tank It will be a requirement that utility lines to all of the subject property structures be placed underground. The Department of Public Health will determine if a new septic tank is necessary. General Non -conforming Conditions There are two permitted existing non -conforming conditions on the property. A portion of the existing residence and a portion of the existing garage have structures located within the front and side setbacks. Rolling Hills Community Association Review Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. Environmental Review The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1, Section 15301. Development Comparables ZC NO. 925 NEARBY PROPERTIES (For information only) Address House size in sq.ft. (built/ add or remodel) Lot Area (gross acres) 1 Pine Tree 6,585* 4.29* 2 Pine Tree 6,211 2.24 3 Pine Tree 4,674* 5.13 4 Pine Tree 8,961 4.38 6 Pine Tree 6,148 1.31 7 Pine Tree. 4,113* 5.1* 8 Pine Tree 2,812 2.23 10 Pine Tree 3,253 2.49 23 Portuguese Bend Road 3,348 2.42 2 Pheasant Lane 5,651 5.0 5 Pine Tree 4,340 5.15 16 Pine Tree Lane Existing 5,234 Proposed 5,810 2.73 NOTE: The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory structures. SOURCES: Assessors' records *City Records Project Summary ZC No. 92516 Pine Tree Lane 5 SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING PROPOSED OVERALL TOTAL RA -S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH GARAGE and POOL. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION/CONVERSION WITH GARAGE, SPA AND POOL HOUSE ADDITION Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from rear easement line STRUCTURES Residence Garage Pool Pool Equipment Stable Service Yard Porches Outdoor kitchen Gazebo Tennis Court Entryway/Port. Basement Pool House 5,234 sq.ft. 484 sq.ft 759 sq.ft. 64 sq. ft. 450 sq. ft. 96 sq.ft. 548 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft. 160 sq. ft. 6,502 sq. ft. 129 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 430 sq. ft. Residence Garage Pool and spa Pool Equipment Stable Service yard Porches Outdoor kitchen Gazebo Tennis Court Entryway/Port. Basement* Pool House 5,810 sq.ft. 938 sq.ft. 830 sq.ft. 64 sq. ft. 450 sq.ft 72 sq.ft 196 sq.ft. 200 sq.ft. 160 sq. ft. 6,502 sq. ft. 129 sq. ft. 982 sq. ft. 782 sq.ft. (Site Plan Review required for grading, new structures including new residence and if size of addition increases by more than 999 s.f. in a 36 -month period). TOTAL 15,056 sq.ft TOTAL * not incl. 15,973 sq.ft STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 15.19% (with deductions) 16.15% (with deductions) (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 32.67% (with deductions) 33.64% (with deductions; flatwork from driveway was reduced) (35% maximum) BUILDING PADS (30% guideline) (No deductions) 47.68% residence pad coverage 43.1% pool & spa/pool house pad coverage (No deductions) 54.49% residence pad coverage 42% pool & spa/pool house pad coverage Residence, pool, other miscl. structures POOL & SPA/POOL HOUSE GRADING Unknown 229.2 c.y. cut and 229.2 c.y. fill to be balanced on site 600 cubic yards excavation from the basement No dirt. exported from site Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA 41.7% 45.7% (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. No stable 450 s.f. future stable set aside; 550 s.f. (future corral set aside - not in calculations) & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS N/A Pathway from motor court and driveway - ROADWAY ACCESS Existing driveway approach New driveway approach VIEWS N/A Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission review ZC No. 92516 Pine Tree Lane 6 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. 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 ZC No. 92516 Pine Tree Lane OD - 7 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 uses are consistent with the General Plan; B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures; C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed; D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district; E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; F. That the proposed conditional uses observe the spirit and intent of this title. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC No. 92516 Pine Tree Lane 8 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND VARIANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW GARAGE, RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION/ADDITION, ADDITION TO POOL HOUSE, SPA, NEW RETAINING WALLS AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED WALL HEIGHT AVERAGE AND DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 925 AT 16 PINE TREE LANE (LOT 81-1-RH), (SUNITHA BHARADIA) THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Sunitha Bharadia with respect to real property located at 16 Pine Tree Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 81-1-RH) requesting a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances for the construction of a new 938 square foot garage and a 484 square foot residential conversion/addition, an addition of 352 square feet to an existing 430 square foot pool house (782 s.f. total), a spa, retaining walls averaging greater than 2 Y2 feet, and additional disturbance that exceeds the maximum allowable 40%. Grading for this project will entail a total of 491 cubic yards of dirt. The existing apron will be closed off and a new driveway and driveway apron will be constructed. Section 2. A public notice for the proposed project was initially issued on July 7, 2017. However, the item was not heard and was continued until August 15, 2017. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings held on August 15, 2017 and September 19, 2017. The Planning Commission viewed the project in the field, opened the hearing to enablebrief public testimony and continued the meeting to the evening meeting of the Planning Commission. At the September 19, 2017 evening meeting, the Planning Commission provided direction to staff to prepare a resolution of approval for the proposed project with some contingent considerations based on possible new proposal elements and explanation of grading and slope steepness. On October 7, 2017, an additional variance to allow for walls averaging above 2 1/2 feet in height was duly noticed. Neighbors within 1,000 -foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on August 4, 2017. The applicants and their agents were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and the applicants and agents were in attendance at the hearings, at which evidence was heard and presented from all person interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff. Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the lot area is 2.73 gross acres. The net lot area of the lot is 97,812 square feet or 2.24 acres. The lot is located off of a cul-de-sac and is adjacent to three vacant properties. Previously approved improvements on the property include a. residence and attached garage; swimming pool, pool house, and tennis court. The proposed additions will be to some of these existing structures on the property. Section 4. The Planning Commission fmds that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the CEQA guidelines. Section 5. Site Plan Review. With respect to the Plans submitted for the development, the Planning Commission hereby approves the request for Site Plan Review in Zoning Case No. 925 to build the proposed project and makes the following findings: Resolution No. 2017-20 16 Pine Tree Lane -1- A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, .the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures and maintaining sufficient setbacks to provide buffers between residential uses. The net lot area of the property is 2.24 acres which is within the requirements of the RAS-2 zone. Only one of the proposed new structures is considered to be in a setback which is a three foot retaining wall which is allowable under the zoning code. The project conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements. The net lot area of the property is 97,812 square feet. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 16.15%, with allowance for permitted deductions, (20% max. permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed, including the driveway would be 33.64%, (35% max. permitted). The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 45.7% which is above the 40% maximum disturbance allowed. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. The configuration of the lot has been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures, because the proposed location of structures on the lot are consistent with surrounding development, and are of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will allow the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. The project includes the required stable and corral set aside area and access and thereby promotes equestrian uses, furthering the City's goal to remain an equestrian community. C. The proposed development, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in the vicinity of said lot. The development plan takes into consideration the visibility from all roadway easements with several of the proposed improvements being located in one of the least visible portions of the property. D. Any new landscaping must be compatible with and enhance the rural character of the community, and the landscaping should provide a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the newdriveway apron has been reviewed by a traffic engineer and recommended for approval by the Traffic Commission. There is ample parking in the garage which is increasing the number of spaces and there is parking for guests on site. Section 6. Conditional Use Permit. Section 17.16.040 (3) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a pool house with a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed 782 square pool house, after the proposed additions are constructed, complies with all requirements of this section. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. Conditionally permitted uses are not outright permitted by the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. The Planning Commission must consider applications for a Conditional Use Permit and may, with such conditions as are deemed necessary, approve a conditional use which will not jeopardize, adversely affect, endanger or to otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare or be materially detrimental to the property of other persons located in the vicinity of such use. Resolution No. 2017-20 16 Pine Tree Lane B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the pool house additions would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community, and meets all the applicable code development standards for such use, and is located in the area of the property that are adequately sized to accommodate such uses, under the existing pool house roof. C. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent structures have been considered, and the project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed pool house addition is located mostly in. the middle of a 2.73 acre lot and the general location is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so as to not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. D. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the proposed use complies with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and will not give the property an over -built look, and areas will remain open and unobstructed. The lot is 2.24 acres net in size and is sufficiently large to accommodate the proposed use. E. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district and requires Conditional Use Permits pursuant to Section 17.16.040 of the Zoning Ordinance. F. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. Section 7. Variances. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Code permit approval of a variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when, due to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone, strict application of the Code would deny the property owner substantial property rights enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The applicant seeks variances from the requirements that the walls being proposed average less than 2 %2 feet in height and the disturbance is higher than the permitted 40%. The proposed average wall, height is 2.7 feet and the proposed disturbance is 45.7%. With respect to this request for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the existinglot already exceeds the allowable disturbance at 41.7% and the walls being proposed allow for 2:1 slopes rather than multiple walls with flat planting areas behind them. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance, because the site is sloped in nature so in order to provide pads that meet - the development standards, and restore the slopes to 2:1, additional grading is required and it was necessary to push the limits of grading farther out than if the lot did not have as much slope to it. The overage is not significant and the property owner should not be denied the privilege of a new house addition and amenities because of the attempt to restore one of the original property slopes and thereby the topographic nature of the lot. Resolution No. 2017-20 16 Pine Tree Lane -3- The exceedance of the disturbance is due in large part to the need for slope restoration. There were no concerns voiced by residents during the public hearing and it is believed the proposed plan will cause the least impact to the area after further consideration of project alternatives. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. A minor increase in the overall percentage of disturbed area on the lot will have no effect on the public welfare or on property or improvements in the vicinity and the walls which exceed 2.5' average in height are not in any visible part of the property to the street and will not cause any line of sight issues on Pine Tree Lane due to the existing landscaping on the property that will screen the proposed wall. D. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. To the contrary, absent a variance, the property owner would be deprived of the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. Unique circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with Section 17.16.070. The minor overage requested will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to many other properties in the vicinity and zone. E. The variance is consistent with the portions of the County. of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. F. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and will uphold the City's goals to protect and promote construction that is rural in nature. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves Zoning Case No. 925 request for a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances for the construction of a new 938 square foot garage and a 484 square foot residential conversion/addition, an addition of 352 square feet to an existing 430 square foot pool house (782 s.f. total), a spa, retaining walls averaging greater than 2 1/2 feet, and additional disturbance that exceeds the maximum allowable 40%, subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan, Variances and Conditional Use Permits approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080(A), 17.38.070 and 17.42.070 of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. If any condition of this resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by this resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the violation. The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee's .determination that a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for which the agenda has not yet been posted, the Applicant shall be provided written notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time Resolution No. 2017-20 16 Pine Tree Lane -4- of the hearing, the Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, the Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on the property until and unless the violation is cured by the deadline, other than work designated by the Council to accomplish the cure. If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at the Applicant's request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by this Resolution pursuant to Chapter 17.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). - C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in this permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated October 5, 2017, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the approved development plan. All _ conditions of the Site Plan Review, Variances and Conditional Use Permit approvals shall be incorporated, into the building permit working drawings, and where applicable complied with prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the building department. The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto building plans submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times. Any modifications and/or changes to the approved project, including resulting from field conditions, shall be discussed and approved by staff prior to implementing the changes. A modification may require a public hearing before the Planning Commission if the modification represents a major modification to the project. E. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to Building and Safety Department (or the expediting consultant retained by the City) for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. A drainage plan, if required by the Building Department, shall be prepared and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a construction permit. Such plan shall be subject to LA County Code requirements. F. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction affirming that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. G. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 16.15% of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations, and with the permitted allowances of structural coverage, (20% maximum). The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork, shall not exceed 33.64%, of the net lot area, excluding deductions, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (35% maximum). Resolution No. 2017-20 16 Pine Tree Lane H. The disturbed area of the lot, including the future stable and corral shall not exceed 45.7%. Grading for this project shall not exceed a total of 491 cubic yards, of which the excavation from the basement may be exported. I. The residential building pad is proposed at 12,800 square feet and shall not exceed coverage of 6,975 square feet or 54.49% with allowed deductions. J. The finished height of the existing residence ridgeline is to remain at 15.25 feet. K The highest garage ridgeline height will be 19 feet 3 inches.; the ridge height of the pool house shall remain the same as the existing. Ridge heights shall be measured from finished grade. L. The proposed basement shall not exceed 982 square feet and the finished basement ceiling shall not exceed 10 feet in height and shall meet all requirements of the Los Angeles County Building Code for basements, including exit doors and provision for light and ventilation. M. The. property on which the project is located shall maintain an area of minimum of 1,000 square feet to provide an area meeting all standards for a future stable (450 square feet) and corral (550 square feet) with access thereto. N. The new driveway and driveway apron shall meet the Traffic Commission recommendations and the existing apron shall be closed off with a curb and old driveway landscaped. Proposed access to the future stable and to the corral shall remain available for future stable access with no construction obstructing the proposed pathway. 0. Per Section 17.16.210(A)(2) of the zoning ordinance, only one sanitary facility consisting of a shower, sink, and a toilet and a kitchenette is permitted in the pool house. P. A minimum of five-foot walkable path and/or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of all of the proposed structures, or as otherwise required by the Fire Department. Q. If additional pool equipment is installed for the spa, or existing equipment is changed out, then it shall be screened; if by a solid wall, the wall shall not exceed. 5 feet in height at any point from finished grade. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound. The swimming pool and spa shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. Landscaping shall be utilized to screen the wall, so that it is not visible from the neighbor's property. Per LA County Building Code, pool and spa barrier/fencing shall be required. R. If a dissipater is required, it shall be screened with landscaping, in a manner as to not impede the flow of the run-off. S. 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, and all other ordinances and laws of the City of Rolling Hills and the LA County Building Code. T. All utility lines to the residence and pool house shall be placed underground, subject to all applicable standards and requirements. Resolution No. 2017-20 16 Pine Tree Lane U. Hydrology, soils, geology and other reports, as required by the LA County Building and Public Works Departments, and as may be required by the Building Official, shall be prepared. V. The graded slope areas shall be landscaped, and continually maintained in substantial conformance with the landscaping plan to be approved by City staff. Prior to issuance of a final construction or grading approval of the project, all graded slopes shall be landscaped. Prior to issuance of building permit, a detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the City in conformance with Fire Department Fuel Modification requirements and requirements for graded slopes. The detailed landscaping plan shall provide that any trees and shrubs used in the landscaping scheme for this project shall be planted in a way that screens the project development from adjacent streets and neighbors, such that shrubs and trees as they grow do not grow into a hedge or impede any neighbors significant views and the plan shall provide that all landscaping be maintained at a height no higher than the roof line of the highest structure on the property. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area, are water -wise and are consistent with the rural character of the community. The landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, (Chapter 13.18 of the RHMC). W. Pursuant to Chapter 8.30 of the RHMC the property shall at all times be maintained free of dead trees and vegetation. X. The setback lines and roadway easement lines in the vicinity of the construction for this project shall remain staked throughout the construction. During construction a construction fence may be required to be installed. Y. Perimeter easements, including roadway easements and trails, if any, shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to fences -including construction fences, any hardscape, driveways, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, except as otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. In addition, any construction facility, such as a construction trailer/office or portable toilets, to a maximum extent practicable, shall be located in a manner not visible from the street; and be in a location satisfactory to City staff. Z. Minimum of 65% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City's Construction and Demolition permits for waste hauling prior to start of work and provide proper documentation to the City. AA. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices shall be required, so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors. AB. Construction vehicles or equipment, employees vehicles, delivery trucks shall not impede any traffic lanes to the maximum extend practical; and if necessary to block traffic in order to aid in the Resolution No. 2017-20 16 Pine Tree Lane construction, no more than a single lane may be blocked for a short period of time and flagmen utilized on both sides of the impeded area to direct traffic. AC. During construction, all parking shall take place on the projectsite, and, if necessary, any overflow parking may take place within the unimproved roadway easement along and cul-de-sac of Pine Tree Lane, and shall not obstruct neighboring driveways or pedestrian and equestrian passage. During construction, to the maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City. A minimum of 4' wide path, from the edge of the roadway pavement, for pedestrian and equestrian passage shall be available and clear at all times. AD. 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. AE. 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/iox/main.pho?suite=safety&page=hazard definitions#FIRE. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire extinguisher. AF. 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, septic tank construction and maintenance in conformance with the County Health Department, storm water drainage facilities management, and to the City's Low Impact development Ordinance (LID, if applicable). AG. Prior to finaling of the project an "as graded" and "as constructed" plans and certifications, including certifications of ridgelines of the structures, shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the competed project is in compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any modification made to the project during construction, shall be depicted/listed on the "as built/as graded" plan. AH. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. The affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution. AI. Prior to demolition of the existing structures, an investigation shall be conducted for the presence of hazardous chemicals, lead -based paints or products, mercury and asbestos -containing materials (ACMs). If hazardous chemicals, lead -based paints or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, remediation shall be undertaken in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. Resolution No. 2017-20 16 Pine Tree Lane PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17th DAY OF O TOBER 2017. CHEL CHAIRMAN ATTEST: TTE HALL, INTERIM CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Resolution No. 2017-20 16 Pine Tree Lane -9- STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ ). I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2017-20 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND VARIANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW GARAGE, RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION/ADDITION, ADDITION TO POOL HOUSE, SPA, NEW RETAINING WALLS AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED WALL HEIGHT AVERAGE AND DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT 1N ZONING CASE NO. 925 AT 16 PINE TREE LANE (LOT 81-1-RH), (SUNITHA BHARADIA). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 17, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Cooley, Seaburn and Chair Chelf. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirkpatrick. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. Resolution No. 2017-20 16 Pine Tree Lane -10- YVETTE HALL, INTERIM CITY CLERK ,ge-r >Ira gee4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 5C Mtg. Date: 11-13-17 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR JULIA STEWART, ASSISTANT PLANNER THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2017-19. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNINGCOMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A sITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL AND GARAGE ADDITION, COVERED PORCHES AND TRELLIS IN ZONING CASE NO. 930 AT 52 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 4 -FT), (WACHS). APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: DATE PUBLISHED: ATTACHMENT: ZONING CASE NO. 930 52 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 4 -FT) RAS-2, 2.0 ACRES (EXCL. ROADWAY EASEMENT) FREY SURVIVOR TRUST (FRANCESCA WACHS) JOHN RESICH, AGENT AUGUST 4, 2017 Resolution No. 2017-19 RECOMMENDATION AND PROTECT DESCRIPTION Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide other direction to staff. Proposed Project The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review for construction of a residential and garage addition of 1,464 square feet and 518 square feet respectively, 855 square foot covered porches and a new 200 square foot trellis. ZC NO. 930 52 Portuguese Bend Road (-0 1 Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission opened a public hearing on August 15, 2017, and continued the public hearing and viewed the project in the field, and continued the meeting to the evening meeting of the Planning Commission on September 19, 2017. At the evening meeting, the Planning Commission provided direction to staff to prepare a resolution of approval for the proposed project. A resolution for the final proposed project was presented and approved at the October 17, 2017 regular evening Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commissioners were supportive of the project. No grading is proposed aside from if the Fire Department requires a widened driveway. There is no change to the existing disturbance. All new construction is proposed on an existing residential pad. And there was no opposition to the project by any residents. BACKGROUND Zoning and Land Size The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 2.0 acres (excluding the roadway easement). The net lot area is 1.7 acres or 74,379 square feet. Since the net lot area of the property is 1.7 acres it is slightly below the requirements of the RAS-2 zone in which it is located. Past Property Approval The existing property is currently developed with a 2,496 square foot residence with an existing 422 square foot garage, and an existing 295 square foot stable. There is also an existing swimming pool on the property. The original house and garage were constructed in 1954 and the swimming pool and other exterior improvements were constructed in 1978. Demolition The applicant proposes to demolish only the exterior walls that are needed to accommodate the proposed additions to the existing residence which includes 160 linear feet of exterior walls out of 372 linear feet of exterior walls on the existing residence. This is less than 50% of the exterior walls. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE Grading and Stabilization The applicant has submitted evidence that the parcel is located outside of the Flying Triangle landslide area so the property is not subject to any restrictions specific to construction in a slide area. Also, no grading is proposed for the project as the addition is proposed to be constructed on an existing pad that is currently covered with flatwork. ZC No. 930 52 Portuguese Bend Road 2 Driveway There is an existing 10 -foot wide driveway. The applicant anticipates that the Fire Department may require widening of the driveway to 20 feet given current fire code standards. With this requirement in mind, the applicant approximates 10 cubic yards or less of dirt will need to be graded to accommodate the widening. This accommodation is included in the resolution of approval for the proposed project. Disturbance The .existing disturbed area of the lot is 40,075 square feet or 53.88%. The proposed project will not cause any additional disturbance outside of the existing condition and therefore, does not need a variance. Height The highest finished roof height of the proposed residential addition and garage will be 15 feet. This is below the highest ridgeline of the 17 foot 6 inch ridgeline of the existing residence. Drainage There will be no change to the existing drainage design for the site. Lot Coverage The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 9.2% (20% max. permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed would be 23.03%, (35% max. permitted). The total lot coverage proposed (structural and flatwork) is proposed to be 32,386 square feet overall (with deductions) or 17.30% (35% max. permitted). The residential building pad is proposed at 13,070 square feet and shall not exceed coverage of 5,861 square feet or 44.84% with allowed deductions. The stable pad is existing at 490 square feet and does not exceed 295 square feet of coverage or 60.20%. Stable and Corral Set Aside The property on which the project is located shall maintain an area of minimum of 1,000 square feet to provide an area meeting all standards for a future stable (450 square feet) and corral (550 square feet) with access thereto. There is an existing 295 square foot stable with sufficient area adjacent to it to meet this requirement. Utility Lines All utility lines serving the property are required to be placed underground. General Rolling Hills Community Association Review Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. ZC No. 930 52 Portuguese Bend Road 3 Environmental Review The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301, Class 1. Development Comparables ZC NO. 930 NEARBY PROPERTIES (For information only) Address House size in sq.ft. (built) Lot Area (excl. roadway easements) 5 Crest Rd E 4,188 (1951/1953) 2.9 6 Cinchring 5,277 (1990) 2.6 5 Ranchero 3,021 (1956) 1.9 1 Crest Rd E 6,893 (1955)/2009 2.6 4 Cinchring 2.338 (1955) 1.7 56 Portuguese Bend 2,270 (1954) 3.2 1 Ranchero 3,027 (1951) 2.7 52 Portuguese Bend Road Existing 2,496 Proposed 3,960 2.0 NOTE: The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory structures. SOURCES: Assessors' records Proiect Summ SITE PLAN REVIEW . EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH GARAGE , AND POOL. RESIDENTIAL AND GARAGE ADDITIONS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from rear easement line STRUCTURES Residence Garage Pool Pool Equipment Service Yard Attached Porches Shed Detached Trellis Attached Trellis Stable 2,496 sq.ft. 429 sq.ft 400 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. . 96 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 85 sq.ft. 85 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 295 sq.ft. Residence Garage Pool/Spa Pool Equipment Service Yard Attached porches Shed Detached Trellis Attached Trellis Stable 3,960 sq.ft. 940 sq.ft. 400 sq. ft. 100 sq.ft. 96 sq. ft. 855 sq. ft. 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 200 sq. ft. 295 sq.ft. (Site Plan Review required for new residence and i.f size of structure increases by more than 999 s.f. in a 36 -month period). TOTAL EXISTING 3,979 sq.ft TOTAL PROPOSED 6,846 sq.ft STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 5.35% 6,846 sq.ft. or 9.2% of 74,379 sq.ft. net lot area (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 20.78% 17,132, sq.ft. or 23.03% of 74,379 sq.ft. net lot area (35% maximum) ZC No. 930 52 Portuguese Bend Road 4 BUILDING PADS (30% guideline) 29.39% 60.2% 5,861 sq.ft. or 44.84% of 13,070 sq.ft. residential pad (with deductions) 295 sq.f.t or 60.2% on 490 sq. ft. stable pad (no change) Residence, pool, other misc. Stable GRADING N/A None Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA 53.88% 53.88% (no change) (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. 295 sq.ft. 295 sq.ft. (existing) & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS D.G. pathway from driveway D.G. pathway from driveway ROADWAY ACCESS Existing driveway approach Existing driveway approach to remain (unless otherwise required by the Fire Dept.) VIEWS N/A Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission review 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; ZC No. 930 52 Portuguese Bend Road 5 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. 930 52 Portuguese Bend Road 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL AND GARAGE ADDITION, COVERED PORCHES AND TRELLIS IN ZONING CASE NO. 930 AT 52 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 4 -FT), (WACHS). THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by an agent of the Frey Survivor Trust (Francesca Wachs) with respect to real property located at 52 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA (Lot 4 -FT) requesting a Site Plan Review for the construction of a residential and garage addition of 1,464 square feet and 518 square feet respectively, 855 square foot covered porches and a new 200 square foot trellis. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings held on August 15, 2017 and September 19, 2017. The Planning Commission viewed the project in the field, opened the hearing to enable brief public testimony and continued the meeting to the evening meeting of the Planning Commission. At the September 19, 2017 evening meeting, the Planning Commission provided direction to staff to prepare a resolution of approval for the proposed project. Neighbors within 1,000 -foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on August 4, 2017. The applicants and their agents were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and the applicants and agents were in attendance at the hearings, at which evidence was heard and presented from all person interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff. Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 2.0 acres (excluding the roadway easement). The net lot area is 1.7 acres or 74,379 square feet. The existing property is currently developed with a 2,496 square foot residence with an existing 422 square foot garage, and an existing 295 square foot stable. There is also an existing swimming pool on the property. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the CEQA guidelines. Section 5. Site Plan Review. With respect to the Plans submitted for the development, the Planning Commission hereby approves the request for Site Plan Review in Zoning Case No. 930 to build the proposed project and makes the following findings: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures and maintaining sufficient setbacks to provide buffers between residential uses. The net lot area of the property is 1.7 acres which is slightly below the requirements of the RAS-2 zone. None of the proposed new structures are in setbacks. The project conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements. The net lot area of the property is 74,379 square feet. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 9.2% (20% max. permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed would be 23.03%, (35%. max. permitted). The disturbed area of the lot is Resolution No. 2017-19 52 Portuguese Bend Road /04 proposed to be 53.88% which exceeds the 40% maximum disturbance but the proposed development does not increase the existing disturbance. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. The configuration of the lot has been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures, because the proposed location of structures on the lot are consistent with surrounding development, and are of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will allow the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. C. The proposed development, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in the vicinity of said lot. The development plan takes into consideration the visibility from all roadway easements. D. If landscaping is introduced, it must be compatible with and enhance the rural character of the community, and the landscaping should provide a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience. and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because no change is proposed to the existing driveway or driveway apron. Should the Fire Department require a widened driveway, there is ample room to do so without affecting the circulation. There is ample parking in the garage and there is parking for guests on site. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves Zoning Case No. 930 request for the construction of residential and garage additions, covered porches and trellis subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080 unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. If any condition of this resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by this resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of written notice from the City, allconstruction work being performed on the subject property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the violation. The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee's determination that a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for which the agenda has not yet been posted; the Applicant shall be provided written notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the City Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the City Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the City Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, the City Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on the property until and unless the violation is cured by. the deadline, other than work designated by the City Council to accomplish the cure If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the City Council may either extend the Resolution No. 2017-19 52 Portuguese Bend Road deadline at the Applicant's request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by this Resolution pursuant to Chapter 17.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the. Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in this permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the. site plan on file received on June 13, 2017 except as otherwise provided for in these conditions. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the approved development plan. All conditions of the Site Plan Review approval shall be incorporated into the building permit working drawings, and where applicable complied with prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the building department. The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto building plans submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times. Any modifications and/or changes to the approved project, including resulting from field conditions, shall be discussed and approved by staff prior to implementing the changes. A modification may require a public hearing before the Planning Commission if the modification represents a major modification to the project. E. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to Building and Safety Department for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to City staff for verification that. the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. A drainage plan, if required by the Building Department, shall be prepared and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a construction permit. Such plan shall be subject to LA County Code requirements. F. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. G. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 6,846 square feet or 9.2% of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (20% maximum). The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork, shall not exceed 17,132 square feet (with deductions) or 23.03%, of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (35% max). H. The disturbed area of the lot, including the approved stable and corral set aside area, shall not increase the existing 40,075 square feet or 53.88% disturbance. No grading shall take place for the proposed project, unless the driveway is required by the Fire Department to be widened, up to 10 cubic yards are approved under this action. If any additional grading were required beyond the 10 cubic yards then a determination shall be made by staff whether or not additional discretionary review and approval would be necessary. Resolution No. 2017-19 52 Portuguese Bend Road - -3- I. The residential building pad is proposed at 13,070 square feet and shall not exceed coverage of 5,861 square feet or 44.84% with allowed deductions. The stable pad is existing at 490 square feet and shall not exceed 295 square feet of coverage or 60.20%. J. The highest finished roof height of the proposed residential addition and garage will be 15 feet. This is below the highest ridgeline of the 17 foot 6 inch ridgeline of the existing residence. K. The property on which the project is located shall maintain an area of minimum of 1,000 square feet to provide an area meeting all standards for a future stable (450 square feet) and corral (550 square feet) with access thereto. There is an existing 295 square foot stable with sufficient area adjacent to it to meet this requirement. L. The existing access and materials used for access to the stable and corral area is acceptable. M. A minimum of five-foot walkable path and/or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of all of the proposed structures, oras otherwise required by the Fire Department. N. At any time there are horses on the property, Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be applied for manure control, including but not be limited to removal of the manure on a daily basis or provision of a receptacle with _ a tight closing lid that is constructed of brick, stone, concrete, metal or wood lined with metal or other sound material and that is safeguarded against access by flies. The contents of said receptacles shall be removed once a week. It is prohibited to dispose of manure or any animal waste into the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), into natural drainage course or spread on the property. O. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. The affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution. P. Should a drainage dissipater be required, it shall be screened with landscaping, in a manner as to not impede the flow of the run-off. Q. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Lighting Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills (RHNIC 17.16.190 E), pertaining to lighting on said property; roofing and material requirements of properties in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and all other ordinances and laws of the City of Rolling Hills and the LA County Building Code. R. All utility lines to the residence and garage shall be placed underground, subject to all applicable standards and requirements. S. Hydrology, soils, geology and other reports, if required by y the LA County Building, Public Works Departments, and/or the Building Official, shall be prepared. T. Pursuant to Chapter 8.30 of the RHMC the property shall at all times be maintained free of dead trees and vegetation. Resolution No: 2017-19 - 52 Portuguese Bend Road -4- U. The setback lines and roadway easement lines in the vicinity of the construction for this project shall remain staked throughout the construction.. The City or the Building Department may require that a construction fence be erected for the duration of the work for this project. Such fence shall not be located in any easement or cross over trails or natural drainage course and shall be removed immediately upon completion of the work. V. Perimeter easements, including roadway easements and trails, if any, shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to fences -including construction fences, any hardscape, driveways, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, except as otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. In addition, any construction facility, such as a construction trailer/office or portable toilets, to a maximum extent practicable, shall be located in a manner not visible from the street, and be in a location satisfactory to City staff. W. Minimum - of 65% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City's Construction and Demolition permits for waste hauling prior to start of work and provide proper. documentation to the City. X. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices shall be required, so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors. Y. Construction vehicles or equipment, employees vehicles, delivery trucks shall not impede any traffic lanes to the maximum extend practical; and if necessary to block traffic in order to aid in the construction, no more than a single lane may be blocked for a short period of time and flagmen utilized on both sides of the impeded area to direct traffic. Z. During construction, all parking shall take place on the project site, and, if necessary, any overflow parking may take place within the unimproved roadway easement along Portuguese Bend Road, and shall not obstruct neighboring driveways or pedestrian and equestrian passage. During construction, to the maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City. A minimum of 4' wide path, from the edge of the roadway pavement, for pedestrian and equestrian passage shall be available and clear at all times. AA. 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. AB. 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.pho?suite=safety&page=hazard definitions#FIRE. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire extinguisher. AC. 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 Resolution No. 2017-19 52 Portuguese Bend Road -5- related to solid waste, drainage, septic tank construction and maintenance in conformance with the County -Health Department, storm water drainage facilities management, and to the City's Low Impact development Ordinance (LID), if applicable to the proposed project. AD. Prior to finaling of the project an "as graded" and "as constructed" plans and certifications, including certifications of ridgelines of the structures, shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Depaitiuent to. ascertain that the completed project is in compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any modification made to the project during construction, shall be depicted/listed on the "as built/as graded" plan. AE. Prior to demolition of the existing walls, an investigation shall be conducted for the presence of hazardous chemicals, lead -based paints or products, mercury and asbestos -containing materials (ACMs). If hazardous chemicals, lead -based paints or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, remediation shall be undertaken in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17th DAY OF OCTOBER 2017. ATTEST: YV TTE HAL L, INTERIM CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6." Resolution No. 2017-19 52 Portuguese Bend Road -6- STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2017-19 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING . A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL AND GARAGE ADDITION, COVERED PORCHES AND TRELLIS IN ZONING CASE NO. 930 AT 52 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 4 -FT), (WACHS). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 17, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Cooley, Seaburn and Chair Chelf. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirkpatrick. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. ETTE HAL ,1 TE RIM CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2017-19 52 Portuguese Bend Road oicRade:09 gee4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 9-A Mtg. Date: 11/13/17 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER eiLe SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE REAPPOINTMENT OF THE INCUMBENT PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO A FOUR-YEAR TERM COMMENCING ON JANUARY 1, 2018. DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2017 ATTACHMENTS: Letters of Interest RECOMMENDATION Re -appoint Gregg Kirkpatrick and Matt Seaburn to the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND The terms of Planning Commissioners Gregg Kirkpatrick and Matt Seaburn will expire in January 2018. As such, in September 2017, upon direction from the City Council, the City began advertising for letters of interest from residents desiring to serve on the Planning Commission. The notices of the opportunities were included in three City newsletters and posted at City Hall for over 30 days. In response to the notice, incumbent Planning Commissioners Gregg Kirkpatrick and Matt Seaburn submitted letters expressing interest in continuing to serve on the Planning Commission. No other letters of interest were received. NOTIFICATION The incumbent Commissioners have been advised that the City Council will be considering their reappointment at its meeting of November 13, 2017. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council re -appoint the incumbent Commissioners to the Planning Commission for a four-year term commencing on January 1, 2018 or provide other direction to staff. RC:yh PC Appointment-report.docx Wednesday, October 11, 2017 8:14 AM Subject: RH Planning Commission Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 5:49 PM From: Gregg Kirkpatrick <Gregg@kirkpatrickcos.com> To: Yvette Hall <yhall@cityofrh.net> Cc: Gregg Kirkpatrick <Gregg@kirkpatrickcos.com> Hello Miss. Hall, I would happily like to remain on the planning commission so please pass along my request, thank you Gregg Kirkpatrick Kirkpatrick Companies 444 w. Ocean Boulevard #1616 Long Beach CA.90802 Office 562-436-7227 Cell 310-701-1788 gregg@kirkpatrickcos.com OCT 11 2017 City of Rolling Hills By Page 1 of 1 Tuesday, September 5, 2017 1:37 PM Subject: Planning Commission Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 8:49 AM From: Matt Seaburn <mseaburn@rentawheel.com> To: "ys@cityofrh.net" <ys@cityofrh.net>, Yvette Hall <yhall@cityofrh.net> Dear Yvette, 1711 S°'P 5 2011 City oiling Hills Thank you for your letter asking if I am interested in continuing to serve on the Planning Commission. In short, yes. I have very much enjoyed the work and the team. If the City Council will have me, I look forward to another four years on the commission. Matt Seaburn President Rent A Wheel and Rent -A -Tire 5438 West 104th Street Los Angeles, CA. 90045 0 818.786.7904 M 310.663.1904 Page 1 of 1 teerf obizaia# qeek 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: 11/13/17 TO: HONORABLE OR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERRY SHEA, INANCE DIRECTOR ���� THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER 1` SUBJECT: QUARTERLY SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2017. DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2017 ATTACHMENTS: SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS DASH BOARD REPORT CARD INVESTMENT ALLOCATIONS SUMMARY REPORT BY QUARTER Attached you will find the City's quarterly investment report for review. Pursuant to the City Council's direction, it is agendized under "Matters from Staff" in order that it receives an appropriate level of review by the City Council. Below are Cash and Yield comparative data from the first quarter as of September 30, 2017 to the fourth quarter as of June 30, 2017 and Year to Date Interest Income comparative data from the first quarter as of September 30, 2017 to the first quarter as of September 30, 2016. The Portfolio has been diversified by investment instrument and maturity between Money Market, LAIF, and FDIC insured Certificates of Deposits. Also, the CalPERS CERBT Strategy 1 OPEB Irrevocable Trust results for the first quarter ending September 30, 2017. Cash & Yield Comparative Data 1st Quarter FY 2017/2018 to 4th Quarter FY 2016/2017: Active Deposits Inactive Deposits Total Cash Portfolio Yield at Cost 1st Quarter FY 2017/18 $ 6,440,750 38,035 $ 6,478,785 L130% 4th Quarter FY 2016/17 $ 7,067,832 70,472 $ 7,138,304 0.982 % Variance $ (627,082) (32,437) $ (659,519) 0.148 % YTD Interest Income Comparative Data 1st Quarter FY 2017/2018 to 1st Quarter FY 2016/2017: Annual Interest - Budget Total YTD Interest Earned Over (Under) Budget % of Annual Budget 1st Quarter FY 2017/18 $ 32,550 10,247 1st Quarter FY 2016/17 $ 15,475 2,475 (22,303) $ 31.48 % (13,000) 15.99 % Ca1PERS CERBT Strategy 1 OPEB Irrevocable Trust results for the first quarter as of September 30, 2017 and Fiscal Year to Date FY 2017/2018. Beginning Balance Contribution Investment Earnings Administrative Expense Ending Balance 1st Quarter FY 2017/18 $ 549,934 16,788 (120) Fiscal YTD FY 2017/18 $ 549,934 16,788 (120) 566,602 $ 566,602 a < Note: Original Contribution December 2011 $354,733. We are pleased to answer any questions you may have. RC Investment Report cover memo.doc CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS as of September 30, 2017 INVESTMENT INSTITUTION ACTIVE DEPOSITS Money Market Interest Checking LAIF Amercian Exp - CD Malaga Bank - CD Preferred Bank - CD OPUS OPUS % of Total STATE TREASURY $ % of Total American Express Bank Malaga Bank Preferred Bank % of Total ACTIVE DEPOSITS TOTALS INACTIVE DEPOSITS CHECKING PETTY CASH % of Total OPUS N/A PAR VALUE BOOK VALUE PRICE na COST FAIR VALUE (MARKET VALUE) YIELD DATE DATE 93,425 $ 93,425 $ 93,425 0.150% 1,013,524 $ 1,013,524 $ 1,013,524 1.140% 17.19% 17.19% 4,593,801 $ 4,593,801 $ 4,593,801 1.111% $ 245,000 $ 245,000 $ 250,000 7132% $ 245,000 $ 245,000 $ 250,000 7.69% 6,440,750 6,440,750 $ 36,535 $ $ 1,500 $ 71.32% $ 245,000 1.750% $ 245,000 1.000% $ 250,000 1.250% 7.69% 6,440,750 1.130% 36,535 $ 96.06% 1,500 $ % of Total 3.94% INACTIVE DEPOSITS TOTALS $38,035 $38,035 GRAND TOTAL CASH $6,478,785 36,535 96.06% 1,500 3.94% $38,035 NOTES: (I) Investment portfolio is in compliance with investment policy established by City Council. (2) The City has the ability to meet all expenditure requirements for the next six months. (3) LAIF fair market value is only provided in June of each year. Prepae. 1B: Terry Shea, F afice Director Date /p_/S-/7 a ;' and R. Cruz, City Mana Date PURCHASE MATURITY 01/12/17 01/12/18 08/30/17 09/14/17 06/27/16 08/29/19 09/13/18 01/12/18 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DASH BOARD REPORT CARD as of September 30, 2017 JUNE JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPT FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2017-18 FY 2017-18 L CASH FLOW ACTIVE DEPOSITS Book Value Price ® Cost OPUS Bank - Money Market $ 89,247 $ 3,379 $ 53,554 $ 288,244 $ 93,425 OPUS Bank - Interest Checking 1,003,049 1,010,793 1,011,669 1,012,614 1,013,524 LAIF 5,259,443 5,564,555 5,460,801 5,153,801 4,593,801 Malaga Bank CDARS - CD'S - Malaga Bank/Preferred Bank - CD'S 495,000 495,000 495,000 495,000 740,000 ACTIVE DEPOSITS TOTALS $ 6,846,739 $ 7,073,727 $7,021,024 $ 6,949,659 $ 6,440,750 INACTIVE DEPOSITS OpusBank- Checking $ 18,311 $ 68,972 $ 29,326 $ 49,168 $ 36,535 Petty Cash 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 INACTIVE DEPOSITS TOTALS $ 19,811 $ 70,472 $ 30,826 $ 50,668 $ 38,035 GRAND TOTAL CASH $ 6,866,550 $ 7,144,199 $ 7,051,850 $ 7,000,327 $ 6,478,785 Active Deposits ^ From Previous Month $ (100,466) $ (127,726) $ (52,703) $ (71,365) $ (508,909) H. LIQUIDITY CALCULATION Liquidity Average Cash Balance $ 4,794,590 $ 6,816,398 $ 5,821,933 $ 5,821,933 $ 5,813,854 $ 6,099,387 $ 6,651,321 $6,698,976- $ 6,750,931 $ 6,767,499 Emergency Reserve Per Policy $ 809,248 $ 807,904 $ 807,904 . $ 807,904 $ 807,904 Six Momh Cash Reserve $ 948,193 $1,330,412 $1,157,459 $ 1,146,941 $ 1,333,642 Available Reserve for Longer Term Investment $ 5,898,546 $ 5,743,315 $5,863,565 $ 5,802,718 $ 5,107,108 III. PORTFOLIO DIVERSIFICATION DIVERSIFICATION BY INSTRUMENT Money Market 1.30% 0.05% 0.76% 4.15% 1.45% Interest Checking 14.65% 14.29% 14.41% 14.57% 15.74% LAIF - 76.82% 78.67% 77.78% 74.16% 71.32% Treasury Bills 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Certificates of Deposit 7.23% 7.00% 7.05% 7.12% 11.49% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% DIVERSIFICATION BY MAURITY Less Than 90 Days 90 Days - 13 Weeks Six Months - 26 Weeks One Year - 52 Weeks Two Years - 104 Weeks 78.12% 78.71% 78.54% 78.31% 72.77% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 15.74% 18.23% 17.75% 17.90% 18.10% 3.88% 3.65% 3.53% 3.56% 3.60% 3.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.80% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.01% 100.00% IV. PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE MEASURES Yield at Cost Month BENCHMARKS 6 Month CD 1 Year CD 90 Day T -Bill 2 Year Treasury 10 Year Treasury Annual Interest Budget 0.601% 0.979% 1.032% 1.013% 1.130% 0.29 0.72 0.75 0.80 0.82 1.13 1.28 1.30 1.31 1.35 0.30 1.01 1.06 1.10 1.12 0.67 1.38 1.36 1.40 1.42 1.50 2.31 2.29. 2.35 2.36 $ 14,000 $ 30,475 $ 32,550 $ 32,550 $ 32,550 Money Market $ 6,057 $ 546 3 14 21 Interest Checking (2) 7,900 1,627 2,577 3,504 Malaga Bank/Preferred Banks - CD'S 4,760 2,391 (1,172) (912) 827 LAIF 6,563 21,127 - - - LAIF Mark to Market (Net) - - 5,895 5,895 5,895 Total YTD Interest Earned $ 17,380 . $ 31,964 $ 6,353 $ 7,574 $ 10,247 Over/(Under) Annual Budget $ 3,380 $ 1,489 $ (26,197) $ (24,976) $ (22,303) % of Annual Budget 124.14% 104.89% 19.52% 23.27% 31.48% CITY OF ROLLING HILLS LIQUIDITY CALCULATION BASED ON FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018 ACTUAL/CASH BUDGET FORECAST as of September 30, 2017 MONTHLY CASH BALANCES Total Certificates of Cash By LAIF Deposits Month $ 5,460,801 $ 495,000 $ 7,050,350 5,153,801 495,000 6,998,827 4,593,801 740,000 6,477,285 4,548,093 495,000 6,280,489 4,548,093 495,000 (a) 6,255,850 4,548,093 495,000 6,581,787 4,555,839 495,000 6,774,338 4,555,839 495,000 6,848,048 4,555,839 495,000 6,568,254 4,564,555 495,000 7,004,207 4,564,555 495,000 7,227,849 Average 5,564,555 495,000 7,142,699 Cash Balance (2) $ 57,213,864 (2) $ 6,185,000 $ 81,209,983 (e) $ 6,767,499 (1) $ 2,667,284 Month OPUS July $ 82,880 August 337,412 Sept 129,960 Oct 232,148 Nov 206,971 Dec 532,288 Jan 716,387 Feb 789,479 March 508,957 April 935,537 May 1,158,348 June (c) 72,351 (1) $ 5,702,718 Average $ 475,227 Notes: Interest Checking $ 1,011,669 1,012,614 1,013,524 1,005,248 1,005,786 1,006,406 1,007,112 1,007,730 1,008,458 1,009,115 1,009,946 1,010,793 (2) $ 12,108,401 Expenditures By Month $ 176,691 160,692 (b) 514,347 107,046 125,127 506,268 136,431 148,082 286,179 172,182 171,048 163,191 $ 1,009,033 $ 4,767,822 Lowest Balance Highest Expense (a) $ 6,255,850 (b) $ 514,347 (d) Liquidity Calculation $ 515,417 (e) $ 6,767,499 (e) Average Monthly Cash Balance Less 40% Emergency Reserve Available Investment Liquidity (1) Actual/Forecast Cash Budget FY 2017/18 (2) Monthly Bank Reconciliations (3) Per Investment Policy FY 15/16 General Fund Audited Revenue $2,019,759 X 40% = $807,904 (4) Six Month Cash Reserve based on FY 17/18 Actual/Forecasted Annual Expenditures divided by two. Lowest Deposits (c) $ 72,351 (d) $ 222,274 Six Month Liquidity Cash Reserve $ 5,813,854 (4) $ 1,333,642 (d) $ 5,813,854 (e) $ 6,767,499 - (3) (807,904) $ 5,813,854 $ 5,959,595 INVESTMENT ALLOCATIONS SUMMARY as of September 30, 2017 Investment Type Book Value Less Than 90-180 181-360 One Two Three Price @ Cost 90 Days Days Days Year Years Years Money Market 1.45% $ 93,425 $ 93,425 $ $ $ $ $ LAIF 71.32% 4,593,801 4,593,801 Interest Checking 15.74% 1,013,524 1,013,524 - - CD'S 11.49% 740,000 250,000 245,000 245,000 Total Active Deposits 100.00% $ 6,440,750 $ 4,687,226 $ 1,013,524 $ 250,000 $ 245,000 $ 245,000 $ - Cash Six Month Active Cash Reserve Cash Liquidity Deposits Reserve Per Policy Reserve Liquidity FY 17/18 Cash Budget $ 5,813,854 $ 6,440,750 $ 626,896 $ 807,904 $ 1,333,642 Maturity Investment Allocation Less Than 90 Days 72.77% 90 Days - 13 Weeks 15.74% Six Months - 26 Weeks 3.88% One Year - 52 Weeks 3.80% Two Years - 104 Weeks 3.80% Three Years - 156 Weeks 0% 100.00% 10/19/2017 PMIA Average Monthly Effective Yields u iiforni S -e Treal rer - Home PMIA Home Home -» PMIA -» PMIA Average Monthly Effective Yields POOLED MONEY INVESTMENT ACCOUNT Contacts PMIA Average Monthly Effective Yields Home I Open Government Careers I Contact Time Deposits LAIF Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug "; Sep`: Oct Nov Dec 1977 5.770 5.660 5.660 5.650 5.760 5.850 5.930 6.050 6.090 6.090 6.610 6.730 1978 6.920 7.050 7.140 7.270 7.386 7.569 7.652 7.821 7.871 8.110 8.286 8.769 1979 8.777 8.904 8.820 9.082 9.046 9.224 9.202 9.528 9.259 9.814 10.223 10.218 1980 10.980 11.251 11.490 11.480 12.017 11.798 10.206 9.870 9.945 10.056 10.426 10.961 1981 10.987 11.686 11.130 11.475 12.179 11.442 12.346 12.844 12.059 12.397 11.887 11.484 1982 11.683 12.044 11.835 11.773 12.270 11.994 12.235 11.909 11.151 11.111 10.704 10.401 1983 10.251 9.887 9.688 9.868 9.527 9.600 9.879 10.076 10.202 10.182 10.164 10.227 1984 10.312 10.280 10.382 10.594 10.843 11.119 11.355 11.557 11.597 11.681 11.474 11.024 1985 10.579 10.289 10.118 10.025 10.180 9.743 9.656 9.417 9.572 9.482 9.488 9.371 1986 9.252 9.090 8.958 8.621 8.369 8.225 8.141 7.844 7.512 7.586 7.432 7.439 1987 7.365 7.157 7.205 7.044 7.294 7.289 7.464 7.562 7.712 7.825 8.121 8.071 1988 8.078 8.050 7.945 7.940 7.815 7.929 8.089 8.245 8.341 8.397 8.467 8.563 1989 8.698 8.770 8.870 8.992 9.227 9.204 9.056 8.833 8.801 8.771 8.685 8.645 1990 8.571 8.538 8.506 8.497 8.531 8.538 8.517 8.382 8.333 8.321 8.269 8.279 1991 8.164 8.002 7.775 7.666 7.374 7.169 7.098 7.072 6.859 6.719 6.591 6.318 1992 6.122 5.863 5.680 5.692 5.379 5.323 5.235 4.958 4.760 4.730 4.659 4.647 1993 4.678 4.649 4.624 4.605 4.427 4.554 4.438 4.472 4.430 4.380 4.365 4.384 1994 4.359 4.176 4.248 4.333 4.434 4.623 4.823 4.989 5.106 5.243 5.380 5.528 1995 5.612 5.779 5.934 5.960 6.008 5.997 5.972 5.910 5.832 5.784 5.805 5.748 1996 5.698 5.643 5.557 5.538 5.502 5.548 5.587 5.566 5.601 5.601 5.599 5.574 1997 5.583 5.575 5.580 5.612 5.634 5•.667 5.679 5.690 5.707 5.705 5.715 5.744 1998 5.742 5.720 5.680 5.672 5.673 5.671 5.652 5.652 5.639 5.557 5.492 5.374 1999 5.265 5.210 5.136 5.119 5.086 5.095 5.178 5.225 5.274 5.391 5.484 5.639 2000 5.760 5.824 5.851 6.014 6.190 6.349 6.443 6.505 6.502 6.517 6.538 6.535 2001 6.372 6.169 5.976 5.760 5.328 4.958 4.635 4.502 4.288 3.785 3.526 3.261 2002 3.068 2.967 2.861 2.845 2.740 2.687 2.714 2.594 2.604 2.487 2.301 2.201 2003 2.103 1.945 1.904 1.858 1.769 1.697 1.653 1.632 1.635 1.596 1.572 1.545 2004 1.528 1.440 1.474 1.445 1.426 1.469 1.604 1.672 1.771 1.890 2.003 2.134 2005 2.264 2.368 2.542 2.724 2.856 2.967 3.083 3.179 3.324 3.458 3.636 3.808 2006 3.955 4.043 4.142 4.305 4.563 4.700 4.849 4.946 5.023 5.098 5.125 5.129 2007 5.156 5.181 5.214 5.222 5.248 5.250 5.255 5.253 5.231 5.137 4.962 4.801 2008 4.620 4.161 3.777 3.400 3.072 2.894 2.787 2.779 2.774 2.709 2.568 2.353 2009 2.046 1.869 1.822 1.607 1.530 1.377 1.035 0.925 0.750 0.646 0.611 0.569 2010 0.558 0.577 0.547 0.588 0.560 0.528 0.531. 0.513 0.500 0.480 0.454 0.462 2011 0.538 0.512 0.500 0.588 0.413 0.448 0.381 0.408 0.378 0.385 0.401 0.382 2012 0.385 0.389 0.383 0.367 0.363 0.358 0.363 0.377 0.348 0.340 0.324 0.326 57 n one n 263 0 7A4 2013 0.300 0.286 0.285 0.264 0.245 0.244 0.267 0.271 0.2 0.267 2014 2015 2016 0.244 0.262 0.446 0.236 0.266 0.467 0.236 0.278 0.506 0.233 0.283 0.525 0.228 0.290 0.552 0.228 0.299 0.576 0.244 0.320 0.588 0.260 0.330 0.614 0.246 0.337 0.634 0.261 0.357 0.654 0.261 0.374 0.678 0.400 0.719 2017 0.751 0.777 0.821 0.884 0.925 0.978 1.051 1.084 1.111 OD - Search Home I Comments I Disclosure Notice I Privacy Notice California I Accessibility iStytS Statement Is Unclaimed Property I Site Map I Download Adobe Reader © 2017 T 11: http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/pmia-laif/historical/avg_mnylds.asp 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 9th day of November, 2017, I serve the within City Council Meeting 11/13/2017 Regular Meeting 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 DELIVERED Interested City Attorney City Manager RH Web site listSery Parties CouncilMembers City Council Interested parties Dieringer, Pieper, Black, Mirsch and Wilson Assistant City Attorney Also posted at City Hall, at www.Rolling-Hills.org and PDF in DropBox. I declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 9th day of November, 2017 at Rolling Hills, California. Ewa Nikodem Administrative Assistant 11/13/17 CC Notification List Z.C. NAME email: Address City 4B - Brown act complaint Lynn Gill lynn.gill@cox.net 5A - 38 Portuguese Bend Rd SR + A Wheeler SR + A Dan Bolton SR+A Heidi Husnak Sr + A Christine Evers 5B - 52 Portuguese Bend Road Wachs John Resich Tony Infererra Tavisha Ales 5C -16 Pine Tree Lane Bharadia Bizhan dbolton@boltonengineering.com hhusnak@gmail.com Crevers@ozemail.com.au 38 Portuguese Bend Rd 34 Portuguese Bend Road 34 Portuguese Bend Road JResich@aol.com TonyInferrera@yahoo.com tnicholson@boltonengineering.com bkhaleeli@yahoo.com 9A - Planning Commission appointments Kirkpatrick gkirkpatrick@cityofrh.net Seaburn mseaburn@cityofrh.net 6 Outrider Road Public:2017 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS:11-13-17 City Council Agenda:Notification List cc 11-13-17.xlsx CLOSED SESSION Agenda Item No: 12-A CLOSED SESSION Mtg. Date: 10/23/17 JENKINS HOGIN, LLP A LAW PARTNERSHIP MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ROLLING HILLS CC: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER FROM: MICHAEL JENKINS, CITY ATTORNEY NATALIE C. KARPELES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2017 RE: CLOSED SESSION RE: COMPLAINT WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AGAINST THE CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY - ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. This memorandum is in preparation for the closed session on Monday, November 13, 2017. BACKGROUND In early 2015 Governor Brown declared a continued state of emergency and mandated urban water reductions statewide; failure to meet these water reduction mandates could result in financial penalties on water suppliers. On April 28, 2015, Cal Water filed Advice Letter 2168 requesting approval of its "Drought Response Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan" (aka Schedule 14.1). On May 13, 2015, Cal Water held a public hearing for the Palos Verdes Service area to discuss Schedule 14.1. On May 19, 2015, the City of Rolling Hills submitted a protest to Advice Letter 2168; to which Cal Water responded on May 26, 2015. On May 28, 2017, Cal Water submitted a revised Schedule 14.1 which was adopted by PUC Resolution No. W-5074 on February 25, 2016. On January 17, 2017, following direction from the City Council, the City Attorney filed a formal complaint with the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) against the California Water Company ("Cal Water"); this formal complaint was ultimately processed with the PUC on August 9, 2017. Specifically, JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP OCTOBER 26, 2017 PAGE 2 CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY - CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY -ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. the City's complaint alleges that Cal Water's implementation of Schedule 14.1 as to residents of the City who purchased their homes after January 1, 2013, arbitrarily calculates an individual's monthly water budget by averaging water usage among all of its customers within the Palos Verdes Peninsula (regardless of lot size, home size, and land use) ; rather than relying on a more accurate and appropriate methodology (such as aerial/GIS imagery — which Ca1 Water has employed during its appeals process) to provide an individualized water budget for its customers. Lastly, the complaint alleges that Cal Water's appeal form is insufficient in that it does not impart to the applicant the ability to appeal for reasons such as the purchase of a home in the City after 2013. Cal Water answered the City's complaint by alleging that the City's allegations are without merit because: (1) the complaint fails to show a violation of a Commission rule or order under Public Utilities Code section 1702; (2) Cal Water followed the mandates of both the PUC and the State Water Resources Control Board when developing Schedule 14.1 — which was ultimately approved by the PUC via its adoption of Resolution W-5074; (3) the relief requested by the City is prohibited under Public Utilities Code section 734; and (4) the City's complaint is a collateral attack on Resolution W-5074, which is prohibited under Public Utilities Code section 1709. On October 9, 2017, Mr. Cruz and Ms. Karpeles attended a prehearing conference with Cal Water before an administrative law judge at the Public Utilities Commission offices. At the prehearing conference, the parties addressed the procedural schedule; the status of meet and confer efforts on each of the issues raised in the complaint; and any other issues which would affect the prompt resolution of this matter. Cal Water has scheduled a hearing on December 18, 2017 to try and dismiss the City's case (based upon the arguments raised in their answer);1 if Ca1 I Cal Water is scheduled to file its Request for Dismissal on October 27, 2017; the City's opposition to Cal Water's request for dismissal is due November 15, 2017. JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP OCTOBER 26, 2017 PAGE 3 CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY - CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK K PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY -ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. Water is unsuccessful, the City's case against Cal Water will proceed on January 23, 2018 with Opening Statements. To ensure that the matter is completed within the 12 -month statutory timeframe (i.e., before August 9, 2018), the procedural schedule includes Public Participation Hearings on March 19, 2017, Evidentiary Hearings on June 4, 2018, and concurrent briefs starting June 8, 2018. This will allow for the entry of a Proposed Decision by the end of July 2018. DISCUSSION A. Summary of Issues Related to the Methodology Employed by Cal Water to Calculate Water Budgets. The City contends that Cal Water' Schedule 14.1 was inappropriate and that an alternative methodology should have been utilized to calculate the water budgets for persons who did not live in the City prior to 2013. Specifically, the City states that either the methodology used by Golden State Water' or use of aerial/GIS imagery (which. Cal Water employed during its appeals process) should have been used to determine the baseline water budgets for said persons. Cal Water asserts that it followed the guidance and mandates of both the PUC and the State Water Resources Control Board in developing, obtaining approval of, and implementing Schedule 14.1 and the methodology proposed therein. Cal Water defends its methodology by arguing that Schedule 14.1 is not unreasonable simply because another more preferable methodology to calculate water budgets could have been used. Furthermore, Cal Water argues that utilizing a prior customer's usage information would yield inaccurate results (as family sizes differ, some persons travel more than others, etc.); and would violate customer privacy rights.3 2 Namely, utilization of prior customer usage information. 3 Cal Water has taken the position that utilization of prior customer usage information would violate utility customer privacy rights contrary to decisions issued by the PUC because new owners would be able to ascertain the usage data based on their allotted water budget. (The PUC has held that all reasonable measures shall be taken to protect Confidential Customer Data; utilities must protect Confidential ENKINS & HOGIN, LLP OCTOBER 26, 2017 PAGE 4 CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY - CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY -ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. Lastly, in support of its chosen methodology, Cal Water references Resolution W-5074 — a resolution considering the appeals of certain dispositions of various advice letters updating Rule 12.1 and adopting Schedule 14.1 for California -American Water Company, Cal Water, Golden State Water Company and San Jose Water Company by the Division of Water and Audits ("DWA"). In support of this Resolution, the DWA explained that San Jose Water Company's (SJWC) use.of a uniform water budget for all of its residential customers based on a district -wide residential average was neither unreasonable nor discriminatory when combined with its appeals procedure. Because Cal Water's Schedule 14.1 was directly modeled after SJWC's Schedule 14.1, and the PUC approved of SJWC's approach, the City's allegations as to Cal Water are unsubstantiated. B. Summary of Cal Water's Arguments in Support of Dismissal. 1. Cal Water asserts that the City's Complaint fails to show a Violation of a Commission Rule or Order as Required under Public Utilities Code section 1702. Public Utilities Code section 1702 provides under which circumstances the PUC may consider a complaint. Section 1702 states: "Complaint may be made... setting forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility, including any rule or charge heretofore established or fixed by or for any public utility, in violation or claimed to be in violation, of any provision of law or of any order or rule Customer Data through appropriate security safeguards against risks of loss, unauthorized access or use, destruction, modification, or unintended or inappropriate disclosure. PUC Decision 11-05-020, Attachment 1, May 5, 2011, p. 2.) The City has affirmed its position that it is not requesting that Cal Water disseminate prior customer information, but to simply use the information it already has in its possession to provide an accurate water budget without necessarily revealing that information. 101 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP OCTOBER 26, 2017 PAGE 5 of the [PUC]." CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY - CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY -ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. Cal Water argues that the City has not claimed that it violated any order or rule of the PUC; nor has Cal Water committed any such violation. In essence, Cal Water states that the City does not claim that it erroneously applied Schedule 14.1, but that the methodology itself is unlawful. However, this statement oversimplifies the City's argument. The City contends that Schedule 14.1 did in fact violate a provision of law; specifically, Public Utilities Code sections 4514 and 453.5 2. Cal Water claims that the City's Requested Reimbursement on Behalf of its Affected Residents is prohibited by Public Utilities Code section 734. Public Utilities Code Section 734, states: "No order for payment of reparation upon the ground of unreasonableness shall be made by the commission when the rate in question has, by formal finding, been declared by the commission to be reasonable..." Cal Water claims that the City's requested relief would violate this section because the methodology used by Cal Water was formally approved by PUC Resolution No. W-5074; and that said Resolution determined that the ' Section 451 states, in pertinent part, "All charges demanded or received by any public utility...for any product or commodity furnished or to be furnished or any service rendered or to be rendered shall be just and reasonable. Every unjust or unreasonable charge demanded or received for such product or commodity or service is unlawful... All rules made by public utility affecting or pertaining to its charges or service to the public shall be just and reasonable." 'Section 453(c) states: "No public utility shall establish or maintain any unreasonable difference as to rates, charges, service, facilities, or in any other respect, either as between localities or as between classes of service." JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP OCTOBER 26, 2017 PAGE 6 CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY - CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY -ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. methodology in question was neither unreasonable nor discriminatory when paired with an appeals procedure. Additionally, Cal Water argues that the City's request would require the use of significant Cal Water resources to conduct a review of each of its customers in Rolling Hills that did not have consumption history from 2013, utilization landscape irrigation analysis for those customers, and retroactive adjustments to water budgets — which would incur additional costs that would ultimately be borne by the other customers in the Palos Verdes service area. However, in reparations cases, filing by utility and acceptance by the public utility commission of a tariff provision with respect to a rate does not constitute a finding by the commission of the reasonableness of the rate in question. Application of Antelope Valley Water Co. (1972) 73 CaI.P.U.C. 485. If the City can show that there has been a violation by a utility of a duty imposed by one of the provisions referred to in sections 734 to 738 then it will be entitled to the right of recovery. L.A.G. & E. Corp. (1937) 40 C.R.C. 451. In other words, whether the City can show that Cal Water "has charged an unreasonable, excessive, or discriminatory. amount" concerning a rate for a product or commodity furnished or service performed by Cal Water — which is the basis for the City's complaint.- See Public Utilities Code section 734. 3. Cal Water asserts that the City's Complaint is an Impermissible Attack on Resolution W-5074. Public Resources Code section 1709 states: "In all collateral actions or proceedings, the orders and decisions of the commission which have become final shall be conclusive." According to Cal Water, the City did not file an appeal of either the Water Division's approval of Schedule 14.1, or the PUC's adoption of Resolution No. W- 5074 (affirming the approval of Schedule 14.1). Additionally, Cal Water claims that no resident of the City has filed a complaint with the PUC relative to how Cal JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP OCTOBER 26, 2017 PAGE 7 CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY - CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY -ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. Water resolved a particular appeal through the appeals process. Therefore, because the PUC finally approved Resolution No. W-5074, the City's complaint is an impermissible collateral attack on a final Commission order. C. General Considerations. 1. A significant number of residents have successfully managed to file appeals on their own and have informed the City that they no longer wish to challenge Cal Water's methodology; 2. The City's goal of retroactively obtaining an increased water budget for certain residents within the City may be interpreted as running counter to the statewide efforts to foster water conservation; and 3. The State Water Resources Control Board — not Cal Water — was responsible for determining that the Palos Verdes service area required the greatest amount of conservation (at 36% of the service area's 2013 water production). D. Conclusion. Assuming Counsel wishes to proceed, the City will file an opposition to Cal Water's request for dismissal by November 15, 2017. The hearing on Cal Water's request to dismiss will be heard on December 18, 2017. If Cal Water's motion to dismiss is granted, the City can appeal the Administrative Law Judge's decision to the PUC. If Cal Water's motion is denied, the case will proceed as outlined above. Natalie will be present in closed session at your regular meeting of November 13, 2017 to answer any questions you may have and to receive any direction you may wish to give regarding this matter.