The URL can be used to link to this page

902, Construct 800 sq. ft. Guest ho, Correspondence• City ope «ag December 21, 2018 Mr. and Mrs. James Hynes 20252 Bancroft Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 902 - Site Plan Review/CUP -EXTENSION Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hynes: This letter is to notify you that the Planning Commission at their December 12, 2018 meeting, by a 4-1 vote approved your request for a two-year time extension to commence work in Zoning Case No. 902. The new expiration of the entitlements to commence grading and/or construction of the new residence and accessory structures has been extended to January 23, 2021. The amendment has been memorialized in the attached Resolution. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Si ,9 P1 to Scl- z ing Director Enclosures: Resolution No. 2018-17 Printed on Recycled Paper • • RESOLUTION NO. 2018-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A TWO-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS IN ZONING CASE NO. 902, AT 23 CREST ROAD EAST, LOT 132A-MS, (HYNES). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by James Hynes with respect to real property located at 23 Crest Road East requesting a two-year time extension to comply with the requirements of City Council Resolution No. 1202 to commence construction of the approved project. Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a meeting on December 12, 2018 at which time information was presented by the applicants indicating that additional time is needed to commence construction of this project. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that pursuant to RHMC Section 17.46.080 the expiration would constitute an undue hardship upon the property owner; and the continuation of the approval would not be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Section 4. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning Commission grants two year time extension and does hereby amend Paragraph A of Section 10 of City Council Resolution No. 1202, dated January 23, 2017 to read as follows: Section 10. A. The Site Plan and Conditional Use Permits approvals shall expire within four years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080 and 17.42.070 of Title 17, Zoning unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions and conditions of Resolution No. 1202 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED IS 1,B " 2018. AD CHELF, CHAI ATTEST: YVLtrTE HAL , CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ) ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2018-17 entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A TWO-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOSULY APPROVED PROJECT FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS IN ZONING CASE NO. 902, AT 23 CREST ROAD EAST, LOT 132A-MS, (HYNES). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 12, 2018 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cooley, Kirkpatrick, Seabhrn, and Chairman Chelf. NOES: Cardenas. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices YETTE HALL CITY CLERK The Hynes Family Trust 20252 Bancroft Circle Huntington Beach Ca 92646 November 20, 2018 City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re. Resolution 1202; 23 Crest Road To the Planning Commission, NOV 0 2010 City of Rolling Hills By This letter is to respectfully request an extension to the expiration date of resolution 1202. Our plan is to have the buyer execute the construction of the home pursuant to the approved plans. Unfortunately, we have not yet sold the property. As we do not live in the area it would be difficult for us to revisit the approval process at city hall. We would like to have another two years so that the buyer will have the site approval in place. Enclosed with this letter is the $200 application fee. Thank you for your consideration, Jim P. Hynes l C1ty ope!f.',.y Jh/t February 15, 2017 Mr. James Hynes 20252 Bancroft Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 902 - Site Plan Review/CUP Dear Mr. Hynes: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 This letter is to notify you that the City Council at their regular meeting on February 13, 2017 approved your case in Zoning Case No. 902 and adopted Resolution No. 1202 with conditions pertaining to development. Before this case takes effect you are required to record an Affidavit of Acceptance Form together with the Resolution in the Office of the County Recorder. Please read the conditions of approval, as some may have to be met prior to issuance of permits, including certain certifications. I am enclosing a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 1202 and THE AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission and the approved Development Plan- to keep for your files. Please complete the enclosed AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward, (or hand deliver), the completed form and the Resolution to: Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder Real Estate Records Section 12400 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 (562) 462-2125 OR LAX Courthouse 310-727-6142 11701 S. La Cienega Blvd. 6th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90045 Confirm the hours of operation and cost of recordation with these Offices, as they change frequently. Printed on Recycled Paper The project still needs to be approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. Please make a copy of the Resolution for your records and keep a copy of the plans with the conditions printed on the plans at the construction site at all times and assure that the contractor adheres to the conditions in the Resolutions during the entire construction process. Any deviation from the approved plans and conditions of approval must be brought to City's attention for review prior to it being implemented by the contractor. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Si c y, anta Schwartz lanning Director Enclosures: AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM RESOLUTION NO. 1202 SITE PLAN cc: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering, (cover letter only) • Li. City 0 leotri%ZQ INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 January 24, 2017 Mr. James Hynes 20252 Bancroft Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO.902 - 23 Crest Road E. Site Plan Review/CUP Dear Mr. Hynes: This letter is to notify you that the City Council at their regular meeting on January 23, 2017 voted to re -open the public hearing in your case to review and consider information provided by a resident prior to the meeting. The City Council will re -open the hearing at their February 13, 2017 meeting beginning at 7:00 PM. You and/or your representative should attend to answer any questions the Council may have. You may also submit additional and/or new information regarding your proposed development by February 3, 2017, in order for staff to review it and include in the staff report. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. erely, Y anta Schwartz Planning Director cc: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering Printed on Recycled Paper i OL'8" ODS ENGINEER! :. Cc. R 0 % .TO 25834 Narbonne Avenue #210 Lomita, CA 90277 tel (310) 325-5580 fax (310) 325-5581 MEMORANDUM November 8, 2016 TO: City of Rolling Hills City Council Members: Sub -Committee for 23 Crest Road East CC: - Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director FROM: Tavisha Nicholson (Bolton Engineering) SUBJECT: Re: Sub -Committee Meeting for 23 Crest Road East Members of the Sub -Committee for 23 Crest Road East, At the sub -committee meeting on October 20, 2016 we discussed proposed changes to the development plan which had been submitted to City Council and previously viewed during a field trip. During the past weeks we have reviewed the recommendations put forth and revised the plan accordingly. Please see below for responses to your comments: • Revise grading as to limit the amount of 2:1 slopes visible from Crest Road, 3:1 is more desirable. o We have revised the grading on the western portion of the upper pad to be 3:1 between the easement and the house to reduce the looks of manufactured slopes from Crest Road. We have also revised the limits of the pad in order to pull back the top of slope and allow for this 3:1 grade. The house has also been shifted approximately 10' to the east in order to be more centered on the new pad. • Revise grading on west portion of upper pad to reduce the manufactured look and more mimic the existing grades and appearance of a canyon. o By pulling back the pad we are able to create an angled top of slope which more resembles the grading for the canyon as opposed to the previous contours running almost perpendicular to the flow path. The 2:1 grade was kept between the house and the stable pad. We looked at revising the slope at the on the eastern portion of the lot, below the fire department turnaround however the slope there was already approximately 3:1 so we would be doing a large amount of grading just to catch the slope. For this reason the slope on the eastern side has remained at 2:1. • Revise grading by exporting all basement dirt as opposed to using it to create pad. o Grading has been revised so that now all basement dirt is being exported. The revised grading quantities for the site (without including over -ex and re -compaction) are now -13,500 C.Y. cut (5,000 C.Y. is basement cut) and -8,500 C.Y. fill vs the previous 12,455 C.Y. cut and 11,670 C.Y. fill (- 2,100 c.y. reduction (-9%)). These numbers are approximate and will be refined if this plan moves forward; over -ex and re -compaction values will be calculated prior to the City Council hearing. The pad has been decreased by -5,000 s.f. as discussed during the meeting. • Drop house elevation o The finished floor of the house has been reduced by 18". • Try to reduce the overall length of the house where possible o In order to further reduce the overall length of the house, we have eliminated the second three car garage which projected from the eastern portion of the house which takes 35' off the total length of the house. We have instead changed the three car garage at the north of the residence to a four car garage. Page 1 of 2 LT 1 N INEE CO PO TIO • Reduce overall size of the house o The house has been reduced by the change from two three car garages to one four car garage. We have not changed the footprint of the residence, other than the garage configuration. The house is now 10,650 s.f. compared to the previous 11,100 s.f. (-450 s.f.). The garages have been reduced from 1,540 s.f. to 1,120 s.f. (-420 s.f.) Pad coverage is now —34% after deductions; an increase of —1.5%. • Add additional erosion control outlet structures at upper and lower pads o In order to help distribute the storm water, we are,now proposing two outlet structures for both the top and bottom pads. Each pad will have an outlet structure directed towards both of the canyons to help mimic existing conditions. • Explore options related to use of collected storm water for residence o We are proposing to include a grey water system for the laundry, as allowed by LA County Health Department. If you would like to meet to go over these changes or have additional questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Regards, Tavisha Nicholson, RCE 83446 Bolton Engineering Corp. TNicholson5boltonenaineerina.com (310) 325-5580 Page 2of2 • • From: Lore h Date: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:45 AM To: Yolanta Schwartz Cc: Dan Bolton, Richard Hynes, "Jim Hynes (vac. prop -Crest E)" , Tom Hynes, Howard Weinberg Subject: Response to Raine's latest letter Hi Yolanta, Attached is Dan Bolton's response to Charlie's latest letter. Lore October 8, 2016 ENED OCT 1 0 2016 City of Rolling Hills By Annotations by Dan Bolton, October 10, 2016, in blue: (underlined) Executive Summary: The Hynes family has been committed to mitigating the discharge from their development from its first proposal. While there are flaws in fact and logic in Mr. Raines' letter; these notwithstanding, if you accept the comments at face value the most significant impact is that technical changes need to be made; these technical changes are most commonly performed at the plan check stage, sometimes in light of conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and City Council. While we are willing to discuss engineering theory and design, we respectfully request that the City Council condition the project to reduce runoff to pre -development levels, to the satisfaction of your City Engineer. Regarding 23 Crest Road East Dear Rolling Hills City Council members, Impermeable water runoff generated from Crest Road itself (6,000sf) and that attributed to proposed improvements at 23 Crest (37,000sf) will result in the capturing and distribution of rain falling on 43,000sf. The proposal of the applicant is to capture flow in two 33,000 gallon cisterns. It was directed in previous hearings before the city council that a 100 year storm calculation be utilized. At this point in time, we have no accurate numbers from which to work as surface percolation has not been tested at the property. The amount of rain that soaks in on site today must be known before any further consideration should be made of this project. Otherwise, how will anyone know how much MORE water will flow offsite once improvements are approved? Evidence onsite suggests, and we believe there is little to no current runoff and thus, any impermeable surface will significantly affect runoff totals. The correct numbers will likely be drastically higher than what they currently are touting and will have huge consequences to the Flying Triangle neighborhood. Comment: The notion that there is no runoff from the site today runs contrary to common sense and observable evidence. Page 1 of 4 1. We know from grade -school science that erosion occurs primarily due to storm water flowing and carrying earth and rock downhill. The very existence of Klondike Canyon, Little Klondike Canyon, and every other canyon in Palos Verdes; and the fact that those canyons existed prior to development of Palos Verdes, is proof that undeveloped land does indeed produce runoff. 2. Soil types and the resultant runoff, and methodologies used to compute runoff, are the subject of publications by Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and the result of decades -Long research and analysis by engineers, hydrologist, soils experts and geologists. The computations we have performed are in accordance with this widely -accepted work, and they will be subject to review by County engineers. 3. Even if Mr. Raines were correct, we are the only development I am aware of in this area that is proposing a cistern system, or any other , which means ours is the most responsible development in terms of preventing additional water from roofs and hardscape to discharge in the Flying Triangle area. The water stored in the cisterns will be used for surface irrigation and will be controlled such that there is no runoff. Finally, it seems notable to me that Mr. Raines' expert Mr. Partridge, was not apparently willing to state in his letter that there is no runoff from the site. Calculations assume saturated soil/hardscape and soil retention of 1/6th inch of rain per hour. The cisterns are designed to hold a 25 year storm calculation of 5 inches of rain in a 24 hour period. 5 inches of rain (per calculations below) generates 134,000 gallons of water. After capacity is reached, additional water is then directed to a discharge pipe. Capacity of the two tanks: 66,000 gallons 43,000sf /12 equals 3,583 cubic feet of water. Each cubic foot of water is 7.48 gallons. 3,583cu x 7.48= 26,800 gallons of water captured per inch of rain and a total of 134,000 for 5 inches of rain. Storage capacity of the cisterns is reached with 2.5 inches of rain or in other words, 40 percent utilization with each inch of rain. The "other" 66,000 gallons goes where? Little Klondike Canyon and directly into the slide plane. Comment: 1. To the extent that this computation is correct, this is what is occurring now. in the predevelooed condition. However. we are not responsible for the existing runoff from the property. only the increase as a result of the development. 2. It's inaccurate to say that only 40% of the water is captured. Its more accurate to say that 100% of every storm is captured up to the capacity of the cistern. Page 2 of 4 • Barn and Guest House: 3,000sf/ 12 equals 250 cubic feet of water. Each cubic foot of water is 7.48 gallons. 250 cu x 7.48= 1,870 gallons discharged per inch of rain. In a 25 year storm calculation assuming 5 inches of rain in 24 hours the total discharged is 9,350 gallons of water. The destination? Little Klondike Canyon and into the slide plane. Comment: As above. The Problem: ANY discharge that adds to the flow into Little Klondike Canyon is too much. The utilized 25 Year Storm calculations project approximately 75,000 gallons of water directed, across already saturated surfaces, into Little Klondike Canyon and the active Flying Triangle landslide area. The Solution: Less captured water achieved by significantly smaller impermeable surfaces via smaller footprints of living area, outbuildings and hardscape. Water from ALL impermeable surfaces must be contained on site and percolated as far as possible from the landslide below, including runoff generated from the barn and guest house, should they be approved. Comment: 1. If we provide the necessary detention of storm water. the amount of hardscape isn't relevant. 2. We are not aware of any geologist that would recommend the introduction of large auantities of water is short periods of time. such as from a storm. into a hillside area (let alone a landslide area) due to the potential for increased instability. Mr. Raines' recommendation. from our understanding of hillside soils and geology would likely make the downstream concerns he has worse. The Hynes family has been consistent in wanting to avoid downstream impacts: if Mr. Raines has a professional engineering geologist with a different understanding. we would be happy_ to incorporate their recommendations. 3. Our development. in a sense. does exactly what Mr. Raines' is reauesting. However. rather than the potentially hazardous introduction of large amounts of storm water is short periods of time„ the water is released gradually, as irrigation, allowing root uptake. transpiration. evaporation. and some slow infiltration. By displacing irrigation by potable water, not only does this achieve an environmentally responsible end, it also reduces the net amount of water introduced to the ground at the site. Additionally: We request an independent hydrology report and analysis by appropriate entities and experts determining that the disturbance and redistribution of such vast quantities of soil and redistribution and addition of huge quantities of water will have NO negative affect on the active landslide or residents below, as well as the time for us to have our own experts review and approve or challenge such reports. Comment: This reauest is already inherent in the review process: the County Page 3 of 4 • Department of Public Works will provide the independent review reauested. Mr. Raines has been aware of this project since the first public hearing (from my records December 2014. so it would have been noticed in November): certainly 2 years should have been enough time for any experts he would like to retain to provide their recommendations. At this point this request doesn't seem credible. Charlie and Pia Raine 4 Pinto Road Respectfully responded to by. BOLTON ENGINEERING CORP. Dan Bolton. REC 63290 President Page 4 of 4 October 8, 2016 Regarding 23 Crest Road East Dear Rolling Hills City Council members, • R1'CEV1!D OCT 1 0 2016 City of Rolling Hills By Impermeable water runoff generated from Crest Road itself (6,000sf) and that attributed to proposed improvements at 23 Crest (37,000sf) will result in the capturing and distribution of rain falling on 43,000sf. The proposal of the applicant is to capture flow in two 33,000 gallon cisterns. It was directed in previous hearings before the city council that a 100 year storm calculation be utilized. At this point in time, we have no accurate numbers from which to work as surface percolation has not been tested at the property. The amount of rain that soaks in on site today must be known before any further consideration should be made of this project. Otherwise, how will anyone know how much MORE water will flow offsite once improvements are approved? Evidence onsite suggests, and we believe there is little to no current runoff and thus, any impermeable surface will significantly affect runoff totals. The correct numbers will likely be drastically higher than what they currently are touting and will have huge consequences to the Flying Triangle neighborhood. Calculations assume saturated soil/hardscape and soil retention of 1/6th inch of rain per hour. The cisterns are designed to hold a 25 year storm calculation of 5 inches of rain in a 24 hour period. 5 inches of rain (per calculations below) generates 134,000 gallons of water. After capacity is reached, additional water is then directed to a discharge pipe. Capacity of the two tanks: 66,000 gallons 43,000sf /12 equals 3,583 cubic feet of water. Each cubic foot of water is 7.48 gallons. 3,583cu x 7.48= 26,800 gallons of water captured per inch of rain and a total of 134,000 for 5 inches of rain. Storage capacity of the cisterns is reached with 2.5 inches of rain or in other words, 40 percent utilization with each inch of rain. The "other" 66,000 gallons goes where? Little Klondike Canyon and directly into the slide plane. Barn and Guest House: 3,000sf/ 12 equals 250 cubic feet of water. Each cubic foot of water is 7.48 gallons. 250 cu x 7.48= 1,870 gallons discharged per inch of rain. In a 25 year storm calculation assuming 5 inches of rain in 24 hours the total discharged is 9,350 gallons of water. The destination? Little Klondike Canyon and into the slide plane. Page 1 of 2 • r • The Problem: ANY discharge that adds to the flow into Little Klondike Canyon is too much. The utilized 25 Year Storm calculations project approximately 75,000 gallons of water directed, across already saturated surfaces, into Little Klondike Canyon and the active Flying Triangle landslide area. The Solution: Less captured water achieved by significantly smaller impermeable surfaces via smaller footprints of living area, outbuildings and hardscape. Water from ALL impermeable surfaces must be contained on site and percolated as far as possible from the landslide below, including runoff generated from the barn and guest house, should they be approved. Additionally: We request an independent hydrology report and analysis by appropriate entities and experts determining that the disturbance and redistribution of such vast quantities of soil and redistribution and addition of huge quantities of water will have NO negative affect on the active landslide or residents below, as well as the time for us to have our own experts review and approve or challenge such reports. Charlie and Pia Raine 4 Pinto Road Page 2 of 2 OCT 072016 City of Rolling Hills By TO: CC: FROM: SUBJECT: • R E �� P 0119EMGEIMEEEMS CORPAR/ZITIMEI 25834 Narbonne Avenue #210 Lomita, CA 90277 tel (310) 325-5580 fax (310) 325-5581 MEMORANDUM October 7, 2016 City of Rolling Hills City Council Members Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Lisa Naslund, Engineer, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Tavisha Nicholson (Bolton Engineering) Re: Mayor Dieringer's Questions at City Council Meeting Members of City Council, At the September 12th City Council meeting, when the project at 23 Crest Road East was presented for consideration, there were comments raised by Mayor Dieringer which we wanted to respond to. Please see my understanding of the questions presented and our responses below: Is it possible to utilize the proposed storm water tank system as part of the septic system in an effort to reduce the amount of effluent introduced into the ground? No; it is our understanding of the long standing policy of Los Angeles County Health that septic systems cannot be combined with any other system. The septic systems are regulated by the Health Department and are heavily controlled due to the nature of the contents. While the septic tank does have bacteria in it to promote the breakdown of the waste discharged into the tank, the seepage pits are still required to remove any remaining impurities prior to the effluent reaching the groundwater table. How would the detention system function if there were two storms happened back to back? Engineering for storm water runoff, and the selection of the "design storm", is an exercise in probability. A design storm is, essentially, a quantity of storm water falling over a period of time, whether it is one large storm or several smaller storms. The nature of storms and runoff control is, from a statistical standpoint, there is always a bigger storm, or series of storms, possible (for example, if we considered two storms, what about three?) Los Angeles County policy addresses this by assigning a "year storm" requirement to different facility types. • Urban Flood Protection: "All drainage facilities in developed areas not covered under the Capital Flood protection conditions must meet the Urban Flood level of protection. The Urban Flood is runoff from a 25-year frequency design storm falling on a saturated watershed." This level of protection is what we design residential projects to, unless it is a sump condition which requires a pump. • Capital Flood Protection: Including "open channels, closed conduits, bridges, dams, and debris basins not under State of California jurisdiction" is required to meet the 50 year frequency design storm. • Probable Maximum Flood: "The most severe combination of critical meteorological and hydrologic conditions that are reasonably possible in the region. The Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) represents the greatest depth of rainfall theoretically possible for a given duration over a given drainage basin. The PMF occurs when the PMP falls over watersheds that have reached field capacity (saturated) conditions. Most dams and debris basins (earth embankment, concrete, or other materials) in the County of Los Angeles must safely pass the PMF." Page 1 of 2 LTAMIGQ .!1EEERE % Copp!! A TEEM We have designed the storm water tanks to meet the difference in the pre vs post development runoff for a 25 year frequency design storm. Due to the typical lengths of pipes available for the chosen solution, the system can handle up to the 100 year storm. If a larger storm than this, or a subsequent storm, came prior to the tanks discharging, the additional volume would bypass the system and discharge off the site. If you need any additional exhibits, information, or you have any general questions pertaining to the project please don't hesitate to contact me. We will also be happy to answer or respond to any additional questions at the Field Trip on October 4th;or the City Council Meeting on October 10th Regards, Tavisha Nicholson, RCE 83446 Bolton Engineering Corp. Page 2 of 2 BOLT01 EMGoM.EERIIMG CORPPIa 110M RECEVED 25834 Narbonne Avenue #210 Lomita, CA 90277 OCT 0 7 2016 tel (310) 325-5580 fax (310) 325-5581 City of Rolling Hills MEMORANDUM October 7, 2016 Byy TO: City of Rolling Hills City Council Members CC: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Lisa Naslund, Engineer, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works FROM: Tavisha Nicholson (Bolton Engineering) SUBJECT: Re: Smith -Emery Company Correspondence for 23 Crest Road East Members of City Council, At the September 12th City Council meeting, when the project at 23 Crest Road East was presented for consideration, we became aware of a report prepared by James Partridge of Smith -Emery Company pertaining to drainage for the site. We have reviewed this letter and our responses are documented below: Executive Summary: All comments either request more detail or critique the drainage system for Crest Road. All these are potentially worthy concerns, but not reasons to reject the proposed project. • The storm water run-off on the site is influenced by more than one soil type or condition and the value for the coefficients used in determining the ability of the site to absorb water varies with these factors. I would suggest when producing a final report that actual percolation values be measured in the field by test to produce accurate results which will reflect these different conditions. A different run-off quantity will result from these accurate numbers, and will not be subject to criticism by anyone if this procedure were followed. The analysis used to calculate the storm water runoff followed the methodology required by 2006 LA County Hydrology Manual for watersheds under 40 Acres which is the Modified Rational Method. Under this method the soil type of the site is determined based on maps provided by LA County and from this soil type other pertinent values can be found and calculated. From the LA County Maps it can be seen that our site is fully contained within one soil zone. The County of LA has done much research and investigation into the values correlated with these soil types and the use of these values is standard practice for hydrology calculations. We will continue to follow the requirements and procedures for calculating storm water runoff per the LA County Hydrology Manual and this analysis will need to be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer prior to issuance of construction permits. • The water impound tank system is not fully developed as indicated by the comments by Wil/dan Engineering. The proposed tank is designed for a different use and is currently missing pump -out capacity and disposal details. Also, as years advance there is no mention of maintenance requirements or a method to indicate the tank is in an operating mode that will accept run-off. There are no operating instructions regarding pumping of the water after a storm, in preparation for a subsequent storm. Will the City be responsible for monitoring the proper operation of the tank and insuring that the tank is drawn down sufficiently (or all the way to full capacity) in preparation for a storm? If the resident is made responsible for this function, how will operational responsibility be transferred while on holiday? Page 1 of 3 LT®E, .EIGEI E E REIMG COL EY, RA U EOE As is typical for projects under review at the Planning Stage, the details of the tank and storage system have not yet been designed. The complete design of the system would come when we go to the LA County Building Department to begin the process of plan check and pulling permits for the Construction Documents. In LA County all Low Impact Development (LID) measures implemented by a site require that a Maintenance Agreement be prepared and recorded with the County of LA which details the type and location of each LID element as well as maintenance guidelines provided by the manufacturer for each element. This Covenant needs to be reviewed by the LA County Grading / Drainage plan checker prior to recording and if the property is sold the owner is required to provide information on maintaining these LID elements. As to the operating instructions, this will also be detailed during the Construction Document Phase. The owner will be required to monitor the proper operation and if there are concerns the County Inspectors can be utilized to ensure the tank system is functioning as designed and approved. • The flow of water from the impoundment tank will begin after the storm and continue for about 2 days allowing the definite conclusion that post construction site water run-off will exceed pre -construction level for certain. (April 7, 2015, Bolton to Willdan Engineering). The storage system in email referenced above is a different system than what is currently proposed. The previous system was determined to be the best solution for the site conditions, from conversations with Willdan Engineering, and the design was revised and subsequently conceptually approved by Willdan Engineering for the previous subdivision application. • The amount of run-off from the site should be calculated to include each family's property that sends its rainwater run-off across the Hynes family property. Any agreements in place to allow the transmission of this water by the Hynes family should be produced along with the calculations made for the run-off from each property. The Crest Road which discharges onto the Hynes family property street drain, was installed in the late '50's and its first storm use caused extensive scour and transmission of rock/soil debris so as to make the Dessy family driveway at 4 Pinto Road impassable. It is our position that the project being proposed needs only to analyze the project site which we have done in a preliminary report and will be required to provide for LA County Grading / Drainage plan check. We understand that this street drain in Crest Road is a concern for the neighboring properties however: 1. It is not owned/ maintained by the property owner at 23 Crest Road East. 2. The proposed project will not change the storm water conveyed by this catch basin in any way. 3. We believe that any concerns with this drain / pipe should be directed to the City / RHCA. • The total run-off from Crest Road should be calculated or the calculations, which would have been made in the late '50's, should be produced. In the same nature as the above comment, we believe that our project does not need to analyze the Crest Road watershed. This is a City / RHCA issue that is outside of the scope of this project. • The city should have verified the neighboring families and city run-off actual quantities by installing simple measurement devices for the purpose. The calculated and actual values should be compared. Page 2 of 3 TOLOIELMIRIEERrale GORP8 ATflOL We believe that this comment should be directed to the City / RHCA; it is not germane to the project. • The first record of this slide in the early past century ended with a condition of stability allowing all of the current development. Soils & Geology Reports have been prepared and provided to the City showing that the proposed development would not have a negative impact on neighboring properties. This project will be reviewed by LA County Geotechnical & Materials Engineering Division (GMED) prior to approval to ensure all compliance with all governing codes. • If the Flying Triangle Slide stopped once, restoration of the canyon bottoms and ending uncontrolled water dumping would likely stop present ground movement. This is more of a comment and there is no tangible information for us to respond to. If you need any additional exhibits, information, or you have any general questions pertaining to the project please don't hesitate to contact me. We will also be happy to answer or respond to any additional questions at the Field Trip on October 4th or the City Council Meeting on October 10th Regards, Tavisha Nicholson, RCE 83446 Bolton Engineering Corp. Page 3 of 3 i • From: "Naslund (Eckert), Lisa". Date: Thursday, October 6, 2016 4:11 PM To: Yolanta Schwartz Cc: "\"Bagnell, Kit\"" Subject: 23 Crest Road East E D OCT 0 6 2016 City of Rolling Hills By We have reviewed the letter to City Council submitted by Smith -Emery on September 12, 2016. With the project in the proposal phase and only conceptual review of proposed drainage and grading solutions having taken place, it is not possible to comment on the "design" of the project since it has not yet been started in detail. As has been stated in our discussions to date, there are existing drainage and grading code requirements that will apply to the design of the project and the project will be reviewed for compliance with those requirements. Speaking specifically to some of the points made in the letter, any method of hydrologic study would be determined by the designing engineer, including taking into account site soil conditions. Any equipment installed to store runoff would also be designed by the project engineer, and operation and maintenance of the equipment would be the responsibility of the property owner consistent with manufacturer's specifications. In reviewing the ultimate design, it is any increase in runoff from the site itself that is incorporated into proposed mitigation measures. Runoff from off -site sources is expected to be maintained in its current state and incorporated into the project design. Best, Lisa Naslund, PE L.A. County Department of Public Works Building and Safety Division Counter Hours: East LA 8:00-11:30am on Wednesday (323) 881- 7030 Lomita 8-11:30 on Thursday(310) 534-3760 LET US KNOW HOW WE'RE DOING! http://dpw.lacounty.gov/go/bsdsurvey Online Submittal Website:https://dpw.lacounty.gov/bsd/bsop/ Forms and Publications:http://dpw.lacounty.gov/bsd/publications/index.cfm • • Cry oliell.�asJdll, September 13, 2016 Mr. James Hynes 20252 Bancroft Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 902 - Site Plan Review/CUP Dear Mr. Hynes: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 This letter is to notify you that the City Council at their regular meeting on September 12, 2016 reviewed your application in Zoning Case No. 902 and took it under jurisdiction. A field trip public hearing is being scheduled on Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:00 AM in the morning. Your neighbors within 1,000-foot radius of the project site will be notified of the hearing. Following the field trip, the City Council will continue the hearing to their regular meeting on Monday, October 10, 2016 beginning at 7:00 PM at City Hall. Please assure that the project is properly and accurately staked, including all structures, limits of grading, finished floor elevations, ridge lines, driveway, drainage devices, access to stable and property, setbacks and roadway easement lines. Should you wish to provide additional information and/or reports for the City Council field trip, please submit to staff no later than Monday, September 26. The staff report together with the background information, will be available and will be mailed to you on Friday, September 30, 2016. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincere Y, Yo nta Schwartz Planning Director cc: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering Printed on Recycled Paper • SMITH -EMERY COMPANY An Independent Commercial Testing Laboratory, Established 1904 791 Easi IJ asbing'aft I3, d, Ln.r. tur/rr,,Cr,Gjr,rnnr.90021-3013, (213) •19-3411, Pr\ (213)7.114620' September 12, 2016 Dear Members of the City Council - I read the brief report commissioned by the Hynes family and submitted in support of their construction on Crest Road. Although I have some criticism of the report, my hope is that it will be taken constructively, particularly in light of the authors own statement in their April 7, 2015 report indicating the preliminary nature of their effort. Firstly, I wish to acknowledge the Planning Commission for its recognition that the run-off storm water exiting the Hynes Family site must be controlled due to its negative effect on the landslides below the subject site, and I further comment: • The storm water run-off on the site is influenced by more than one soil type or condition and the value for the coefficients used in determining the ability of the site to absorb water varies with these factors. I would suggest when producing a final report that actual percolation values be measured in the field by test to produce accurate results which will reflect these different conditions. A different run-off quantity will result from these accurate numbers, and will not be subject to criticism by anyone if this procedure were followed. • The water impound tank system is not fully developed as indicated by the comments by Willdan Engineering. The proposed tank is designed for a different use and is currently missing pump -out capacity and disposal details. Also, as years advance there is no mention of maintenance requirements or a method to indicate the tank is in an operating mode that will accept run-off. There are no, operating instructions regarding pumping of the water after a storm, in preparation for a subsequent storm. Will the City be responsible for monitoring the proper operation of the tank and insuring that the tank is drawn down sufficiently (or all the way to full capacity) in preparation for a storm? If the resident is made responsible for this function, how will operational responsibility be transferred while on holiday? • The flow of water from the Impoundment tank will begin after the storm and continue for about 2 days allowing the definite conclusion that post construction site water run-off will exceed pre -construction level for certain. (April 7, 2015, Bolton to Willdan Engineering). • The amount of run-off from the site should be calculated to include each family's property that sends its rainwater run-off across the Hynes family property. Any agreements in place to allow the transmission of this water by the Hynes family should be produced along with the calculations made for the run-off from each property. The Crest Road which discharges onto the Hynes family property street drain, was installed in the late '50's and its first storm use caused extensive scour and transmission of rock/soil debris so as to make the Dessy family driveway at 4 Pinto Road impassable. • The total run-off from Crest Road should be calculated or the calculations, which would have been made in the late '50's, should be produced. Lr'' c D SEP 12 2016 City of Rolling Hills By 791 &zsl II"asinfigron B1rd, Los , `(J,hf1y/p 900 1-3(143, (21)) 7•19-3411. Fav (213) 7-114620 • The city should have verified the neighboring families and city run-off actual quantities by installing simple measurement devices for the purpose. The calculated and actual values should be compared. • The first record of this slide in the early past century ended with a condition of stability allowing all of the current development. • If the Flying Triangle Slide stopped once, restoration of the canyon bottoms and ending uncontrolled water dumping would likely stop present ground movement. If additional comment would be helpful, please be in contact. Very Truly Yours L.. a mes E. Partridge resident Civil Engineer August 17, 2016 Mr. James Hynes 20252 Bancroft Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 902 - Site Plan Review/ CUP/ VR Dear Mr. Hynes: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution on August 16, 2016, granting a request in Zoning Case No. 902. That action accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission will be reported to the City Council on Monday, September 12, 2016 beginning at 7:00 PM. You or your representative must be present to answer any questions the Council may have. The Planning Commission's decision in this matter shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of the resolution by the Commission, unless an appeal has been filed within that thirty (30) day appeal period or the City Council takes the case under their jurisdiction within 45 days of adoption of the Resolution. (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Should there be an appeal, the Commission's decision will be stayed until the Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Please submit 6 copies of the complete submission to the City Council. A copy of the resolution was provided to with the conditions of approval. set of plans by August 31, 2016 for you before. Please familiarize yourself If no appeals are filed within thespecified time frame, including City Council, the Planning Commission's action will become final and you will be required to cause to 'be recorded an Affidavit of Acceptance Form together with the subject Resolution in the Office of the County Recorder before the Commission's action takes effect. Instructions for recordation will be forwarded to you after the Council's proceedings. • • Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Wendy Starks, AICP Associate Planner cc: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering Howard Weinberg, The Weinberg Law Group Cry o/leo f1,.9 JJA August 2, 2016 Mr. James Hynes 20252 Bancroft Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Subject: 23 Crest Road East - New Driveway Apron INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Dear Mr. Hynes: At its meeting of July 28, 2016, the Traffic Commission supported your revised request for a new driveway apron at 23 Crest Road East subject to the following conditions: 1. Rolling Hills Community Association review and approval is required. 2. The new driveway apron shall be in compliance with the submitted plan. 3. The first 20 feet of the driveway apron shall have a maximum slope of 7%. 4. The driveway apron shall be roughened. The City Council will consider the matter in conjunction with the Planning Commission's action relative to the proposed development You will be informed of that date after the Planning Commission takes action. Please maintain the staking of the proposed driveway apron until after the City Council considers the matter and takes final action. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call the City at 310-377-1521. Sincerely, Raymond R. Cruz City Manager RC:hl 08-02-16 Driveway23CrestRoadEnst _TC.docx c: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering Printed on Recycled Paper City olf211.9 July 20, 2016 Mr. & Mrs. James Hynes 20252 Bancroft Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 902 - 23 Crest Road East; Site Plan Review/CUP Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hynes: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission voted at their regular meeting on July 19, 2016 to direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve your request in Zoning Case No. 902. The Planning Commission will review and consider the draft resolution, together with conditions of approval, at an upcoming meeting on August 19, 2016, beginning at 6:30 PM and make its final decision on your application at that meeting. The draft resolution and conditions of approval will be forwarded to you before the Planning Commission meeting. The decision shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution unless an appeal has been filed to City Council within that 30- day period, or the City Council takes jurisdiction of the case, (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Should there be an appeal, the Commission's decision will be stayed until the Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. As stated above, the Planning Commission's action regarding the resolution is scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2016. That action, accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission, is tentatively scheduled to be placed as a report item on the City Council's agenda at the Council's regular meeting on September 12, 2016. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. r-1y, I � c16 Y e . nta Sc wartz P : nning Director cc: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering Howard Weinberg, The Weinberg Law Group 0 Printed on Recycled Paper 0 PLEASE RESPOND TO. 707 TORRANCE BOULEVARD SUITE 200 REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277-3400 TELEPHONE (310) 540-3199 TELECOPIER (310) 316-1823 July 14, 2016 SPIERER I WOODWARD I CORBALIS I GOLDBERG ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION www.practicallawyer.com ❑ PLEASE RESPOND TO: ORIGINAL VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL COPY VIA EMAIL (WHERE INDICATED) James Hynes 20252 Bancroft Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Email: jimphynes@gmail.com Rolling Hills Community Association Attn: Board of Directors/ Architectural Committee, Kristen Raig, Mgr. I Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Email: kraig@rhca.net Willdan Engineering 13191 Crossroads Parkway N., Suite 405 Industry, CA 91746-3443 Email: ekiepke@willdan.com Anthony Inferrera and Associates 401 E. Ocean Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90802 JUL 1'12016 City of Rolling Hills By Re: 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California Greetings, 2 INVERNESS DRIVE EAST SUITE 200 ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80112 TELEPHONE (303) 792-3456 TELECOPIER (303) 792-9092 Raine/Hynes (160841/02) Bolton Engineering 25834 Narbonne Ave. Suite 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Email: office@boltonengineering.com City of Rolling Hills ATTN: Planning Commission/ City Council Planning Director, Yolanda Schwartz City Manager, Ray Cruz 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Email: ys@cityofrh.net; rcruz@cityofrh.net Hamilton & Associates, Inc. 1641 Border Avenue Torrance, CA 90501 Email: information@Hamilton-Associates.net Ann L. Johnson 461 W. 6th St. Suite 300 San Pedro, CA 90731 We are the attorneys for Charlie and Pia Raine, Lucy Agid, Joseph and Erna Johnson, Paige Lademan, John and Heidi Mackenbach, Randa Marin, Duncan and Michelle McBride, Paul Mitchell, Catherine Neel, Robert O'Shea, Damoder and Soumitri Reddy, Terry and Lynne • • James Hynes, et al. Re: Charlie and Pia Raine, et al. July 14, 2016 Page 2 of 5 Rhodes, Gordon and Carmen Schaye, Constance Schwartzman, Greg and Heidi Stager, Ali Tashakori, and Mark and Paula Thomas, with respect to the proposed development of the property located at 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California (hereinafter referred to as the Subject Property). Those parties have engaged this law office to protect and perhaps later to redress rights which they have, and rights which they may acquire in the future, against the City of Rolling Hills, against the owners of the Subject Property (hereinafter referred to as "Ownership"), against their advisors, experts, advocates, representatives and against any other potentially responsible parties or entities with respect to Ownership's intentions to attempt construction, to conduct water management, to engage in debris management or to perform any earth movement or any other activity that may result, directly or indirectly, in property damage and physical injury. The Flying Triangle Landslide was first visible in 1980 as a small crack on Portuguese Bend Road immediately below what is now the Mackenbach home. The most likely trigger of the Flying Triangle Landslide was the 1980 construction of a new home at 62 Portuguese Bend Road, directly below the "crack" in the road. This home required grading of 775 cubic yards of earth. What eventually followed was a devastation of the neighborhood, both in financial terms and in the huge emotional toll on those whose homes were affected and whose lives were dislocated. Enclosed is a map that will help everyone understand the geography. The landslide eventually affected all but a few homes in the Flying Triangle. Four of the as yet unaffected homes lie directly below or adjacent to the proposed construction project at the Subject Property. Grading decisions and water management choices have proven to be the actions that, together with inherent geologic conditions, triggered the Flying Triangle Landslide. The proposal for development at the Subject Property calls for 51,625 cubic yards of grading (compared with the 775 cubic yards that collapsed The Flying Triangle in the first place). This grading would occur all directly above an active landslide. During grading, "benching" the lot will require a redistribution of weight, directly above a home with no movement but whose rear and west side yard are severely affected by the slide. If the Mackenbach home moves, the two others, with no historic movement, that share its slide affected driveway may or may not be accessible. You will be held responsible for making decisions that may damage or destroy their homes or prevent access to them. The Little Klondike Canyon watershed is fed mainly by a drain at the foot of 18 Crest Road East, collecting water from other properties on the North side of Crest Road East as well as the road itself. That drain continues to lubricate the slide and needs to be removed. Little Klondike Canyon is the only natural drainage course for the Subject Property, but the canyon does not flow to the ocean. It is blocked just below the Mackenbach property due to slide debris. More • • James Hynes, et al. Re: Charlie and Pia Raine, et al. July 14, 2016 Page 3 of 5 water in the canyon is begging for disaster. You must be certain that no drainage contributions will be made into the landslide area in any proposed plans. The decisions you make in the approval process for this home can have catastrophic results on those living below. Every square foot of lot coverage adds additional concentrations of water to other parts of the property. Every cubic yard of soil moved for this project adds to the possibility that unintended consequences may affect nearby homeowners. In hindsight, with knowledge today of an active landslide, would your predecessors have chosen to reject the approval of some of the homes in the Flying Triangle or would they have chosen to minimize the impact on the land through less grading, smaller structures and careful consideration of drainage? Of course they would. Their decisions were made without the knowledge you now possess; That below the proposed development you are faced with an active landslide that encompasses 70 acres and affects the homes of 27 families whose geologic instability and unpredictability has been tragically proven. Responsible development would necessarily entail minimal earth movement and no contribution of water to the properties below, including those already affected by land movement. We know that, as good people, you will want to do that. For our clients' part, .we will settle for nothing less. The following excerpts are from a manual titled "Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan" published November 2nd, 2004 as an emergency preparedness manual for the city and are offered to assist in decision -making. Landslide Conditions: Landslides are often triggered by periods of heavy rainfall. Earthquakes, subterranean water flow and excavations may also trigger landslide. Certain geologic formations are more susceptible to landslide than others. Human activities, including locating development near steep slopes, can increase susceptibility to landslide events. Landslides on steep slopes are more dangerous because movements can be rapid. Although landslides are a natural geologic process, the incidence of landslide and their impacts on people can be exacerbated by human activities. Grading for road construction and development can increase slope steepness. Grading and construction can decrease the stability of a hill slope by adding weight to the top of the slope, removing support at the base of the slope, and increasing water content. Other human activities effecting landslide include: excavation, drainage and groundwater alterations, and changes in vegetation. Natural Hazards Mitigation PIan (11/04), Page 104. What is a Debris Flow? A debris or mud flow is a river of rock, earth and other materials, including vegetation that is saturated with water. This high percentage of water gives the debris flow a very rapid rate of movement down a slope. Debris flows often with speeds greater than 20 mile per hour, and can often move much faster. This high rate of speed makes debris flows extremely dangerous to people • • James Hynes, et al. Re: Charlie and Pia Raine, et al. July 14, 2016 Page 4 of 5 and property in its path. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (11/04), Page 103. (This provision is cited in regards to any future flow in Little Klondike, directly above the Lademan, Stager and Raine properties. Slope modification during grading can render slopes unstable. Slope instability occurs when bedding planes intersect the slope face of either natural slopes or designed cut slopes. Site specific investigations are necessary to determine potential slope instability problems at specific sites. Landslide are considered "potentially active", meaning they could be reactivated in the future, either by excessive rainfall, introduction of artificial water in the slope (landscaping irrigation/broken water or septic systems), or improper site design or grading practices. Grading activities must consider these geologic constraints as a condition of project approval. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (11/04), Page 106. All of the clients represented by this law office in this matter are determined to do two things: 1) They intend to be good neighbors and to participate in good faith in support of allowing the owners of the Subject Property to utilize their property in a completely responsible way, and 2) They intend to hold responsible all parties who proceed in any manner that results or may result in property damage or physical injury. Actions taken on the Subject Property could have significant and potentially catastrophic consequences for our clients. The current lack of a responsible and specific water management plan for the proposed improvements on the Subject Property combined with 51,625 cubic yards of grading is irresponsible and unnecessarily puts our clients at risk. The purpose of this letter is to place its recipients on notice of some of the risks and responsibilities they undertake if any change in the Subject Property results in property damage or personal injury of any kind, to anyone, anywhere, anytime. Sincerely, SPIERER,`WOODWARD, CORBALIS & GOLDBERG Attorney,,s" at A Profs '�•`al oration S,kven R S SFS:bjw Enclosure cc: Charlie and Pia Raine Lucy Agid Joseph and Erna Johnson Robert O'Shea Damoder and Soumitri Reddy Terry and Lynne Rhodes • • James Hynes, et al. Re: Charlie and Pia Raine, et al. July 14, 2016 Page 5 of 5 Paige Lademan John and Heidi Mackenbach Randa Marin Duncan and Michelle McBride Paul Mitchell Catherine Neel Gordon and Carmen Schaye Constance Schwartzman Greg and Heidi Stager Ali Tashakori Mark and Paula Thomas • • , „. , • .4 1 • • •••=, t1,1 , ' G Drain Oder shared driveway RtiCA drain under pinto Road Crack In toad signals anit of the Flyinfitiangle WA 51; ds Little Klondike Bto age -er'"7"' Uttielnontlike4nyon Big KI and' Cfinyon Represented properbes HYrIES a - ..— ..... ',) • MACICENBACH • ,,.,, Q . ,,,.. ..,.•,,' Ns, ..,-,., ,,... 7.., .• J. •••'; / N. , . „ • ('') •..J ,(7%.,,° „0:-i, • RtiODs5 7::,;':, /u.m.' (f.';„'•-•''',5‘V., .;, STASIZ ,,,,1 miCAAS ,,,,...„...4:,,,,,' '''''' i ,z•-,,,% ,,v.xtv,-FRO,'...;;;, , , :5:A •,,^)., i . ::411‘6iA/' '''''r. DEIAA'k' .': 0 .,, ,,, ••'''' \ \\AA-9e":121;C: i:;:/ 1 ".:'.. ' '7 STAGER. " ., , / .., .•"'t 0:', . ...,,..1,,.., , ,•?,:',,,, •':::/.1 I .,/sawmaz .t;,...,.‘..,..'k....' i(;5:i,;iA,..,.;N_6..eio,, , , „rv.,....,,,...tz,...4.,,. ,,,.,:..,.:,,:;.,' ,,k. ..,,,:,,, 2: ,(01, . 11 15 ..li v 71; t'''..v .• tl,:., I. , ..... ''.?:-.q.% '*c,0 ,'' il 4 -• ji 1 VI't.is, :.,),I• \ - ---."••••=!, ' e 'C .1-.) 4t. I i \ 7 ',..\ ' \ 1 \ I 'I I ‘ SWANS PAINS ss1441 • • city 0 /Rollin, film FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION June 22, 2016 Mr. James Hynes 20252 Bancroft Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 902 - Site Plan Review/CUP Dear Mr. Hynes: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 On June 21, 2016 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider your application. During the meeting, the Commissioners expressed concerns about the amount of cut/fill required, specifically for the lower pad. The Planning Department suggests that you be prepared to discuss this, and consider revising the project. We also suggest that your representatives provide a narrative and any other information you can to illustrate how the two cisterns and drainage system in the location they are being proposed will address stormwater on the site, and for each of the pads, and as it is discharged from the property. If you do revise the project, we will need any/all revisions before Thursday, June 30th, 2016 in order to advertise/notice the changes. The Planning Commission scheduled to conduct a field inspection of your property to view the proposed project on Tuesday, July 19, 2016. We will provide you with the exact time at a later date. The owner and/ or representative must be present to answer any questions the Commission may have regarding the proposal. Your neighbors within 1,000-foot radius will be notified of the field trip. The Traffic Commission will review the revised driveway on July 28, 2016. The site shall be prepared a minimum of a week prior to the meeting as follows: • Delineate the front and side yard property line, easement line and setback lines in the vicinity of the proposed project; • Delineate the front roadway easement line and 50'-front setback line in the vicinity of the proposed cisterns, driveway, and residence; Printed on Recycled Paper • • • A full-size silhouette in conformance with the attached guidelines must be prepared for all structures, showing the footprint, roof ridges, any overhangs, porches, and exterior walls; • Stake the height of the guest house, stable/corral, associated walls, and trellis on lower pad; • Stake the proposed pool, patio, and outdoor kitchen; • Stake the two cisterns, and dissipators; • Stake the driveway; • Stake the stable access path, stairway leading to the lower pad from the upper pad, and all other paths; and • Stake the limits of grading. After the field trip, the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will take place on Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 6:30 PM at City Hall, at which time the Commission will further discuss your project. The staff report for this project will be available at the City Hall after 3:00 PM on Friday, July 15, 2016. We will forward the report to you and your representative. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, endy StarkfAICP Associate Planner cc: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering ^w Tuesday, June 7, 20160:47:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: 23 Crest Stable Information Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:11:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Tavisha Nicholson To: Wendy Starks CC: Yolanta Schwartz, Tony Inferrera Good Morning Wendy, Please find information below pertaining to the proposed stable at 23 Crest Road East just going down the list from the 5 Pine Tree Staff Report: • 10' Wide access joining to both the proposed driveway and all the way up to Crest Road East. Grading with a 3' retaining wall behind the stable to control the drainage. 1,130 c.y. of grading all in a cut condition (480 stable + 650 corral) Not proposed in any setback • More than 35' away from guest house • 4 stalls, 400 s.f. of agricultural storage, 73 s.f. feed room, and tack space in the loft (792 s.f.) which is 37.9% of the structure. • Ground Floor (1,300 s.f).: 593 s.f. stalls, 234 s.f. center aisle, 73 s.f. feed room, 400 s.f. agricultural storage. Loft (792 s.f.): Tack Room • Agricultural uses: 1,300 s.f. (Ground floor) 62.1% • Tack uses comprises 792 s.f. or 37.9% . Includes tack room / storage and bathroom. • Bathroom proposed, no kitchen. • Condition • Condition • Loft; proposed for tack room purposes • Total height of structure at highest peak is 21'-0" with a 7' plate height shown for the loft. • Dg / dirt condition • Proposed 2,300 s.f. corral enclosed with 3' wall on north side. • From main driveway and Crest 25% maximum slope. • No commercial uses or sleeping. STABLE USEAGE SUMMARY STALLS 593 CENTER AISLE 234 TACK (Loft) 792 FEED ROOM 73 AGRICULTURAL STORAGE 400 TOTAL AREA II 2,092 USES PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN AGRICULTURAL USES 62.14% TACK USES 37.86% I Please let me know if you need any more information. I will work on the drainage summary and get it over to you by tomorrow. Thanks! Page 1 of 2 • • Tavisha Nicholson, P.E. I Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave. Suite 210 Lomita, CA 90717 P: (310)325-5580 F: (310)325-5581 Page 2 of 2 06 • City O PO/ling .iINCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION April 20, 2016 Mr. James Hynes 20252 Bancroft Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 902 - Site Plan Review/CUP/VR Dear Mr. Hynes: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 The Planning Commission scheduled to conduct a field inspection of your property to view the proposed project on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 tentatively at approximately 9:00 AM. We will inform you in a couple of weeks of a more definitive time. The owner and/or representative must be present to answer any questions the Commission may have regarding the proposal. Your neighbors within 1,000-foot radius will be notified of the field trip. The site shall be prepared a minimum of a week prior to the meeting as follows: • Delineate the front and side yard property line, easement line and setback lines in the vicinity of the proposed project; • Delineate the front roadway easement line and 50'-front setback line in the vicinity of the proposed guesthouse, driveway, and residence; • A full-size silhouette in conformance with the attached guidelines must be prepared for all structures, showing the footprint, roof ridges, any overhangs, porches, and exterior walls; • Stake the height of the proposed tennis court, associated walls, and trellis; • Stake the proposed pool, patio, and outdoor kitchen; • Stake the biofiltration unit; • Stake the driveway; • Stake the stable access path, stairway leading to the tennis court pad from the pool pad, and all other paths; • Stake the limits of grading; and • Delineate future stable/corral area. Printed on Recycled Paper • After the field trip, the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will take place on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 6:30 PM at City Hall, at which time the Commission will further discuss your project. The staff report for this project will be available at the City Hall after 3:00 PM on Friday, May 13, 2016. We will forward the report to you and your representative. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincere 4,6,t4J/).- endy Star Associate Planner cc: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering • Cup Roth" JJI/€I May 27, 2016 Mr. James Hynes 20252 Bancroft Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Subject: 23 Crest Road East - New Driveway Apron Dear Mr. Hynes: At its meeting of May 26, 2016, the Traffic Commission supported your request for a new driveway apron at 23 Crest Road East subject to the following conditions: 1. Rolling Hills Community Association review and approval is required. 2. The new driveway apron shall be in compliance with the submitted plan. 3. The first 20 feet of the driveway apron shall have a maximum slope of 7%. 4. The driveway apron shall be roughened. The City Council will consider the matter in conjunction with the Planning Commission's action relative to the proposed development You will be informed of that date after the Planning Commission takes action. Please maintain the staking of the proposed driveway apron until after the City Council considers the matter and takes final action. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call the City at 310-377-1521. Sincerely, 'Cl v J Raymond R. Cruz City Manager RC:hl 05-27-16 Driveway23CrestRoadEast _'TC.docx c: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering 0 Printed on Recycled Paper • City o /oI/in I/ INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 May 25, 2016 Mr. James Hynes 20252 Bancroft Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 902 - Site Plan Review/CUP/VR Dear Mr. Hynes: This letter is to notify you that the Planning Commission at their May 17, 2016 meeting continued the case in Zoning Case No. 902 to their June 21, 2016 meeting, beginning at 6:30 PM. Please revise your project and submit revised plans and calculations, if any, to the Planning Department by Tuesday May 31, 2016 to provide us with enough time to re -notice the project if necessary, and to be placed on the next Planning Commission agenda. In addition, pursuant to the California Permit Streamlining Act, please sign the enclosed form to request and consent to a maximum of 90-day extension to allow the Commission to take action on the application, and return to the Planning Department by May 31, 2016. Otherwise, staff would have to bring a Resolution denying the case. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Wendy Star %s, AICP Associate Tanner cc: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering 0 w Printed on Recycled Paper LETTER OF CONSENT TO EXTENSION OF TIME Government Code Section 65957 Date: May 25, 2016 Application: Zoning Case No. 902 Department of Planning City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Attn: Wendy Starks Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65957, Mr. Hynes hereby requests and consents to a ninety (90) day extension to the time period specified in Government Code Sections 65950, 65950.1 and 65952 for the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and City Council to take action on the above referenced application at 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA. IAl Signattle of Applicant or Applicant's Representative U ( LQ R IT( 1� S Printed Name of Applicant (1) or Applicant's Representative Received by: Date: LETTER OF CONSENT TO EXTENSION OF TIME Government Code Section 65957 • • C1tv ("Roll.SJd.m May 18, 2016 Mr. James Hynes 20252 Bancroft Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 902 - Site Plan Review/CUP/VR Dear Mr. Hynes: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 This letter is to notify you that the Planning Commission visited your property in the morning of May 17, 2016 and reconvened the public hearing at their regular meeting on May 17 at 6:30 PM. At that meeting, after deliberation and discussion, members of the Planning Commission could not come to a consensus to approve the project as proposed. The Planning Commission recommended that you restudy the driveway; size, shape, and orientation of the residence; the amount of cut/fill; consider utilizing cisterns for drainage containment or another method to retain more run-off than the minimum required by Code on the property; and reconsider the tennis court and development in that area altogether. Please revise your project and submit revised plans and calculations, if any, to the Planning Department by Tuesday May 31, 2016 to provide us with enough time to re -notice the project if necessary, and to be placed on the next Planning Commission agenda. The next Planning Commission meeting will be on June 21, 2016. You and/or your representative must be present to answer any questions the Commission may have. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Wendy Stark AICP Associate P1 er cc: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering Printed on Recycled Paper Renee Martin 310-544-8161 22 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 renee@martinliterary.com May 16, 2016 To Whom It May Concern: MAY 16 2016 City of rolling Hills By I am deeply concerned about the proposed new construction of a home at 23 Crest Road East across the street from and below my home. I've been informed that the combined "footprints" of the various proposed structures approach an acre of impermeable surface area. This will leave almost no space for proper drainage, and when it rains all the water will be funneled south directly into the active Flying Triangle Landslide and further down to Klondike Canyon. The repercussions from this could be, obviously, catastrophic. I am concerned about the safety of my community, as well as the possible consequences for my own home. I am urgently requesting that the City of Rolling Hills hire a third party consultant to evaluate the possible geological impact of the proposed plan. Sincerely, Renee Martin • • et/ o oiling May 6, 2016 Mr. James Hynes 20252 Bancroft Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 SUBJECT: 23 Crest Road East - New Driveway Apron INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Dear Mr. Hynes: At it's meeting on May 26, 2016, the Rolling Hills Traffic Commission is scheduled to consider your application for a new driveway apron at 23 Crest Road East. It is requested that by May 11, 2016, the proposed driveway apron be staked to adequately illustrate its location and size. Please maintain the stakes through the Traffic Commission's meeting in case a field trip is desired and thereafter until the City Council hears the application. If you have any questions in regard to the review process, please do not hesitate to call Ray Cruz, City Manager, or myself at 310-377-1521. Sincerely, en•yS . ' s Associate 1I' anner cc: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering Printed on Recycled Paper Ctt ol,eoee.�as.�a��r, INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF 90274 STATUS OF APPLICATION & NOTIFICATION OF MEETING (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310)377.7288 March 24, 2016 Mr. James Hynes 20252 Bancroft Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Dear Mr. Hynes: SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 902 - Site Plan Review/CUP/VR Dear Mr. Hynes: Pursuant to state law the City's staff has completed a preliminary review of the application noted above and finds that the information submitted is: X Sufficiently complete as of the date indicated above to allow the application to be processed. Please note that the City may require further information in order to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the application. If the City requires such additional information, it is strongly suggested that you supply that information promptly to avoid any delay in the processing of the application. Your application for Zoning Case No. 902 has been set for a public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 6:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City Hall Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. You or your designated representative must attend the meeting to present your project and to answer questions. The staff report for this project will be available at the City Hall after 3:00 PM on Friday, April 15th. We will forward the report to you and your agent. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely Wendy Starks Associate Plat fner cc: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering ._. Printed on Recycled Paper Members of the City Council City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: Zoning Case 869; Subdivision #94 and Parcel Map 72775 23 Crest Road East (the "Project") Ladies and Gentlemen: February 2, 2016 ErE FEB 0 3 2016 City of Rolling Hills The Project was last reviewed by the City Council at the hearing on November 9, 215. At that time, the Council directed staff to prepare an RFP for a consultant to prepare a hydrology report and a geology analysis to consider the effect that the proposed project for the Hynes lot Split might have on Klondike Canyon, adjacent properties and other properties down slope from the Hynes property. Staff prepared an RFP and received two proposals to do the requested studies. Unfortunately, the scope and detail of the studies requested in the RFP resulted in bids of approximately $32,000 to prepare the analysis. The proposals include three tasks: (1) Peer Review our two geotech reports and percolation test report; (2) Calculate how much extra water flows downhill after development, and (3) study the potential effects of the extra stormwater runoff that the Project might create. The new study is unnecessary and inappropriate for the following reasons. First, the City Council has already been provided evidence reviewed by the City's engineer, that peak runoff due to development is unchanged even without on -site retention. This data can be seen in the report entitled "23 Crest Road East Hydrology rev2;' in the Hydrology and Hydraulics table in the "Increase in Flow Rate" cells. The on -site retention of stormwater has also been reviewed and the City's acting engineer has confirmed that there will be no increase in 24 hour volume after proposed development. Second, the trivial hydrological calculations of Task 2 have already been reviewed by the City's consultant and found to be accurate; namely that the Project will NOT create any more storm water runoff. Third, Task 3, which is to study the effect of excess runoff is moot because we already know that there will be NO excess water to study. Developing a property doesn't create storm water, it just reduces infiltration. When it rains, water either runs down the surface (in culverts and streams), or as subsurface flow after it infiltrates the soil. Although not intuitive, the following facts are the irrefutable: , 1. During high rain intensity, peak outflow is unchanged by development; as explained to the City Council by the. City Engineer, during an intense storm the effective permeability of our 'Type 2' soil is the same as hardscape. Peak flow is the important metric as it is used to size local drainage courses. 2. Impermeable surfaces created by development means less soil infiltration during low rain intensity; When it drizzles on hardscape, the water trickles down the canyon instead of soaking into the mud. This may slightly help downhill soil stability, although the Project affects <2% of the watershed. 3. With on -site storage, less water flows downhill; large watersheds sometimes use the 24 hour volume metric to analyze propagation of stormwater through downstream storage reservoirs but it is of dubious value here. Nevertheless, our on -site storage plan captures the water to ensure that the 24 hour volume never exceeds the natural state. Hence, with storage, both surface and subsurface peak and average flow is decreased relative to the natural state of the land. There is NO Increase in Stormwater Runoff or Infiltration due to the Project. Therefore, we implore the City Council to retract its request for this additional third -party study, and instead consider the reviewed and confirmed evidence regarding hydrology that we have already provided. If the City thinks it necessary, we encourage the City to send all of the evidence to the Los Angeles County Engineer to confirm that the Project will not create any additional stormwater. In doing so, the engineer will also confirm our position that the Project should be approved, based on the extensive maps, studies, reports and other evidence already submitted to the City. Sincerely, Jim Hynes on behalf of the Hynes Family Trust C: City Council Yolanta Schwartz Michael Jenkins, City Attorney ALIIFORNIA FISH & WILDLIFE State of California — Nati....sources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISHD WILDLIFE South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov January 15, 2015 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 YS@cityofrh.net •ND G. BROWN JR.. Governor CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director JAN 2 2 2015 City of Rolling Hills By Subject: Comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Zoning Case No. 869, Subdivision No. 94, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72775 Project, City of Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County Dear Ms. Schwartz: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has reviewed the above - referenced Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The project area is a vacant lot on the south side of Crest Road between Georgeff Road and Caballeros Road, in the City of Rolling Hills. The Project involves the subdivision of an existing 7.055-acre lot into two parcels, parcel 1 (3.70-acres), and parcel 2 (3.34-acres), as well as the future development of two new homes and related grading. The following comments and recommendations have been prepared pursuant to the Department's authority as a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines section 15381 over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of the California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code § 2050 et seq.) and Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq., and pursuant to our authority as Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project (California Environmental Quality Act, [CEQA] Guidelines § 15386) to assist the Lead Agency in avoiding or minimizing potential project impacts on biological resources. Biological Resource Comments 1) Proiect Landscaping. The site currently contains both native and invasive/exotic vegetation, including the highly invasive Peruvian and/or Brazilian pepper trees (Schinus terebinthifolius or Schinus molle). The Department recommends invasive/exotic plants be restricted from use in landscape plans for this Project. A list of invasive/exotic plants that should be avoided as well as suggestions for better landscape plants can be found at http://www.cal- ipc.org/landscaping/dpp/planttypes. php?region=socal. 2) Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements (LSA). As a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines section 15381, the Department has authority over activities in streams and/or lakes that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (including vegetation associated with the stream or lake) of a river or stream, or use material from a streambed. For any such activities, the project applicant (or "entity") must provide written notification to the Department pursuant to section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification and other information, the Department determines whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSA) with the applicant is required prior to Conserving California's Wildlife Since 1870 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz • • City of Rolling Hills January 15, 2015 Page 2 of 5 conducting the proposed activities. The Department's issuance of a LSA for a project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by the Department as a Responsible Agency. As a Responsible Agency, the Department may consider the Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report of the local jurisdiction (Lead Agency) for the project. To minimize additional requirements by the Department pursuant to section 1600 et seq. and/or under CEQA, the document should fully identify the potential impacts to the stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the LSA.1 a) The project area supports aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitats; therefore, a preliminary jurisdictional delineation of the streams and their associated riparian habitats should be included in the MND. The delineation should be conducted pursuant to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetland definition adopted by the Department.2 Some wetland and riparian habitats subject to the Department's authority may extend beyond the jurisdictional limits of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Section 404 permit and Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 Certification. b) In project areas which may support ephemeral streams, herbaceous vegetation, woody vegetation, and woodlands also serve to protect the integrity of ephemeral channels and help maintain natural sedimentation processes; therefore, the Department recommends effective setbacks be established to maintain appropriately -sized vegetated buffer areas adjoining ephemeral drainages. c) Project -related changes in drainage patterns, runoff, and sedimentation should be included and evaluated in the environmental document. 3) Wetlands Resources. The Department, as described in Fish & Game Code § 703(a) is guided by the Fish and Game Commission's policies. The Wetlands Resources policy (http://www.fgc.ca.gov/policy/) of the Fish and Game Commission "...seek[s] to provide for the protection, preservation, restoration, enhancement and expansion of wetland habitat in California. Further, it is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission to strongly discourage development in or conversion of wetlands. It opposes, consistent with its legal authority, any development or conversion which would result in a reduction of wetland acreage or wetland habitat values. To that end, the Commission opposes wetland development proposals unless, at a minimum, project mitigation assures there will be "no net loss" of either wetland habitat values or acreage. The Commission strongly prefers mitigation which would achieve expansion of wetland acreage and enhancement of wetland habitat values". a) The Wetlands Resources policy provides a framework for maintaining wetland resources and establishes mitigation guidance. The Department encourages avoidance of wetland resources as a primary mitigation measure and discourages the development or type conversion of wetlands to uplands. The Department encourages activities that would avoid the reduction of wetland acreage, function, or habitat values. Once avoidance and minimization measures have been exhausted, the project must include mitigation A notification package for a LSA may be obtained by accessing the Department's web site at www.wildlife.ca.gov/habcon/1600. 2 Cowardin, Lewis M., et al. 1970. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills January 15, 2015 Page 3 of 5 • measures to assure a "no net loss" of either wetland habitat values, or acreage, for unavoidable impacts to wetland resources. Conversions include, but are not limited to, conversion to subsurface drains, placement of fill or building of structures within the wetland, and channelization or removal of materials from the streambed. All wetlands and watercourses, whether ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial, should be retained and provided with substantial setbacks, which preserve the riparian and aquatic values and functionsfor the benefit to on -site and off -site wildlife populations. The Department recommends mitigation measures to compensate for unavoidable impacts be included in the MND and these measures should compensate for the loss of function and value. 4) Bioloaical Baseline Assessment. To provide a complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, sensitive, regionally and locally unique species, and sensitive habitats, the MND should include the following information: a) a thorough, recent, floristic -based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, following the Department's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (see htta://www. dfa.ca.aov/habcon/plant/): b) floristic, alliance- and/or association -based mapping and vegetation impact assessments conducted at the project site and within the neighboring vicinity. The Manual of California Vegetation, second edition, should also be used to inform this mapping and assessment (Sawyer et al. 20083). Adjoining habitat areas should be included in this assessment where site activities could lead to direct or indirect impacts offsite. Habitat mapping at the alliance level will help establish baseline vegetation conditions; c) a complete, recent, assessment of the biological resources associated with each habitat type on site and within adjacent areas that could also be affected by the project. The Department's California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) in Sacramento should be contacted to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitat. The Department recommends that CNDDB Field Survey Forms be completed and submitted to CNDDB to document survey results. Online forms can be obtained and submitted at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/submitting_data_to_cnddb. asp d) a complete, recent assessment of rare, threatened, and endangered, and other sensitive species on site and within the area of potential effect, including California Species of Special Concern (CSSC) and California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code § 3511). Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition (see CEQA. Guidelines § 15380). Seasonal variations in use of the project area should also be addressed. Focused species -specific surveys, conducted at the 3Sawyer, J. O., Keeler -Wolf, T., and Evens J.M. 2008. A manual of California Vegetation, 2nd ed. ISBN 978-0-943460-49-9. Ms. Yolanta Schwartz • City of Rolling Hills January 15, 2015 Page 4 of 5 appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are required. Acceptable species -specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and, e) a recent, wildlife and rare plant survey. The Department generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one-year period, and assessments for rare plants may be considered valid for a period of up to three years. Some aspects of the proposed project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if build out could occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases. 5. Compensatory Mitigation. The MND should include mitigation measures for adverse project -related impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and habitats. Mitigation measures should emphasize avoidance and reduction of project impacts. For unavoidable impacts, on -site habitat restoration or enhancement should be discussed in detail. If on -site mitigation is not feasible or would not be biologically viable and therefore not adequately mitigate the loss of biological functions and values, off -site mitigation through habitat creation and/or acquisition and preservation in perpetuity should be addressed. 6. Nestina Birds. In order to avoid impacts to nesting birds, the MND should require that clearing of vegetation and construction occur outside of the peak avian breeding season, which generally runs from February 1st through September 1st (as early as January 1 for some raptors). If project construction is necessary during the bird breeding season, a qualified biologist with experience in conducting bird breeding surveys should conduct weekly bird surveys for nesting birds within three days prior to the work in the area, and ensure that no nesting birds in the project area would be impacted by the project. If an active nest is identified, a buffer shall be established between the construction activities and the nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. The buffer should be a minimum width of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors), be delineated by temporary fencing, and remain in effect as long as construction is occurring or until the nest is no longer active. No project construction shall occur within the fenced nest zone until the young have fledged, are no longer being fed by the parents, have left the nest, and will no longer be impacted by the project. Reductions in the nest buffer distance may be appropriate depending on the avian species involved, ambient levels of human activity, screening vegetation, or possibly other factors. 7. Translocation/Salvaae of Plants and Animal Species. Translocation and transplantation is the process of moving an individual from the project site and permanently moving it to a new location. The Department generally does not support the use of, translocation or transplantation as the primary mitigation strategy for unavoidable impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species. Studies have shown that these efforts are experimental and the outcome unreliable. The Department has found that permanent preservation and management of habitat capable of supporting these species is often a more effective long-term strategy for conserving sensitive plants and animals, and their habitats. 8. Moving out of Harm's Way. The proposed project is anticipated to result in clearing of natural habitats that support many species of indigenous wildlife. To avoid direct mortality, the Department recommends a qualified biological monitor approved by the Department be Ms. Yolanta Schwartz • City of Rolling Hills January 15, 2015 Page 5 of 5 on site prior to and during ground and habitat disturbing activities to move out of harm's way special status species or other wildlife of low mobility that would be injured or killed by grubbing or project -related construction activities. It should be noted that the temporary relocation of on -site wildlife does not constitute effective mitigation for the purposes of offsetting project impacts associated with habitat loss. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments. Please contact Ms. Kelly Schmoker, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) at Kelly.Schmoker@wildlife.ca.gov or (949) 581-1015 if you should have any questions and for further coordination on the proposed project. Sincerely, . 9 ce Betty J. Courtney Environmental Program Manager I South Coast Region ec: Ms. Erinn Wilson, CDFW, Los Alamitos Ms. Victoria Chau, CDFW, Los Alamitos Ms. Sarah Rains, CDFW, Ventura Mr. Scott Harris, CDFW, Pasadena Mr. Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento HA I T N 1641 Border Avenue • Torrdnce, CA 90501 T 310,618,2190 888,618:2190 F 310.618,2191 W hamilton-associates. et May 29, 2014 Project No. 13-1672 James and Tom Hynes 18 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Subject: Report of Deep Seepage Pit Percolation Testing, Tentative Parcel Map 72775 Lots 1 & 2, APN 7567-011-020, Tentatively 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California. References: 1. Hamilton & Associates, Inc. (2013), Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geological Investigation Report, Proposed Residential Development, APN 7567-011-020, Tentatively 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California. Gentlemen: Presented herewith is our report of percolation rate testing conducted at the above referenced subject site. This report is submitted as partial fulfillment of the testing requirements per the County of Los Angeles, Department of Health Services for proposed new private septic systems. The Property Owner(s) are James and Tom Hynes, 18 Chuckwagon Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274. LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property is currently understood to be identified as 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California, LA Assessor Map No. 51 Lot 132, and APN No. 7567-011-020. Proposed is the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 72775 Lots 1 & 2 as shown on Plate A-1. The subject site consists of approximately 9.8 combined acres of property and is currently a vacant lot that has not been developed. It is understood that conceptually each of the two (2) Lots will have one residence with five (5) bedrooms, including the Master Suite, and one (1) equivalent bedroom. Attached to this report is the proposed Grading Plan Plate A-1, which depicts the boundaries and percolation testing locations. Proposed residences, associated proposed improvements and floor plans with labeled uses (i.e.. Master Bedroom, Bedroom, etc...) are not known at this time, but are Hamilton th" Associates, Inc. GGeolechnk+al F.r++,36'+eerinr Con,lrucfion, Tesling & Inapection F„ cale'ials, tab ctor anticipated to be centered in the pads and should be placed to achieve acceptable setbacks from the proposed septic system. PROPOSED SEWAGE SYSTEM (OWTS1 The proposed systems are understood to include a MicroSepTec ES-12, or other equivalent Los Angeles County approved tank, distribution box, and flow to one (1) 5- foot diameter seepage pit (present) with one (1) additional approved location for a future seepage pit, if necessary. The seepage pits should have a 5-foot cap below proposed grade and into bedrock, whichever is deeper, and extend to a total depth of 50 feet bgs. Percolation test pits could not be filled to the cap level and are deemed to have absorption rates exceeding 5.12 gallons per square foot of disposal area per 24 hours; therefore the OWTS shall require additional supplemental treatment. The septic tank size is based on the number of bedroom and bedroom equivalents for this project of six (6), however the ES-12 Septic tank is capable of seven (7). SOIL. BEDROCK. AND PERCOLATION TESTING The encountered soils and bedrock at the subject site consist of a fresh to highly weathered shale member of the Monterey Formation. The bedrock is capped with colluvium and intensely weathered bedrock. Bedrock consists of thinly bedded tuffaceous and diatomaceous siltstone and basalt bedrock. Boring logs of the subsurface materials encountered are attached to this report as Boring Logs B-3 through B-6. Borings B-3 and B-6 were down -hole logged by our Certified Engineering Geologist. Four exploratory borings at the proposed seepage pit locations were excavated (2) two feet in diameter and advanced to approximately 60 feet with a bucket auger drill rig on April 23 and April 24, 2014. Holes were left open and monitored for groundwater occurrence until the day of percolation testing on May 5 and May 6, 2014. Groundwater was not encountered nor was free standing water observed during the field excavation and testing duration, therefore groundwater is found to be absent to 10 feet below the bottom of the proposed seepage pits. Hynes Percolation Testing Report 13-1672-1 HAMILTON , Associates May 29, 2014 Page 2 r The presoak was performed on May 5 and May 6, 2014. Prior to filling with water the test holes were observed to be absent of any free-standing water. Borings were backfilled to achieve a 50 feet bgs test and the bottom sealed with cement and bentonite. All four borings were tested to 50 feet bgs. The water introduced into the test holes was provided by a hydrant, 'calibrated' water meter, and attached fire hose utilized by a field representative of Hamilton & Associates. The start time and initial meter reading at the start of the presoak/percolation test for B-3 was 10:52 and 118,318 gallons. The end time and final meter reading for B-3 was 13:10 and 130,818 gallons, respectfully. The start time and initial meter reading at the start of the presoak/percolation test for B-4 was 8:27 and 105,755 gallons. The end time and final meter reading for B-4 was 10:41 and 118,318 gallons, respectfully. The start time and initial meter reading at the start of the presoak/percolation test for B-5 was 13:20 and 130,818 gallons. The end time and final meter reading for B-5 was 15:34 and 143,400 gallons. The start time and initial meter reading at the start of the presoak/percolation test for B-6 was 8:45 and 143,432 gallons. The end time and final meter reading for B-6 was 11:10 and 155,940 gallons. During pre-soak all the test holes could not be filled to the cap depth. Based on geologic observations made during down -hole geologic logging and water level measurements during percolation testing, the zone of influence during the percolation draw down phase most likely ranges between 36 to 50 feet bgs. Twelve Thousand Five Hundred (12,500) gallons of water was metered into each 2-foot diameter test hole at an approximate average rate of 90 gallons per minute. One (1) 5- foot diameter seepage pit would be credited 2.5 times this volume for a total of 31,250 gallons. The tested seepage pit design capacity is then 31,250 gallons / 5 = 6,250 gallons, which is well above the required seepage pit capacity for this project. Therefore, one (1) 5-foot diameter seepage pit is sufficient for present and one (1) 5- foot diameter seepage pit is sufficient for future. CONCLUSION This submittal is intended to represent a complete feasibility report that confirms with applicable provisions of the Los Angeles County Code- Title 28 Plumbing Code and the Hynes Percolation Testing Report 13-1672-1 May 29, 2014 Page 3 HAMILTON & Associates feasibility report requirements of the Department of Public Health- Environmental Health. We thank you for the opportunity of working with you on this project. We look forward to assisting you during site construction. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, HAMILTON & ApPCIATES, INC. Aaron Martinez Project Manager/Field Technician avid T. Hamilton, MS, P President/Geotechnical Engin Distribution: (4) Addressee ,1-c,,v1AE p%e No. 1597 II� /` CEI TIE1ED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST Eirik F. Haenschke, MS, ' ©E% Senior Engineering Geologist Attachments: Plate A-1 Site Percolation Boring Plan Plate A-2 ES-12 Septic Tank Diagram (Page 1 of 2) Plate A-3 ES-12 Septic Tank Diagram (Page 2 of 2) B-3 thru B-6 Boring Logs Meter Calibration Document Hynes Percolation Testing Report 13-1672-1 May 29, 2014 Page 4 HAMILTON & Associates ' • EnviroSepTec -7. ES 12 Tank LOT AftEP.. sc 116,521 SE NET Expansion Pit \ (2-foot diameter boring., •-• V•,1, and planned Moot diameter pit) PROJECT: Hynes Percolation — 23 East Crest Road, Rolling Hills, CA Primary Pit (2-foot diameter boring and planned 6-foot diameter pit) •-•• Hamilton & Associates, Inc. PERCOLATION TEST PLAN HYNES PROPERTY 23 East Crest Road Rolling Hills, CA LEGEND Approximate Location of Percolation Test Pits Conceptual Location of Proposed EnviroSepTec ES-12 Tank, or Equivalent. Reference: Bolton Engineering Corp. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #72775, March 17, 2014 PROJECT NO: 13-1672 APPROX SCALE 1"=50' DATE: May 2014 PLATE A-1 WOVE SOL. MAY BE USED TO HACMFV. ABOVE THE TANK PEA GRAVEL. 0R CRUSHED STONE FORDETAILED SEE STRERIQAEAL NOTES MAC EILLS RETRUCTURAL NOTE: 1. THE DESIGNED TANK BURY DEPTH IS 2' TO 6'. ANY TANK BURIED BEYOND THAT RANGE NEEDS TO BE ANALYZED BY A CML/GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 2. GEOLOGIST OR GEOTECHNICAL ENG. SHOULD DETERMINE IF CORROSIVE RESISTANT ANCHORS AND TZ)<TILE FILTER ARE REQUIRED SEE SHEET IN12-01. \\ \//: /�\/�\�'\\//\\/r� X. X/' \ \/ i\ /\. \i �„% 4. %j +++ +++%%\/ / / + t2" MN ++ \/ + + .,+ + + + + + /i, + + + O - L + + + + + + + + + + + + + + a- + + + + -+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + -+ + + + + + + TANK INSTALLATION LAYOUT (ELEVATION VIEW) NATIVE SOR. LW BE USED TO BACKFILL ABOVE TT# TANK or MOL 2Y-5' 23' 5 MTN. PEA ORAVET. OR CRUSHES STONE WWII.`''� SEE STRUCTURAL NOTES FOR SETARED t REQUIREMENTS. ,, X\/\yNXy ,/\N. . /may/ /\/\ \ /\ / TANK INSTALLATION LAYOUT (TRANSVERSE VIEW) S' A\A /1\e\\ce ++ f/j\�/�\p +�\//\ GEOTEXHLE CLOTH E PFN° MR. SACKFUL. IF REQ. BY GEOTECHt6CAL ENO. GEOTEXDLE CLOG{ TO ENCOMPASS ALL PER GRAVEL SACKFILL IF REQ. SY GEOTECNNICAL ENG. AQX ENGINEERING 1520 BRSOR*IOLLOW. SUITE 45 SANTA ARA. CA 02705 OK. 711 662-0510 FAX. 14 662-0550 *NAYOK IHSERING. C SB cT esxta�rz �.a*.. BfivaM um w N. •a litl AY 11e11*1.M MSS PS IN ES 12 SEPTIC TANK DESIGN INSTALLATION DRAWING NON TRAFFIC PLATE A-2 ALM VP MS FOR INS REM I OPTIONAL:' L (a)0TaL0u0saa• 5• D.C. CS. BOU. REST: 4SOI2 DO. TAP. MS IQB TIP. STEEL SPACKLE W/ INN AM0'RANE LOAD DECO !8 r- STEEL TURNSUCIOR 0I Il. Id.,.., 500 AIL DAM STEEL CLAN W/ MIN. - - 0tt r FOAL 5000 LB. SEED. ',Raptor W/ MOT. N tnwur LOAD 5000 ID VOW DEL SSE LPN PENIS KSI ANL NtONVNE LOAD 5000 L0.2 W/ IOW 14% NO[ k NEL 15^ 0> EABEOENDD ELEVATION NEW SEE ELEV. r SWORN A MNON NOTE GEOLOOST OR GEOTECHNICAL D10000FR SHOULD DEIERWNE 9' CORROSIVE RESISTANT MATERIAL SHOULD 0E USED IN ANY STEEL PARTS EXPOSED W THE SOD. SEE SHEET 012-01. WSW SRL W.T ES MEIN IN DINE m PIA CRUEL 0R C0000 m 01000 INCK:EX.L SEE STRUCTURAL WEE FOR MEW AE@0RDtEH13. �� \`\\% t CONCRETE AKCHKAH �/ t 6EA! OF 21<fi`:21' LQMO m a• 7Y l e—TE 1. THE DESIGNED TANK BURY DEPTH IS 2' TO 6'. ANY TANK BURIED BEYOND THAT RANGE NEEDS TO BE ANALYZED BY A CIVIL/GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 2. GEOLOGIST OR GEOTECHNICAL ENG. SHOULD DETERMINE IF ANCHORS AND TEXTILE FILTER ARE REQUIRED SEE SHEET tN12-01. TANK INSTALLATION LAYOUT (ELEVATION VIEW) PTA GUMS OR CRUSHED STONE BACKFAL SEE STRUCTURAL NOTES FOR DEEMED RE0U0EMEM5. FOR TANKS IN NON -TRAFFIC RATED DLSTALLATO. RAIWC SM. MAY BE USED 70 BALYOTU. ABOVE THE TANK 7YP. STEEP. STRAP W/ SHTICK CHAN TENSILE Sia0ENGTH OP LEN. 5.000 LBS. TOTAL 2 ON EACH SIDE Of TAW(. CONCRETE ANCHOR BEAM OFYYI 00 21' LONG. TOTAL 2 ANCHOR DETAIL I ` `` ` ( 3 TANK INSTALLATION LAYOUT ( TRANSVERSE VIEW ) SEED. STRAP ANACNEDOM STEEL PM PLACID 0.00- THE RIBS W/ UNSEXSTSD1 M OF WE $.000 LES HLN. OCTAL 2 PER •SOC 2Y 5`004. 10' \?'/�Y/\Y/�Y�j\Y tENANNANEENEE,Y�� • • pv 0E01T%I0.5 CLOTS m ENCOMPASS ALL PEA COR.% 0001nt.ir REO. GY CEOIECIWK/L. ENO. b NOTE: GEOLOGIST OR fit -.'. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 4 ( I SHOULD DETERMINE IF ICORROSIVE RESISTANT 'TI MATERIAL SHOULD BE USED IN ANY STEEL PARTS EXPOSED IN THE SOIL SEE SHEET IN12-01. TIE STRAP 0YER RIB W/(5 STARLESS STEEL SPIEE'T META. SCREW, HEX HEAD. SELF -DRUM PONT.. 05' EG. ate .C. (DO NOT PENETRATE TANK DORY) y��`417 r44," •.`w, GEOTEXIRE CLOTH TO ENC04PASS ALL PEA GRAVEL BACKFRH. TIP. '• 2' M0L COVER NOTE: GEOLOGIST OR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHOULD DETERMINE IF CORROSIVE RESISTANT MATERIAL SHOULD BE USED IN ANY STEEL PARTS EXPOSED IN THE SOIL. SEE SHEET IN12-01.- I 0 0. 0 E` 2 U15 L @MicroSetilk SFa0KrN EncAREAL AQX ENGINEERING INC. T520 BR00KNOLLOW, SURE 5S SANTA AAA, eh 02705 OAF. 714) 852-05T0 TAX 14 E92-0539 WWW O% EERNC.COM S ern). Yea Yea. at avre tmaeumwsix .moans awe R Aar AN as esat 4m A.7amlot Nato EA No ces<wr nc slcxroaca,wra E S 1 2 SEPTIC TANK DESIGN INSTALLATION DRAWING NON TRAFFIC W ANCHORS s.Lerxtvau PLATE A-3 SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 3 Description Colluvium: (0-4') Clayey Silt, rootlets, scattered rock fragments, dry 5 — Bedrock: (4-60') Siltstone, slightly moist to moist 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Color Consistency Dark Brown Firm to Stiff Bluish Gray Hard Brown (16-20') sandy siltstone Brown Gray (20-30') siltstone (30-35') Basalt, caliche present (35-60') siltstone End of Boring @ 60', No Groundwater Brown Orange Gray Brown Orange Orange Brown Orange Brown Gray Percolation Testing Report Project No. 13-1672-1 APN 7567-011-020, 23 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, California Plate B-1 Hamilton & Associates, Inc. U- a) a 5 10 15 SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 4 Description Colluvium: (0-3') Clayey Silt, rootlets, scattered rock fragments, dry Color Consistency Dark Brown Firm to Stiff ' Bedrock: (3-50')Thinly bedded siltstone Bluish Gray Hard @ 6.6' N75W, 12°SW Brown (12-15') siltstone,contorted Brown @ 12' N7OW, 9°SW (15-34') thinly bedded siltstone 20 _ @ 19' N7OW, 12°SW (21') approximately 4" thick dolomitic layer 25 _ @ 24' EW 12°S 30 35 40 45 50 @ 29' N6OW, 15°SW Bluish Gray Brown (34-44') Basalt, intermixing with the upper siltstone Orange Brown (36-37') many caliche viens mixing with basalt (39-41') many caliche veins mixing with basalt (41-43') basalt contains many caliche pods, irregular zone, highly weathered zone I (44-50') thinly bedded siltstone @ 46' N7OW, 8°SW @ 48' N65W, 12°SW End of Boring @ 50', No Groundwater Percolation Testing Report APN 7567-011-020, 23 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, California Orange Brown Gray Project No. 13-1672-1 Plate B-2 Hamilton & Associates, Inc. 5 — 10 15 — 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 5 Description Colluvium: (0-2') Clayey Silt, rootlets, scattered rock fragments, dry Bedrock: (2-50') Siltstone, slightly moist to moist (9-10') dolomite present (10-15') siltstone (24-36') Basalt (27-29') caliche present (35-60') siltstone End of Boring @ 50', No Groundwater Color Consistency Dark Brown Firm to Stiff Bluish Gray Brown Grayish Tan Bluish Gray Brown Brown Gray Dark Orange Brown Bluish Gray Brown Orange Brown Gray Hard Percolation Testing Report Project No. 13-1672-1 APN 7567-011-020, 23 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, California Plate B-3 Hamilton & Associates, Inc. 5 SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 6 Description Color Consistency Colluvium: (0-14") Clayey Silt, rootlets, rock fragments, dry Dark Brown Firm to Stiff Bedrock: (14"-5.8') Thinly bedded siltstone Bluish Gray Hard Brown (5.8-9.8') moderately bedded and intact @9.8, clean @ 6' N6OW, 6°SW 10 _ (9.8-11.2') top of dolomite, N5OW, 14°SW @ 9.8' (11.2-25') thinly bedded siltstone 15 20 25 30 35 @ 15' N6OW, 10°SW @ 20.2' N65W, 8°SW Grayish Tan Bluish Tan Bluish Gray Brown (25-38') Basalt, massive, below 32' very weathered Dark Brown (32-34') basalt contains pods and discontinuous Gray Orange lenses, weathered tuff and bentonitic tuff, zone dips Brown S. 20°, 34-36.6 caliche veins, very weathered (36.6-37.1') contorted zone of weathered basalt and tuff, dipping S. 5 to 10°, 40 — (38-51') siltstone, thin bedded with sandstone,beds. Bluish Gray @ 40' N85W, 10°SW Brown 45 — @ 44' EW12°S Light Brown @ 46' N8OW, 10°SW Dark Tan (46-49') dolomitic siltstone 50 _ @ 49' N7OW, 9°SW, (49-51')thinly bedded siltstone Light Brown @ 52' N7OW, 10°SW, (51-54') sandy siltstone Gray Brown _ (54-60') thinly layered siltstone with hard dolomitic Dark Gray @ 55' EW 10°S, End of Boring @ 60', No Groundwater to Brown Percolation Testing Report Project No. 13-1672-1 APN 7567-011-020, 23 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, California Plate B-4 Hamilton & Associates, Inc. 957 W. D Street a Ontario CA. 91762 909.996.7909 www.a qua tekservices. com CA Lid! 9712G4 Meter Accuracy Certificate Customer: HAMILTON & ASSOC. Location MCS SHOP Meter Size Type Multi -Jet Register Gallons GPM Flow Rate Test Qty 99.20 100.000 7.89 100.000 2.20 100.000 w 11-3 Remarks: Test Only Start Reading 10940.000 11109.000 11343.500 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% -___ �. 0.00%----_._._..-.-.._ -1.00% - -2.00% -3.00% -4.00% -5.00% 99.20 Gallons End Reading 11040.600 11210.000 11443.000 Totalizer Reading 114 x100 USG Meter Error Net percent 100.500 0.50% 101.000 1.00% 99.500 -0.50% 7.89 Flow Rate Approved By: ' S/N - 06-015292 Date 11/12/2012 Job No. 117 RGA No, Tested By DB 1554-13 Meter Accuracy Accuracy Limits percent percent 100.500% 98.5-101.5 101.000% 98.5-101.5 99.500% 95.0-101.0 0.33% 2.20 Pass or Fail Status