2022-04-11_CC_AgendaPacket1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4.PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
4.A.CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION
RECOMMENDATION:
A. PRESENTATION OF NEW MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO-TEM
B. PRESENTATION TO MAYOR DIERINGER IN RECOGNITION OF HER
SERVICE DURING HER 2021-2022 TERM AS MAYOR
C. COMMENTS FROM OUTGOING MAYOR
4.B.PRESENTATION FROM REPUBLIC SERVICES ON CUSTOMER SERVICE.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File.
5.APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
This is the appropriate time for the Mayor or Councilmembers to approve the agenda as is or reorder.
6.BLUE FOLDER ITEMS (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Blue folder (supplemental) items are additional back up materials to administrative reports, changes to the posted
agenda packet, and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and
file.
6.A.FOR BLUE FOLDER DOCUMENTS APPROVED AT THE CITY COUNCIL
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
AGENDA
Regular City Council Meeting
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 11, 2022
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
7:00 PM
The meeting agenda is available on the City’s website. The City Council meeting will be live-streamed on the
City’s website. Both the agenda and the live-streamed video can be found here:
https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php
Members of the public may submit written comments in real-time by emailing the City Clerk’s office at
cityclerk@cityofrh.net. Your comments will become part of the official meeting record. You must provide your
full name, but please do not provide any other personal information that you do not want to be published.
Recordings to City Council meetings can be found here:
https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php.
Next Resolution No. 1294 Next Ordinance No. 376
1
MEETING
RECOMMENDATION: Approved
7.PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding the items not listed on this agenda.
Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda.
8.CONSENT CALENDAR
Business items, except those formally noticed for public hearing, or those pulled for discussion are assigned to the
Consent Calendar. The Mayor or any Councilmember may request that any Consent Calendar item(s) be removed,
discussed, and acted upon separately. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be taken up under the "Excluded
Consent Calendar" section below. Those items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved in one motion. The
Mayor will call on anyone wishing to address the City Council on any Consent Calendar item on the agenda, which has
not been pulled by Councilmembers for discussion.
8.A.APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2022
RECOMMENDATION: Approve.
8.B.APPROVE MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER
READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS LISTED ON THE
AGENDA
RECOMMENDATION: Approve.
8.C.APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: MARCH 28, 2022
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
8.D.PAYMENT OF BILLS
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
8.E.REPUBLIC SERVICES RECYCLING TONNAGE REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 2022
AND FORCE MAJEURE NOTIFICATION RELATED TO UNAVAILABILITY OF
CVT FACILITY DUE TO FIRE.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
8.F.APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH THE PALOS
VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY TO PROVIDE ONE-YEAR FIRE
FUEL MAINTENANCE SERVICE FOR PHASE 4 AREA.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
8.G.APPROVE FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH HQE SYSTEMS INC. COVERING SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES FOR A
CL_AGN_220411_CC_BlueFolderItem_8C_Supplemental.pdf
CL_AGN_220411_CC_BlueFolderItem_11A_Supplemental.pdf
CL_AGN_220411_CC_AffidavitofPosting.pdf
CL_MIN_220328_CC_F_A.pdf
CL_AGN_220411_PaymentOfBills.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_UnforseenCircumstances_CVTFire.pdf
0222 - Rolling Hills YTD Tonnage Report.pdf
CL_AGN_220411_CC_PVPLC_PSA_4thAmendment.pdf
CL_AGN_220411_CC_PVPLC_ReducingFuelLoadProject_Phase4.pdf
2
NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $3500.00.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
9.EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
10.COMMISSION ITEMS
10.A.ZONING CASE 21-29: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A NEW 934-SQUARE-FOOT STABLE
AND EXISTING 3,500-SQUARE-FOOT CORRAL TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE
REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND EXCEED THE LOT COVERAGE FOR
A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 29 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 174-C-2-MS),
ROLLING HILLS, CA (PERRIN).
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file
Resolution No. 2022-03 and Zoning Case No. 21-29 for a new stable and
planter walls at an existing corral located at 29 Crest Road West.
11.PUBLIC HEARINGS
11.A.CONTINUATION OF APPEAL OF COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS'
DECISION ON VIEW PRESERVATION COMPLAINT - 61 EASTFIELD DRIVE
(JUGE - COMPLAINANT) AND 59 EASTFIELD DRIVE (TAMAYO/SIERRA -
VEGETATION OWNER)
RECOMMENDATION: Consider the appeal and provide direction to staff.
12.OLD BUSINESS
13.NEW BUSINESS
13.A.CONSIDER REQUEST FROM THE ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION NEEDS OF SENIORS COMMITTEE TO IMPROVE CITY HALL
CAMPUS AND APPROVE SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
14.MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
CL_AGN_220411_CC_PSA_HQE_Amendment01.pdf
01 Development Table (ZC 21-29).pdf
02 Project Plans 29 Crest Road West (ZC 21-29).pdf
03 PC Minutes and Riding Ring Easement 1973.pdf
04 Vicinity Map - 29 Crest Road West (ZC 21-29).pdf
2022-03_PC_Resolution_CUP_29CrestRdW_E.pdf
City Council Staff Report - Field Trip 040722.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_StaffReport_TVCMeeting_11.30.21.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_ArboristReport_59-61EastfieldDr.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_ResolutionNo2021-21-CTV.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_13A_Association.Withdrawal.Complaint.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_RequestForAppeal.01.27.22_PhotosRemoved.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_13A_2007 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER INSPECTION REPORT.pdf
CL_AGN_220411_BlueFolderItem_11A_Pictures.04.11.22.pdf
2022-03-15LtrNeedsOfSeniorCommittee.pdf
3
14.A.UPDATE ON ROLLING HILLS TENNIS COURTS IMPROVEMENTS TO ADD
PICKLEBALL COURTS. (PIEPER)
R E C O M M E N D AT I O N : Receive a presentation from Councilmember Jeff
Pieper and provide direction to staff.
14.B.DISCUSS HOLDING AN ANNUAL STATE OF THE CITY EVENT. (MIRSCH)
RECOMMENDATION: Consider and provide direction to staff.
15.MATTERS FROM STAFF
16.RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
16.A.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(d)(2)
RECOMMENDATION: A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the
City Council on the advice of its legal counsel, there is a significant exposure
to litigation against the City.
Number of Potential Cases : 1
Letter from Californians for Homeownership dated March 3, 2022
16.B.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54957.6 CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: CITY
MANAGER UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEE: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
CANDIDATE
RECOMMENDATION: None.
16.C.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54957.6 Â CITY'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: MAYOR BEA DIERINGER
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEE: CITY MANAGER ELAINE JENG
RECOMMENDATION: None.
17.RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
18.ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Monday, April 25, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber,
Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, 90274.
Notice:
Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item.
Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in
the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in
this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the
meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for
your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting.
4
Agenda Item No.: 4.A
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION
DATE:April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
5
Agenda Item No.: 4.B
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:PRESENTATION FROM REPUBLIC SERVICES ON CUSTOMER
SERVICE.
DATE:April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
At the March 28, 2022 City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Black voiced concerns about
Republic Services customer service including their lack of understanding or knowledge as to
what is included in the current contract.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
6
Agenda Item No.: 6.A
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:FOR BLUE FOLDER DOCUMENTS APPROVED AT THE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
DATE:April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approved.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220411_CC_BlueFolderItem_8C_Supplemental.pdf
CL_AGN_220411_CC_BlueFolderItem_11A_Supplemental.pdf
7
BLUE FOLDER ITEM (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Blue folder (supplemental) items are additional back up materials to administrative reports, changes to the posted agenda packet,
and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
April 11, 2022
8.C APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: MARCH 28, 2022
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK/EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY
MANAGER
CL_MIN_220328_CC_F_A.pdf
8
BLUE FOLDER ITEM (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Blue folder (supplemental) items are additional back up materials to administrative reports, changes to the posted agenda packet,
and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
April 11, 2022
11.A CONTINUATION OF APPEAL OF COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS' DECISION
ON VIEW PRESERVATION COMPLAINT - 61 EASTFIELD DRIVE (JUGE -
COMPLAINANT) AND 59 EASTFIELD DRIVE (TAMAYO/SIERRA - VEGETATION
OWNER)
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK/EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY
MANAGER
CL_AGN_220411_BlueFolderItem_11A_Pictures.04.11.22.pdf
9
Agenda Item No.: 8.A
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2022
DATE:April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220411_CC_AffidavitofPosting.pdf
10
Administrative Report
8.A., File # 1121 Meeting Date: 04/11/2022
To: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
From: Christian Horvath, City Clerk
TITLE
APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2022
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In compliance with the Brown Act, the following materials have been posted at the locations below.
Legislative Body City Council
Posting Type Regular Meeting Agenda
Posting Location 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274
City Hall Window
Meeting Date & Time April 11, 2022 7:00pm Open Session
As City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills, I declare under penalty of perjury, the document noted above was
posted at the date displayed below.
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
Date: April 7, 2022
11
Agenda Item No.: 8.B
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:APPROVE MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER
READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS LISTED ON THE
AGENDA
DATE:April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
ATTACHMENTS:
12
Agenda Item No.: 8.C
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: MARCH 28,
2022
DATE:April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_MIN_220328_CC_F_A.pdf
13
MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, March 28, 2022
Page 1
Minutes
Rolling Hills City Council
Monday, March 28, 2022
Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills met in person on the above date at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Bea Dieringer
presiding.
2. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson, Mayor Pro Tem Black, Mayor Dieringer
Councilmembers Absent: None
Staff Present: Elaine Jeng, City Manager
Jane Abzug, City Attorney
John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director
Christian Horvath, City Clerk / Executive Assistant to the City Manager
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Dieringer
4. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS – NONE
5. APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Black, seconded by Councilmember Wilson to approve order of the agenda.
Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6. BLUE FOLDER ITEMS (SUPPLEMENTAL)
City Clerk Horvath provided explanations for what was included in the Blue Folders and what if any
differentiation existed between files already in the agenda packet.
Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to receive and file supplemental
Items for 8.C, 8.D, 11.B, 11.C, 12.A, 13.A, and 13.B. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: Black
ABSENT: None
7. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS – NONE
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
8.A. APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH
28, 2022
14
MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, March 28, 2022
Page 2
8.B. APPROVE MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER READING OF ALL
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS LISTED ON THE AGENDA
8.C. APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: MARCH 14, 2022
8.D. PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER MIRSCH FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION
8.E. RECEIVE AND FILE THE ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AND
HOUSING ELEMENT
8.F. CONSIDER AND APPROVE THE PLANNED EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
SAFE CLEAN WATER MUNICIPAL PROGRAM FUNDS FOR SUBMISSION TO LOS ANGELES
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
8.G. RECEIVE AND FILE THE INITIAL JURISDICTION COMPLIANCE REPORT TO BE SUBMITTED
TO CALRECYCLE BY APRIL 1, 2022
8.H. RECEIVE AND FILE A REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR THE SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE
FROM CALOES
8.I. RECEIVE AND FILE A LETTER FROM THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD REGARDING THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT GROUP'S TIME SCHEDULE ORDER FOR MACHADO LAKE
Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Black to approve Consent Calendar
excluding Item 8D. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
9. EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
8.D. PAYMENT OF BILLS
Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to receive and file. Motion carried
unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
10. COMMISSION ITEMS – NONE
11. NEW BUSINESS
11.A. RECEIVE AND FILE A VERBAL REPORT FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE
DEPARTMENT ON FIRE FUEL ABAT EMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Presentation by Battalion Chief Matt Briones , Los Angeles County Fire Department
No action taken.
15
MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, March 28, 2022
Page 3
11.B. PROPOSAL FROM PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY FOR A FOURTH
PHASE OF FUEL ABATEMENT IN THE NATURE PRESERVE CLOSEST TO THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS
Presentation by Cris Sarabia, Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Black to put together a Phase 4 contract
amendment for an amount not to exceed $32,400 by excluding proposed specific southernmost sections of
Acacia removal near Burma Road/Ichibod Trail. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
11.C. REVIEW SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE FEE INCREASE FOR FY 2022-2023 AND
CONSIDER SETTING PROPOSITION 218 REQUIRED PROTEST HEARING DATE
Presentation by Elaine Jeng, City Manager
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Black, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to have the city absorb the increased
fees for FY22/23. Motion carried with the following vote:
AYES: Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: Mirsch, Wilson
ABSENT: None
12. OLD BUSINESS
12.A. RECEIVE ADDITIONAL INFOR MATION ON HQE SYSTEMS' PROPOSED OUTDOOR SIREN
SYSTEM AND DIRECT STAFF TO CONDUCT A COMMUNITY SURVEY FOR FEEDBACK ON AN
OUTDOOR SIREN SYSTEM
Presentation by Elaine Jeng, City Manager
Public Comment: Arlene Honbo, Alfred Visco
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Black to not proceed any further. Motion failed for lack of a second.
Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to go forward with HQE Systems
allocating a budget not to exceed $3,500 to further investigate potential co-location sites for poles. Motion
carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Dieringer requested to skip Item 12B to allow presenters and pub lic commenters on other items an
opportunity to participate earlier in the evening. Without objection, so ordered.
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS
16
MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, March 28, 2022
Page 4
13.A. APPEAL OF COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS' DECISION ON VIEW PRESERVATION
COMPLAINT - 61 EASTFIELD DRIVE (JUGE - COMPLAINANT) AND 59 EASTFIELD DRIVE
(TAMAYO/SIERRA - VEGETATION OWNER)
Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director
Public Comment: Edgar Coronado, Joseph Juge
Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to continue public hearing to an
adjourned regular meeting field trip on April 7, 2022 at 7:00 a.m. and then the April 11th Regular City Council
meeting. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
13.B. CONSIDER AND APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1291 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING THE SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE AND A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE SAFETY ELEMENT
Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director
Lexi Journey & Camila Bobroff of Rincon Consultants
Victoria Boyd & Meghan Gibson of Chambers Group
Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to Approve Resolution No. 1291
adopting the Safety Element update and a negative declaration for the Safety Element . Motion carried
unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Dieringer returned to Item 12B. Without objection, so ordered.
12.B. APPROVE PRIORITIES/GOALS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2022-2023 AND 2023-2024 DEVELOPED
AS A PART OF THE 2022 STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP; DISCUSS POTENTIAL
BUDGET ITEMS TO SUPPORT THE 2022 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES; AND PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO STAFF
Presentation by Elaine Jeng, City Manager
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Black, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to approve the FY 22/23 and FY 23/24
priorities and goals. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to receive and file potential budget
item and increase Wildfire Mitigation/Emergency Preparedness suggested budget allocation by an additional
$200,000.00. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
17
MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, March 28, 2022
Page 5
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
14. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
Councilmember Mirsch announced that there would be a special Fire Fuel Committee meeting on March
30th in addition to the regularly scheduled meeting on April 20th.
Mayor Pro Tem Black made further comments about Republic Services customer service issues, as well as
noting the cellular service and internet service
15. MATTERS FROM STAFF – NONE
16. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
16.A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6
CITY'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: MAYOR BEA DIERINGER
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEE: CITY MANAGER ELAINE JENG
Mayor Dieringer recessed the City Council to Closed Session at 9:55 p.m.
17. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
The City Council reconvened to Open Session at 11:02 p.m. and there was no reportable action.
18. ADJOURNMENT : 11:02 P.M.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m on March 28, 2022. The next regular meeting of the City Council
is scheduled to be held on Monday, April 11, 2022 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at
City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. It will also be available via City’s website link at:
https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php
All written comments submitted are included in the record and available for public review on the City website.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
Approved,
____________________________________
James Black, M.D., Mayor
18
Agenda Item No.: 8.D
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:PAYMENT OF BILLS
DATE:April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220411_PaymentOfBills.pdf
19
20
Agenda Item No.: 8.E
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:REPUBLIC SERVICES RECYCLING TONNAGE REPORT FOR
FEBRUARY 2022 AND FORCE MAJEURE NOTIFICATION RELATED
TO UNAVAILABILITY OF CVT FACILITY DUE TO FIRE.
DATE:April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
Accompanying this month's tonnage report is a letter from Republic services regarding a fire
at their CVT facility in Anaheim which processes residential recyclables and organic materials.
The City's collected materials are being diverted to other facilities on a temporary basis while
the CVT facility is unavailable.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220328_UnforseenCircumstances_CVTFire.pdf
0222 - Rolling Hills YTD Tonnage Report.pdf
21
22
23
Year 2022
Franchise Y/N Y
Month Commodity Tons Collected Tons Recovered Tons Disposed Diversion %
Jan Greenwaste 98.26 98.26 - 100.00%
Trash 156.54 - 156.54 0.00%
Jan Total 254.80 98.26 156.54 38.56%
Feb Greenwaste 93.00 93.00 - 100.00%
Trash 134.41 - 134.41 0.00%
Feb Total 227.41 93.00 134.41 40.90%
Grand Total 482.21 191.26 290.95 39.66%
191.26
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL FRANCHISE
2022
Contract Requires 30% Household -
Page 1 of 2
24
Agenda Item No.: 8.F
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND
AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT
AMENDMENT WITH THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND
CONSERVANCY TO PROVIDE ONE-YEAR FIRE FUEL MAINTENANCE
SERVICE FOR PHASE 4 AREA.
DATE:April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On March 28, 2022, the City Council voted unanimously to direct staff to prepare an
amendment with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy for one year maintenance of
the Phase 4 area for a not to exceed amount of $32,400.00 by excluding proposed specific
southernmost sections of Acacia removal near Burma Road/Ichibod Trail.
DISCUSSION:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
Phase 4 will cost $32,400.00
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220411_CC_PVPLC_PSA_4thAmendment.pdf
CL_AGN_220411_CC_PVPLC_ReducingFuelLoadProject_Phase4.pdf
25
Fire Fuel Abatement
Fourth Amendment to Agreement
- 1 -
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT
THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT is
made and entered into as of April 11, 2022 by and between the CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, a
municipal corporation ("City") and the PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND
CONSERVANCY, a California public benefit corporation ("Conservancy").
R E C I T A L S
A. City and Conservancy entered into an Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement dated
October 21, 2019 whereby Conservancy is obligated to remove the fire fuel on the land under
the City’s control as a fire hazard abatement measure for the direct benefit of Rolling Hills
residents (the “Agreement”).
B. In 2020, the City paid Conversancy the fixed sum of $34,200 for services rendered
under the Agreement.
C. City and Conservancy entered into a First Amendment to Agreement for Fire Fuel
Abatement dated June 8, 2020 to expand the scope of work and increase the cost to include
additional areas of work and work days for acacia and non-native shrub/tree removal and
mustard mowing services (the “First Amendment”).
D. In 2020, the City paid Conversancy the fixed sum of $50,000 for services rendered
under the First Amendment. In 2020, the City also paid Conservancy $12,000 for annual mowing
services. The total amount the City paid to the Conservancy in 2020, for all services was $96,200.
E. City and Conservancy entered into a Second Amendment to Agreement for Fire
Fuel Abatement dated July 13, 2021 to expand the scope of work and add funds for the expanded
scope of work (the “Second Amendment”). In 2021, the City paid Conservancy the fixed sum of
$119,800.
F. On February 28, 2022, City and Conservancy entered into a Third Amendment to
26
Fire Fuel Abatement
Fourth Amendment to Agreement
- 2 -
Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement to expand the scope of work for phase III maintenance in
2022 and add funds for the expanded scope of work (the “Third Amendment”).
G. City and Conservancy now desire to enter into this Fourth Amendment to the
Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement to expand the scope of work for phase IV work and add
funds for the expanded scope of work (the “Fourth Amendment”).
H. Conservancy has represented to City that it has the expertise, experience, and
qualifications to perform or cause the performance of the services.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and
agreements set forth below, City and Conservancy agree as follows:
1. City and Conservancy agree to amend and supplement the Scope of Services attached to
the Agreement as Exhibit A, the Scope of Services (Supplemental) attached to the Second
Amendment as Exhibit A, and the Scope of Services (Second Supplemental) attached to the
Third Amendment as Exhibit A with the Scope of Services (Third Supplemental) attached to this
Fourth Amendment as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
2. Section 2 “Compensation” of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
A. In 2021, City shall pay Conservancy the fixed sum of $87,000 for the services
described in Exhibit A (Supplemental), and $32,800 for mowing services ($12,000 for annual
mowing services and $20,800 for follow up mustard mowing services), for a total amount not to
exceed $119,800, and representing the total compensation for all work, labor, equipment,
materials and expenses incurred by Conservancy in 2021. Conservancy shall submit an invoice
to City upon completion of the services and the City will make payment within 10 days of the
close of the month in which work was performed.
B. In 2022, City shall pay Conservancy for the services described in Exhibit A (Second
Supplemental) and Exhibit A (Third Supplemental) $72,600for mowing services ($37,800 for
annual mowing services and $34,800 for follow up mustard mowing services) and $13,200 for
acacia cutting and chipping for a total amount not to exceed $85,800, representing the total
compensation for all work, labor, equipment, materials and expenses incurred by Conservancy
in 2022. Conservancy shall submit an invoice to City upon completion of the services and the
City will make payment within 10 days of the close of the month in which work was performed.
C. In 2023, City shall pay Conservancy $20,800 for follow up mustard mowing
services.
D. Prevailing Wage. Conservancy or its contractor shall abide be the minimum prevailing
rate of wages as determined by the State of California, Department of Industrial Relations for
each craft, classification, or type of workman employed to carry out provisions of the
Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, Conservancy shall keep on file sufficient
27
Fire Fuel Abatement
Fourth Amendment to Agreement
- 3 -
evidence of its employee compensation to enable verification of compliance of Prevailing Wages
as established by State of California, Department of Industrial Relations.
3. All terms and conditions of the Agreement not amended by the First Amendment, Second
Amendment, Third Amendment, and this Fourth Amendment remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto for themselves, their heirs, executors,
administrators, successors, and assigns do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants
herein contained and have caused this Third Amendment to be executed by setting hereunto
their names, titles, hands, and seals this 11th day of April 2022.
CONSERVANCY: ______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
(Title)
CITY:______________________________________________________________________
Elaine Jeng, City Manager of the City of Rolling Hills
Attested:_____________________________________________________________________
Christian Horvath, City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills
Date: _________________
28
Fire Fuel Abatement
Fourth Amendment to Agreement
- 4 -
EXHIBIT A
(THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL)
29
1
Proposal to the City of Rolling Hills
Fuel Load Reduction in 2022(Phase 4)
Submitted by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (Conservancy) is continues to be intimately
aware of the fire concerns on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and continues to discuss measures
to reduce fire risk with the four peninsula cities. Conservancy staff members work with City of
Rolling Hills staff to implement fuel modification work as required by County Department of
Agriculture Weights and Measures as part of landowner responsibilities for fuel modification
near adjacent homes as well as measures above and beyond. Additionally, the Conservancy
clears over 90 acres of weeds in restoration sites within the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve and
clears 30+ miles of trails annually. This weeding approach is very specialized and must be
accomplished while complying with the NCCP/HCP implementation guidelines and respecting
the natural resources on the preserve. We understand that the city desires to continue to
prioritize efforts to reduce fuel load in Preserve areas, and the Conservancy understands that
vegetation exists beyond current fuel mod zones that pose fire threats. Therefore, the
Conservancy is offering technical expertise to aid the City and augment city staff in the effort
to continue reduce fuel load vegetation by targeting the removal of invasive plants such as
Acacia and Mustard and other non-native plants, which in turn improves habitat for local
wildlife, including the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher, the cactus wren, a
state species of concern and the federally endangered Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly.
This proposal outlines the potential areas for this extra 2022 work. The areas identified in
Portuguese Bend Reserve include the areas abutting and leading into Rolling Hills in Portuguese
Canyon, Ishibashi Canyon and Paintbrush Canyon. In total, an approximate 7 acres are
proposed for fuel load reduction in the Preserve. This work can be completed in less
than 4 weeks by simultaneously removing Acacia and mowing dry brush in order to
complete this work in a timely manner during fire season. For these additional
efforts, the Conservancy requests a one-time grant from the city up to $39,000 for
the proposed work outlined herein. The Conservancy understands the city’s timing
considerations and would be prepared to begin the work as soon as funding is made available.
The Conservancy has identified the priority removal of tall Acacia shrubs due to their combustible
nature (Acacia shrub contain an estimated 90% dry plant matter and volatile resins) and their
prevalence throughout the Preserve and border areas. The locations for the proposed Acacia
removal were chosen due to prior fires occurring in those areas, proximity to homes and risk to
the community as well as the ecological benefits of invasive plant removal. Fire agencies agree
that Acacia is a highly flammable plant and that it should be removed wherever possible. It was
included as a high-hazard plant in the L.A. County Fire Department’s recently published “Ready!
Set! Go!” pamphlet. This proposal also includes the removal of other non-native shrubs and trees
30
2
like Chinese Pistache, Myoporum and Ash trees. Mustard when dry, continues to be a high fire
risk species. The continued expansion of mowing areas is also included in this proposal.
The Conservancy, as Habitat Managers for the Preserve, has qualified experts on staff with the
experience required to oversee the work to be performed and will assure the correct and safe
removal of the invasive plants using the best techniques at the most efficient cost. The results of
this work will be shared with the City provided at the conclusion of the work performed.
Where possible and with simpler tasks, volunteers will be deployed to augment the work volume
and control costs. In ongoing maintenance activities, the Conservancy will create internship and
volunteer opportunities for invasive plant management to keep the Acacia from re-invading the
areas and to assist in monitoring activities. In this way, additional valuable learning opportunities
will be made available to local youth.
As projects are completed and conditions are assessed, restoration in these locations may be
appropriate and funding may be pursued, since this proposal does not include replanting in the
Acacia removal sites.
Acacia Removal
Approximately 1.5 acres
These Acacia removal sites are situated in the northern portion of Portuguese Bend Reserve along
the border with the city of Rolling Hills. A fire occurred at this location in 2009 burning
approximately 230 acres. Much of the vegetation was burned, including the non-native Acacia,
which has since begun to grow back from stump sprouting and seed germination.
It is recommended that crews enter the area on foot as possible and remove shrubs with
chainsaws and lighter equipment. Trees should be chipped in designated areas and treated to
prevent regrowth. The site will be monitored for seed germination and removal.
The Acacia throughout this area totals approximately 1.5 acres. This site is known habitat of
the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and the cactus wren, a state species of
concern as well as other species of concern.
Mowing Area
Approximately 5.5 acres
There is a large stand of invasive mustard in west of Paintbrush Canyon that is dry and can be
mowed. This site is adjacent to historical farmland and were disked in subsequent years, so
the loose soils have provided a disturbance regime which is particularly favorable to mustard
and non-native grasses and weeds. Approximately 5.5 acres of mustard is at this location.
Slopes are very steep and high quality coastal sage scrub habitat is scattered throughout the
slope. Careful consideration to not damage native plants and close oversight will be needed.
In response to community concern about the vast expanse of dry mustard growth at
Portuguese Bend Reserve, the Conservancy will oversee mowing in this area and conduct
bird nesting surveys.
31
10
Acacia Removal Site in Red Polygon, Mowing Sites in Blue
Acacia Removal Site in Red Polygon
32
11
Budget
The budget reflects a typical detailed tree and shrub removal project within the preserve with
minimal disturbance to native habitat and to the surrounding vegetation, following NCCP/HCP
protocols. Careful non-native tree removals proposed in this project, increase the habitat value
for the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and cactus wren, a state species of
concern, as well as other native species while providing public benefit. These costs reflect the
estimated time it would take the contractors to complete the project using hand tools and
machinery to either chip tree material or haul plant material offsite and oversight and bird
monitoring by Conservancy biologists to assure that best management practices are
implemented (ie. minimization and avoidance measures such as nesting bird surveys are required
by the NCCP/HCP).
These costs are based on best estimates provided by contractors for the Acacia removal and for
mowing as two separate projects. For maximum benefit for fuel load reduction and habitat,
both projects are recommended to be completed concurrently.
Project Acres Budget
Acacia Cutting and Chipping ~1.5 $13,200
Mowing of mustard ~5.5 $25,800
One-time Project Total ~7.5 $39,000
33
12
Other Project Considerations
This project is a worthwhile investment into the long-term benefit of the communities adjacent
to the open space and wildlife within. While more costly per acre to implement new, labor-
intensive work than annual fuel modification weed whacking efforts, removing Acacia and other
non-native trees is a positive, visible impact to the landscape and a one-time project cost to the
City in these target areas. This is unlike areas of mustard which, while needed to reduce fire
threat, require annual treatment and ongoing maintenance costs. To help ensure that this
investment is successful, the Conservancy recommends annual monitoring of areas to prevent
regrowth. This project strategy is supported by the Fire Department, which has identified Acacia
removal as a priority effort to reduce fire fuel load in the Preserve. This project is also
responding to the nearby community requests to respond to nuisance Acacia and mustard near
homes on the Preserve border.
Community Partnerships
As part of the Conservancy’s collaborative approach, we partner with various organizations to
complete projects and provide various benefits to the community. If the timing and logistics are
appropriate, we would work with some of our partner organizations to add to the costs savings.
We work with the Los Angeles Zoo and Botanical Gardens which accept fresh Acacia greenery
for the enhancement of their animal’s physical and mental health. We will save many of the
straight long branches from the Acacia tree for delineation of trails and to provide ground snags
for lizards and insects. We also have a partnership with the local schools that offer
woodworking classes for instructional teaching. Lastly, if the material does not contain seeds,
we will use the chipped wood as a mulch in fuel modification zones to keep weeds down into
the future.
The Conservancy will also engage the local colleges with applicable internships which allow
students to gain a better understanding of the natural world, resource management and gain
experience to prepare to enter the workforce. Thousands of hours of intern assistance with
projects have been logged and counting. By engaging these students who span from across
the globe, we are creating a lasting experience and leaving a lasting impression of the great
natural habitat that exists on the peninsula.
Currently the Conservancy is hosting an Americorp team and if schedule permits, the team
will assist with this project.
Potential for Restoration and Supplemental Work
As these projects are completed, the cleared land can provide opportunity for habitat restoration
and enhancement. A species that is potentially applicable to many of the local habitat types of
Palos Verdes, is our local cactus. While no plant is fireproof, there are certain characteristics
which make some plants more resistive to fire, such as cactus. Where applicable cactus can be
34
13
planted and maintained until establishment, if supplemental funding is available. Mature cactus
holds a mutual relationship with the cactus wren, a state species of concern, since the cacti
needles protect young nestlings from predators, providing the best habitat.
To make a larger impact, the Conservancy typically plants mature cactus that is appropriate for
immediate nesting, giving us more value per dollar spent. The approximate cost for planting and
maintaining a 1 acre cactus restoration project over a 5 year span is approximately $30,000, and
the Conservancy would be pleased to provide a restoration plan for lands along the Rolling
Hills border of the Preserve for the benefit of community and wildlife.
35
Agenda Item No.: 8.G
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:
APPROVE FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH HQE SYSTEMS INC. COVERING SUPPLEMENTAL
SERVICES FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $3500.00.
DATE:April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On March 14, 2022, the City Council unanimously voted to direct staff to go forward with HQE
Systems allocating a budget not to exceed $3,500 to further investigate potential co-location
sites for poles.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Fiscal impact will not exceed $3500.00.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220411_CC_PSA_HQE_Amendment01.pdf
36
65277.00001\34989395.2
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
(“First Amendment”) is made and entered into this 11th day of April, 2022, by and between the
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, a California municipal corporation (hereinafter the “CITY”), and
HQE Systems, Inc., a California corporation with its principal office at 42075 Remington
Avenue, Suite #109, Temecula, California 92590 (hereinafter the “CONSULTANT”). CITY and
CONSULTANT are sometimes referred to in this First Amendment individually as a “Party” and
collectively as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. CITY and CONSULTANT have entered into that certain Professional Services
Agreement for Emergency Communications System services last executed on August 26,
2021 (the “Agreement”).
B. CONSULTANT rendered services under the Agreement, and the CITY paid
$3,280.00 for such services.
C. The Parties now desire to amend the Agreement in order to extend the term,
provide for additional services to be rendered by CONSULTANT, and provide for additional
compensation to CONSULTANT (“First Amendment”).
Now, therefore, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein
contained, CITY and CONSULTANT agree the following terms, as set forth in this First
Amendment.
1. Section 2 “Scope of Work” of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
CONSULTANT shall provide the services described in the Scope of Services attached
to the Agreement as Exhibit A and incorporated therein by reference. CONSULTANT
shall also provide the following supplemental services (“Supplemental Services”):
Execute Task 2.1 of the Project Scope set by the City and all of the specified
essential tasks outlined by the City as the sub-tasks. Create the tentative plan of
action based on information captured from the City.
The term of the Agreement shall be from August 26, 2021 to August 26, 2023 unless
terminated sooner pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. Such term may be
extended upon written agreement of both CITY and CONSULTANT.
2. Section 3 “Cost” of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
The CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT for the Scope of Services attached to the
Agreement as Exhibit A and incorporated therein by reference, a fixed fee of Three
37
65277.00001\34989395.2
Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Dollars ($3,280). The CITY agrees to pay
CONSULTANT for the Supplemental Services, a fixed fee of Three Thousand Five
Hundred Dollars ($3,500). These amounts include the cost for the services and all
expenses, travel and mileage, attendance at meetings, and reimbursable expenses.
3. Section 4 “Method of Payment” of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
Upon full execution of the Agreement and this First Amendment, CONSULTANT shall
submit an invoice in duplicate and addressed to the CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CITY
MANAGER, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274. CITY shall remit
payment for the Services within fourteen (14 days) of receiving the invoices.
4. Except as amended by this First Amendment, all provisions of the Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the
date and year first written above.
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS HQE SYSTEMS, INC.
__________________________ __________________________
ELAINE JENG, City Manager HENRY HERNANDEZ, Chief Operating Officer
ATTEST:
__________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
MICHAEL JENKINS
CITY ATTORNEY
38
Agenda Item No.: 10.A
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:ZONING CASE 21-29: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A NEW 934-SQUARE-
FOOT STABLE AND EXISTING 3,500-SQUARE-FOOT CORRAL TO BE
LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND
EXCEED THE LOT COVERAGE FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 29
CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 174-C-2-MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA
(PERRIN).
DATE:April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On March 15, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing field trip at 29 Crest
Road West to become familiar with the proposal for a new stable and garden walls at an
existing corral. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the evening meeting
in which it voted unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 2022-03 approving the project with
conditions.
Zoning, Location, and Lot Description
The property located at 29 Crest Road West is zoned RAS-2 and has a net lot area of 59,850
square feet (1.37 acres). The lot is developed with a 5,413-square-foot single family residence
and a 1,125-square-foot garage. The project site slopes downward from the residence to the
rear of the lot. There is a 14-foot grade difference from the residence and pool area to the
proposed stable and corral. The existing residence, garage and pool are located on the first
pad (34,000 square feet) which is the upper portion of the lot located closest to Crest Road
West; the second pad (13,600 square feet) contains a tennis court; the third pad (9,200
square feet) is located in the rear of the property and is currently developed with two
freestanding 12-foot-high wooden chicken coops and a 3,500-square-foot white corral.
DISCUSSION:
Applicant Request
39
The applicant is proposing to build a new 934-square-foot stable and maintain the existing
3,500-square-foot corral fence in the rear portion of the lot. Two new planter walls with a
maximum height of four feet are proposed to be installed between the existing tennis court and
the stable; this involves 8 cubic yards (cy) of grading (4 cy of cut and 4 cy of fill). In addition,
the two existing chicken coops will be demolished. The stable will include 934 square feet of
new flatwork. The new stable would allow the applicant to keep two horses on-site and would
allow direct access to John’s Canyon Trail and a bridle trail which are located adjacent to the
rear and side yard of the project site. No additional landscaping is proposed adjacent to the
existing corral.
In the 1960’s, the project site was vacant and was part of a larger subdivision that was
developed with a community riding ring for use by residents of the City. In 1973, the property
owner sought approval of a new home, tennis court, and a stable to be located in the front
yard. The request for the stable was rejected by the Planning Commission due to concerns
about lot coverage and the proposed location of the stable in the front; however, the property
owner agreed to grant an easement to maintain the rear portion of the lot as a horseback
riding ring for the community (See attached Planning Commission Minutes dated May 1,
1973). The current property owner/applicant has obtained a quit claim for the community riding
ring easement.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
As per Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.80.050, a Conditional Use Permit is required
for a stable greater than 200 square feet and a corral that is greater than 550 square feet in
size. The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed 934-
square-foot stable and existing 3,500-square-foot corral. The corral was constructed in the
1970s and was used as a community riding ring. The easement for the riding ring has been
removed; however, the corral is still intact. The new stable and corral will be situated
approximately 8-feet below the existing tennis court on gradually sloping area in the rear
portion of the property.
Variances for reduced setbacks and exceedance of lot coverage
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance for a new 934-square-foot stable and an
existing 3,500-square-foot corral that will encroach into the required side and rear yard
setbacks and exceed the maximum 35% lot coverage.
Variance request to allow a new stable to encroach into the required setbacks:
The RAS-2 Zoning district requires a stable to maintain a minimum 35-foot side yard setback
and a 50-foot rear yard setback from other structures. The proposed stable would be setback
32 feet from the east side yard and 30 feet from the west side yard; this would result in an
encroachment of 3 feet and a 5 feet, respectively. The stable would be setback 85 feet from
the eastern rear property line and 80 feet from the western rear property line; this exceeds the
minimum required 50-foot rear yard setback. The setbacks for the proposed stable are shown
in the Table 1 below.
Table 1. Setbacks for the New Stable
40
Setbacks for Stable
RMHC Section 17.18.060.A.2
Required Required Meets Code Requirements
East interior side yard 35’32’
No. A Variance is required for a 3’
encroachment into the required
35’ interior side yard setback
West interior side yard 35’30’
No. A Variance is required for a 5’
encroachment into the required
35’ interior side yard setback
Rear yard 50’
85’ on the east
80’ on the west
Yes. The stable exceeds the
minimum required rear yard
setback
Setback from the off-site structures
on adjacent properties 35’80’ to 140’
Yes. The stable exceeds the
required 35’ setback from
neighboring structures.
Variance request to allow an existing corral to encroach into the required setbacks:
The RAS-2 Zoning district requires a corral to maintain a minimum 25-foot side yard setback
and a 25-foot rear yard setback. The existing corral was a constructed in the 1970s and was
used as a community riding ring; the easement for the riding ring has been removed, however
the corral is still intact. The corral has an existing setback of 6 feet from the east side yard and
12.5 feet from the west side yard; this results in an encroachment of 19 feet and 12.5 feet into
the required 25-foot side yard setbacks, respectively. The corral has an existing setback of 20
feet from the east rear yard and 10 feet from the west rear yard; this would result in an
encroachment of 5 feet and 15 feet into the 25-foot required rear yard setback, respectively.
The setbacks for the proposed stable are shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Setbacks for the Existing Corral
Setbacks for Corral
RHMC Section 17.18.090.3
Required Proposed Meets Code Requirements
East interior side yard 25’6’
No. A Variance is required for a 19’
encroachment into the required 25’
interior side yard setback
West interior side yard 25’12’-6”
No. A Variance is required for a
12’-6’’ encroachment into the
required 25’’ interior side yard
setback
Rear yard 25’
20’ on the east
10’ on the west
No. A Variance is required for a 5’
and 15’ encroachment into the
required 25’ rear yard setback
Setback from a residential structure 35’57’
Yes. The stable exceeds the
required 35’ yard setback from the
on-site structure.
Setback from residential structures
on adjacent properties 35’Approx. 50’ to 100’
Yes. The stable exceeds the
required 35’ setback from
neighboring structures.
41
Variance request to allow a new stable to exceed the maximum lot coverage.
The minimum lot size for property within the RAS-2 zone is 87,120 square feet. The project
site is 59,850 square feet (1.37 acres) in area which is 27,270 square feet smaller than the
minimum lot size for the RAS-2 zoning district. However, since the property was legally
subdivided the lot size is considered legal nonconforming. The lot consists of an unusual lot
configuration; it is wider in the front and narrows in width as it slopes downward toward the
rear of the site.
The proposed structural coverage on the lot is 17,108 square feet (29%) which exceeds the
lot coverage limitations (20% maximum permitted); the proposed 934-square-foot stable
further increases the existing 38% lot coverage by 2%. The proposed total coverage for
structures and flatwork will be 23,933 square feet or 40% which also exceeds the lot coverage
limitation of 35% maximum. Therefore, a Variance is required to allow the increase in
structural and lot coverage for the proposed stable.
Upon subdivision, this property was burdened with an easement in favor of the adjacent
property for a community riding ring. The current property owners were successful in removing
the easement; however, the existence of the easement impacted the nature of the
development of the project. Additionally, the property occupies the northeast corner of the
intersection John’s Canyon and Crest Road West. The property was originally developed with
a driveway off John’s Canyon. To facilitate mail delivery to the corresponding Crest Road East
street address, the driveway was relocated from John’s Canyon to provide access from Crest
Road East. As a result, a large circular motor court was constructed on Crest Road East
which accounts for the majority of the excess lot coverage.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
Area of Disturbance for the Stable and Corral
The project site has been previously disturbed due to development of two freestanding 12-foot
tall wood chicken coops and the existing 3,500-square-foot corral which was formerly used as
a riding ring. The two chicken coops would be demolished and replaced by a new 934-square-
foot stable and the existing corral will remain intact. The new 934-square-foot stable will
occupy 2% of the lot; the area of disturbance will increase from 38% to 40%.
Access to Stable
The stable and corral will be accessed via a 6-foot-wide service driveway that on the eastern
property line consisting of decomposed granite.
Height of stable and corral fencing
The ridgeline of the new stable would be 14’-6” in height. The existing 3,500-square-foot corral
consists of a white three-rail fence. The new stable and the existing corral would be situated
approximately 8 feet below the existing tennis court on a gradually sloping area in the rear
portion of the property.
Lot Coverage
The proposed structural coverage on the lot will be 17,108 square feet, or 29% of the lot,
42
which exceeds the lot coverage limitations of 20% maximum. The proposed 934-square-foot
stable increases the lot coverage by 2%. The proposed total coverage including structures and
flatwork will be 23,933 square feet or 40% of the lot area which also exceeds the lot coverage
limitation of 35% maximum. Therefore, a Variance is required to allow the minor increase in lot
coverage.
Lot Disturbance
The disturbed area may be up to 60% of the net lot area provided that at no point the slopes
resulting from grading are greater (steeper) than 3:1, or three units horizontal (run) to one unit
vertical (rise). The proposed project does not include grading as the corral area has been
disturbed and has a slope of less than 3:1. Construction of the stable will not increase lot
disturbance.
Environmental Review
The proposed project has been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment
and is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 (New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts
accessory structures including stables, corrals, and fences.
Public Participation
A resident inquired about the number of horses that will be permitted to occupy the stable;
however, the Municipal Code does not regulate the number of horses. According to the
applicant, there will be no more than two horses in the stable. Secondly, there was a comment
about adding more landscaping along the rear property line where the corral is located; there
is some vegetation along the rear property line but no additional landscaping is proposed as
part of the project.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of Conditional Use Permit.
The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit
application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is
consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the
provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find
that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards:
1. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan;
2. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures
have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially
detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures;
3. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to
accommodate the use and buildings proposed;
4. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of
the zone district;
5. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous
waste facilities;
6. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title.
43
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
17.38.050 Required Variance findings .
In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following
findings:
1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone;
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is
denied the property in question;
3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
4. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
5. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
6. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous
Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities; and
7. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 2022-03 and Zoning
Case No. 21-29 for a new stable and planter walls at an existing corral located at 29 Crest
Road West.
ATTACHMENTS:
01 Development Table (ZC 21-29).pdf
02 Project Plans 29 Crest Road West (ZC 21-29).pdf
03 PC Minutes and Riding Ring Easement 1973.pdf
04 Vicinity Map - 29 Crest Road West (ZC 21-29).pdf
2022-03_PC_Resolution_CUP_29CrestRdW_E.pdf
44
Development Table Zoning Case No. 21-29
(29 CREST ROAD WEST)
Site Plan Review, Conditional Use
Permit and Variance
EXISTING
PAD 1
EXISTING
PAD 2
PROPOSED
PAD 3
TOTAL
RAS - 2 Zone Setbacks
Front: 50 ft. from front easement line
Side: 35 ft. from side property line
Rear: 50 ft. from rear easement line
Single family
residence,
garage, spa,
equipment,
entryways (SF)
Recreation
court (SF)
New Stable
and corral
(SF)
Net Lot Area (59,850 s.f.) 37,050 13,600 9,200 59,850
Residence 5,413 5,413
Garage 1,125 1,125
Swimming Pool/Spa 720 720
Pool Equipment 40 40
Guest House
Stable (min. 450 SF) 934 934
Corral (existing; min. 550 SF) 3,500 3,500
Recreation Court 7,200
Entryway, Breezeway
Sheds, Trellises, Gazebo
Raised Deck
Barbecue, Outdoor Kitchen
Water Features, Etc.
Service Yard 100 100
Total Structure Area 8,974 7,200 934 17,108
Structural Coverage (20% maximum) 15.0% 12.0% 2% 29%
Grading (balanced on site) 4 cy cut
and 4 cy fill
for planter
walls
8 cy
Total Flatwork 6,825 6,825
Total Structural and Flatwork 15,799 7,200 934 23,933
Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) 26% 12.0 % 2% 40%
Grading (balanced on site)
Building Pad Coverage
(Policy: 30% maximum)
24% 52% 10%
Disturbed Area (40% maximum; up to
60% with slopes less than 3:1)
No Change No Change No Change No Change
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
City of Rolling Hills 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
TITLE VICINITY MAP CASE NO. Zoning Case No. 21-29
Site Plan Review
OWNER Perrin
ADDRESS
29 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills 90274
SITE
1,000’
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
Agenda Item No.: 11.A
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CONTINUATION OF APPEAL OF COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS'
DECISION ON VIEW PRESERVATION COMPLAINT - 61 EASTFIELD
DRIVE (JUGE - COMPLAINANT) AND 59 EASTFIELD DRIVE
(TAMAYO/SIERRA - VEGETATION OWNER)
DATE:April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On March 28, 2022, the City Council opened the public hearing, took public testimony,
discussed the item, and continued it to April 7, 2022, at 7 a.m. to a field trip at the subject
properties. On April 7, 2022, the City Council conducted the field trip at the subject properties
to better understand the view impairment complaint. The City Council visited the property
located at 61 Eastfield Drive (Juge, Complainant) to observe the alleged view impairment from
the viewing point caused by vegetation located at 59 Eastfield Drive (Sierra and Tamayo,
Vegetation Owners). The City Council also visited 59 Eastfield Drive to better understand the
location and type of the vegetation. The City Council continued the public hearing to April 11,
2022.
History
On September 4, 2019, the City received a View Preservation Application from Mr. Joseph
Juge at 61 Eastfield Drive (Complainant) regarding vegetation located on Mr. Julio Sierra and
Dr. Beatriz Tamayo's property at 59 Eastfield Drive (Vegetation Owners). The application was
found to be insufficient because the parties had not gone through initial reconciliation and
mediation as described in Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) Section 17.26.040.
On October 28, 2020, Mr. Juge filed another application requesting review by the Committee
on Trees and Views (CTV). The application included correspondences showing initial
reconciliation and meditation were attempted, which continued until October 9, 2020, when the
Vegetation owners asked about the responsibility for the mediator's fee. Records show that
the Complainant never responded to the question, thus ending all communication between the
two parties. Complainant claimed that he met the requirements of the Municipal Code because
the mediation phase exceeded the 60-day period. Per the Municipal Code, the Complainant
may proceed to an advisory hearing before the CTV if the Vegetation Owners fail to respond
69
within 60 days. In this case, the Vegetation Owners responded to the request for mediation,
however, the Complainant stopped communicating. Based on this action, the mediation phase
was not completed.
On June 1, 2021, staff informed the CTV on the actions that had taken place. The parties were
advised to continue and complete the mediation phase with the caveat for an end date.
On August 17, 2021, staff reported to the CTV that both parties had not settled on a mediator
and a new deadline was set for October 5, 2021.
On September 1, 2021, the Vegetation Owners emailed the Complainant and copied staff that
they have decided to withdraw their intention to mediate.
On October 5, 2021, November 2, 2021, November 3, 2021 (site visit), November 9, 2021,
and November 16, 2021, the CTV held meetings to discuss the application. Ultimately, it was
decided that an arborist be selected to provide an evaluation of the vegetation.
On November 17, 2021, the Complainant sent the City a list of four arborists. The City
contacted all four, but only one responded, Mr. Gregory MacDonald. Mr. MacDonald was
ultimately retained after both parties agreed to his services.
On November 30, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., the arborist conducted a site inspection at both
properties and prepared a written report for tree maintenance and restoration that was
presented to the CTV at its evening meeting on November 30, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. At the
evening meeting, the CTV adopted Resolution No. 2021-21-CTV advising on the view
preservation dispute. The Committee made several recommendations for restorative actions
and preventative measures, which are described in Resolution No. 2021-21-CTV.
On January 27, 2022, the City received an appeal of Resolution No. 2021-21-CTV from the
Vegetation Owners' attorney, Mr. Edgar Coronado.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of the field trip was to familiarize the Councilmembers on the properties and the
view preservation being sought. A viewing point needs to be established and a determination
needs to be made on if there is a view impairment. Per Section 17.26.020 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, the following terms are defined as follows:
"View impairment" means any obstruction of a pre-existing view by vegetation on
another property within the City that significantly diminishes that pre-existing view.
"Pre-existing view" means the view that existed at any time since the complainant's
property was most recently purchased for fair market value through an arm's length
purchase or sale, as evidenced by a deed. The pre-existing view cannot be the result of
a natural disaster or illegal activities.
"View" means a visually impressive scene or vista, such as the Pacific Ocean, off-shore
islands, mountains, lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills and canyons,
the Los Angeles Harbor and/or Long Beach Harbor, and similar, as observed from a
viewing point. A view may include structures or vegetation in the foreground or
background of the view seeker's property. A "view" may be observed from one or more
viewing point, and may be panoramic.
"Viewing point" means any view from the primary living area or active use area of a
70
primary residence, excluding views from minor rooms, such as garages or closets, and
also includes views from accessory buildings or structures, including pool decks and
gazebos, but excluding animal pens, aviaries, corrals, greenhouses, porte cocheres,
riding rings, run-in sheds, sheds, stable/barns, free-standing storage rooms, and tack
rooms.
Pursuant to RHMC Section 17.25.040.D, if either party is not satisfied by the
recommendations of the CTV, said party may request a public hearing before the City Council
to review the decision of the CTV. The City Council shall be guided by the evaluation criteria
set forth in Section 17.26.050, and the heirarchy of restorative actions set forth in Section
17.26.060.
17.26.050 - Considerations for applying the view preservation ordinance.
A. The following nonexclusive factors, for which the parties can prove by a preponderance of
the evidence, are to be considered in determining whether a pre-existing view has been
obstructed:
1. The viewing point(s) from which the view is observed;
2. The extent of the view obstruction, both currently and at the maximum height the
tree/vegetation is likely to reach (as described by the most current edition of the New
Sunset Western Garden Book);
3. The quality of the view, including the existence of landmarks, vistas, or other unique view
features;
4. The extent to which trees and/or vegetation have grown to obscure the enjoyment of the
view from the claimant's property since the claimant acquired his/her property;
5. The extent to which the vegetation on the property preserves privacy (visual and
auditory), wind screening, energy conservation, and/or climate control;
6. The extent to which the vegetation owner can establish the earliest known date when the
complained of vegetation was planted or existed on the vegetation owner's real property;
and
7. The degree to which the complainant diligently tried to protect and maintain their view
through informal agreements with the vegetation owner or prior vegetation owner(s) and
to initiate initial discussions with the current vegetation owner; and the degree to which
the current vegetation owner has reasonably participated in initial discussions.
B. The following applicable, nonexclusive factors, for which the parties can prove by a
preponderance of the evidence, may be considered in determining the appropriate restorative
action, if any is necessary:
1. The variety of tree, its projected rate of growth (as described by the most current edition
of the New Sunset Western Garden Book) and maintenance requirements;
2. The aesthetic quality of the tree(s), including but not limited to species characteristics,
size, growth, form and vigor;
3. Location with respect to overall appearance, design or use of the tree on the vegetation
owner's property, including, but not limited to blending, buffering, or reduction in the
scale or mass of a structure;
4. Soil stability provided by the tree(s), considering soil structure, degree of slope and
extent of the tree's root system;
5. The extent to which the vegetation owner can establish the earliest known date when the
complained of vegetation was planted or existed on the vegetation owner's real property;
6. Privacy (visual and auditory) and wind screening provided by the tree(s) to the tree
71
owner and to neighbors;
7. Energy conservation, shade and/or climate control provided by the trees;
8. Wildlife habitat provided by the trees.
17.26.060 - Restorative action.
A. Restorative actions may include, but are not limited to, the following, in order of preference,
assuming no countervailing health or safety interest(s) exist:
1. Lacing. Lacing is the most preferable pruning technique that removes excess foliage and
can improve the structure of the tree.
2. Crown Raising.
3. Crown Reduction. Crown reduction is preferable to tree removal, if it is determined that
the impact of crown reduction does not destroy the visual proportions of the tree,
adversely affect the tree's growth pattern or health, or otherwise constitute a detriment to
the tree(s) in question.
4. Heading Back. Heading back is only to be permitted for trees specifically planted and
maintained as a hedge, espalier, bonsai, or in pollard form and if restoration actions in
subsections (A) through (C) of this section will not accomplish the determined
preservation action and the subsequent growth characteristics will not create a future
obstruction of greater proportions.
5. Topping. Topping is only to be permitted for trees/vegetation species for which it is
appropriate.
6. Removal. Removal may be considered when the above-mentioned restoration actions
are judged to be ineffective and may be accompanied by replacement plantings or
appropriate plant materials to restore the maximum benefits lost due to vegetation
removal.
B. Restorative action shall include written conditions (including ongoing maintenance),
directions, and a schedule by which the mandates must be completed, and may be made to
run with the land and apply to successors in interest. The complainant may bear the cost of
the initial restorative action, unless the parties agree to share the costs in some other manner.
Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question may be performed at the cost and
expense of the owner of the property on which the vegetation is growing, unless otherwise
agreed to by the parties or required pursuant to any final arbitration agreement or court order.
The vegetation shall be maintained so as not to allow for future view impairments.
C. In cases where restorative action may affect the health of a tree, such actions should be
carried out in accordance with standards established by the International Society of
Arboriculture for use in the State of California. Severe pruning (heading back and/or topping)
should be avoided due to the damage such practice causes to the vegetation's form and
health. Where removal is required, replacement by appropriate species should be considered.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider the appeal and provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
City Council Staff Report - Field Trip 040722.pdf
72
CL_AGN_220328_StaffReport_TVCMeeting_11.30.21.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_ArboristReport_59-61EastfieldDr.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_ResolutionNo2021-21-CTV.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_13A_Association.Withdrawal.Complaint.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_RequestForAppeal.01.27.22_PhotosRemoved.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_13A_2007 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER INSPECTION REPORT.pdf
CL_AGN_220411_BlueFolderItem_11A_Pictures.04.11.22.pdf
73
Agenda Item No.: 4.A
Mtg. Date: 04/07/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:FIELD TRIP ON APPEAL OF COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS'
DECISION ON VIEW PRESERVATION COMPLAINT - 61 EASTFIELD
DRIVE (JUGE - COMPLAINANT) AND 59 EASTFIELD DRIVE
(TAMAYO/SIERRA - VEGETATION OWNER)
DATE:April 07, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On March 14, 2022, the City Council opened the public hearing, took public testimony, and
continued the item to a field trip at the properties on April 7, 2022, at 7:00 a.m.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of the field trip is so the Councilmembers can become familiar with the properties
and the view preservation being sought. A viewing point needs to be established and a
determination needs to be made on if there is a view impairment. Per Section 17.26.020 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the following terms are defined as follows:
"View" means a visually impressive scene or vista, such as the Pacific Ocean, off-shore
islands, mountains, lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills and canyons,
the Los Angeles Harbor and/or Long Beach Harbor, and similar, as observed from a
viewing point. A view may include structures or vegetation in the foreground or
background of the view seeker's property. A "view" may be observed from one or more
viewing point, and may be panoramic.
"View impairment" means any obstruction of a pre-existing view by vegetation on
another property within the City that significantly diminishes that pre-existing view.
"Viewing point" means any view from the primary living area or active use area of a
primary residence, excluding views from minor rooms, such as garages or closets, and
also includes views from accessory buildings or structures, including pool decks and
gazebos, but excluding animal pens, aviaries, corrals, greenhouses, porte cocheres,
riding rings, run-in sheds, sheds, stable/barns, free-standing storage rooms, and tack
rooms.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
174
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a field trip at the properties involved and continue the public hearing to the regularly
scheduled City Council meeting on April 11, 2022.
ATTACHMENTS:
Photos from Mr. Juge residence 10.5.21 - CC Attachment.pdf
Photo Key - CC Attachment.pdf
Juge _ Tamayo.Sierra View Case Agenda Packet 10.05.21 CTV Meeting - pgs 174-191 - CC
Attachment.pdf
Juge _ Tamayo.Sierra View Case Agenda Packet 10.05.21 CTV Meeting - pgs 63-66 - CC
Attachment.pdf
275
The photos taken by Staff from Mr. Joe Juge’s residence located at 61 Eastfield Drive on 10.05.21
The photos were taken by Staff from Mr. Juge’s residence (61 Eastfield Drive) at the Field
Trip Meeting on October 5, 2021.
376
The photos taken by Staff from Mr. Joe Juge’s residence located at 61 Eastfield Drive on 10.05.21
477
The photos taken by Staff from Mr. Joe Juge’s residence located at 61 Eastfield Drive on 10.05.21
578
The photos taken by Staff from Mr. Joe Juge’s residence located at 61 Eastfield Drive on 10.05.21
679
The photos taken by Staff from Mr. Joe Juge’s residence located at 61 Eastfield Drive on 10.05.21
780
The photos taken by Staff from Mr. Joe Juge’s residence located at 61 Eastfield Drive on 10.05.21
881
The photos taken by Staff from Mr. Joe Juge’s residence located at 61 Eastfield Drive on 10.05.21
982
The photos taken by Staff from Mr. Joe Juge’s residence located at 61 Eastfield Drive on 10.05.21
1083
1184
281741285
291751386
301761487
311771588
321781689
331791790
341801891
351811992
361822093
371832194
381842295
391852396
401862497
411872598
421882699
4318927100
4419028101
4519129102
63 30103
64 31104
65 32105
66 33106
Agenda Item No.: 6.A
Mtg. Date: 11/30/2021
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:STEPHANIE GRANT ,
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:VIEW PRESERVATION COMPLAINT - 61 EASTFIELD DRIVE (JUGE -
COMPLAINANT) AND 59 EASTFIELD DRIVE (TAMAYO/SIERRA -
VEGETATION OWNER)
DATE:November 30, 2021
BACKGROUND:
At the Committee on Trees and Views teleconference meeting on November 16, 2021, The Committee
continued the meeting until November 30, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. This would give the City more time to
select an arborist that was affordable for the Complainant, meet the City's requirements and
certifications, and Vegetation Owners' approval.
On November 17, 2021, Joe Juge (Complainant) sent the City a list of 4 arborists. The City contacted all
four arborists, and only one arborist responded, Mr. Gregory MacDonald.
On November 22, 2021, Gregory MacDonald (Arborist) provided the City with his qualifications and
proposal.
On November 22, 2021, City Staff reviewed Gregory MacDonald's certifications and qualifications.
Staff determined he met all of the City's requirements and certifications.
On November 22, 2021, Joe Juge (Complainant) agreed to the Arborist rate of $120 per hour for
services and 12% required City Administrative fee of the total cost of arborist services.
On November 24, 2021, Dr. Tamayo and Mr. Sierra (Vegetation Owners) reviewed all of the Arborist
information and approved Gregory MacDonald to serve as the arborist. They also agreed to grant the
arborist access to their property, with the request that a 48 notice is provided before he enters onto their
property. The Vegetation Owner's requested the inspection be scheduled on either Tuesdays or
Thursdays. It was also requested that the arborist understand the view preservation standards provided
by the RHMC before any recommendations are made.
On November 24, 2021, Mr. Joe Juge came into the City to pay the arborist fees a total of $480 ($120
per hour) and $57 (12% required City Administrative fee).
1107
On November 29, 2021, the City will enter into a contract agreement with Gregory MacDonald to
provide arborist services. The arborist and Complainant will enter into a contract agreement for services.
On November 30, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., the arborist will conduct site inspections at 61 Eastfield Drive
(Complainant) and 59 Eastfield Drive (Vegetation Owners) and prepare a written report for tree
maintenance and restoration that will be presented at the Committee on Trees and Views evening
meeting on November 30, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. The arborist's recommendations, along with the
Committees' recommendations will be included into the resolution that will be drafted by Staff.
DISCUSSION:
This meeting is a continuation of the Committee on Trees and Views virtual meeting held on November
16, 2021 at 5:30 p.m.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct Staff to prepare a resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
SUPPLEMENTAL_ARBORIST REPORT 59 - 61 Eastfield Dr 11-30-2021.docx
SUPPLEMENTAL_2021-01.CTV_RESOLUTION_61_Eastfield Drive__Juge v. Tamayo-
c1.DOCX
2
[Link to draft resolution removed]
108
ARBORIST REPORT for
61 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA - View restoration
On November 30, 2021, I, Gregory MacDonald, Certified Arborist #WE 6469A did a site visit
to assess recommendations for view restoration. There are a number of trees and some shrubs
involved. Starting from the far left of the view issue, there is a Toyon shrub that should be fine
with some reduction trimming up to 25% of foliage. It could possibly be trimmed lower at the
next years trimming if it responds well to the first trim.
Much lower on the slope, there is an apparently fully dead Eucalyptus that should be
removed down to near ground level. It may or may not be a view issue but as a course of
regular maintenance and safety needs to be addressed. The entire root system should probably
be left in place to not disturb the slope.
The large ash tree appears to be 60 + years old and in less than great health. It has dieback
typical of drought stress but should not be adversely affected by the recommended reduction
and lacing. As a deciduous tree, it has systems in place to deal with foliage loss. I would add the
need for crown cleaning to remove all completely dead branches.
The two relatively young Canary Island Pine Trees should do fine with crown reduction
trimming to an appropriate side branch/whorl. I would advise not removing more than 30% of
the foliage at this time. If possible, the side branches should not be cut at this time but could
possible be reduced in following years. This action will completely change the natural form of
these two trees, but if follow-up trimming is done with care, they can be good shade and slope
stabilizing trees.
The Avocado appears to be in decline and needs no trimming.
The large Pepper tree was recommended to be reduced to the roofline of the adjacent
structure. This tree has well developed branching, so this should be fine if reduction cuts are
used and no topping cuts are done. The request to remove the large trunk growing over the
pathway down towards the pool house is not recommended. I feel it would be far better
reduced both vertically at the end as well as laterally. This would reduce the weight out to the
side. The tree has survived being cut significantly at the base (many years ago) and I would not
suggest adding to that by removing a trunk of the tree. I would advise against cuts larger than
4” diameter as Schinus molle are not known to compartmentalize decay very well.
The Loquat tree close to the structure should be fine with crown reduction trimming. It too,
has well developed branching that allows for smaller cuts.
The pomegranate tree will do fine with reduction trimming. As a deciduous tree, it has
systems in place to deal with foliage loss.
3109
The Oleander hedge is suffering from “Oleander Leaf Scorch” also called “Bacterial Leaf Scorch”
(BLS) and there is no known cure. It is possible to prolong the life of these shrubs with
additional watering, and I strongly recommend adding a drip irrigation system. If screening and
sound reduction are the goal, I would suggest interplanting with True Bay, Wax leaf Privet, or
Australian Brush Cherry. They can be planted in between the existing Oleanders and as the
Oleander continue to die, the new shrubs can take over the role of a hedge. The insect that
carries the bacterial disease (Xylella fastidiosa), gets the bacteria by feeding on diseased shrubs
and trees, so removal of these diseased shrubs may be a consideration. Once infected, the
shrubs slowly lose the ability to transport water through their Xylem to other parts of the
shrub. Trimming this hedge at the roof line should be fine.
The Schefflera shrub can be reduced in height one branch at a time with a lower risk of
damage to it.
An inspection and Arborist Report with recommendations do not in any way give or imply any
warrantee against tree or limb failures. Trees and their limbs can and do fail. No inspection can
prevent that, and recommendations given here are simply given as options to consider. Every
tree can react differently to trimming, climate, soil conditions, and watering. Any action taken
are the responsibility of the property owner and the company doing the physical work.
I thank you for the opportunity to be of help with these trees,
Gregory MacDonald
ISA Certified Arborist #We 6469A
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 941-2174
4110
ARBORIST REPORT for
61 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA - View restoration
On November 30, 2021, I, Gregory MacDonald, Certified Arborist #WE 6469A did a site visit
to assess recommendations for view restoration. There are a number of trees and some shrubs
involved. Starting from the far left of the view issue, there is a Toyon shrub that should be fine
with some reduction trimming up to 25% of foliage. It could possibly be trimmed lower at the
next years trimming if it responds well to the first trim.
Much lower on the slope, there is an apparently fully dead Eucalyptus that should be
removed down to near ground level. It may or may not be a view issue but as a course of
regular maintenance and safety needs to be addressed. The entire root system should probably
be left in place to not disturb the slope.
The large ash tree appears to be 60 + years old and in less than great health. It has dieback
typical of drought stress but should not be adversely affected by the recommended reduction
and lacing. As a deciduous tree, it has systems in place to deal with foliage loss. I would add the
need for crown cleaning to remove all completely dead branches.
The two relatively young Canary Island Pine Trees should do fine with crown reduction
trimming to an appropriate side branch/whorl. I would advise not removing more than 30% of
the foliage at this time. If possible, the side branches should not be cut at this time but could
possible be reduced in following years. This action will completely change the natural form of
these two trees, but if follow-up trimming is done with care, they can be good shade and slope
stabilizing trees.
The Avocado appears to be in decline and needs no trimming.
The large Pepper tree was recommended to be reduced to the roofline of the adjacent
structure. This tree has well developed branching, so this should be fine if reduction cuts are
used and no topping cuts are done. The request to remove the large trunk growing over the
pathway down towards the pool house is not recommended. I feel it would be far better
reduced both vertically at the end as well as laterally. This would reduce the weight out to the
side. The tree has survived being cut significantly at the base (many years ago) and I would not
suggest adding to that by removing a trunk of the tree. I would advise against cuts larger than
4” diameter as Schinus molle are not known to compartmentalize decay very well.
The Loquat tree close to the structure should be fine with crown reduction trimming. It too,
has well developed branching that allows for smaller cuts.
The pomegranate tree will do fine with reduction trimming. As a deciduous tree, it has
systems in place to deal with foliage loss.
111
The Oleander hedge is suffering from “Oleander Leaf Scorch” also called “Bacterial Leaf Scorch”
(BLS) and there is no known cure. It is possible to prolong the life of these shrubs with
additional watering, and I strongly recommend adding a drip irrigation system. If screening and
sound reduction are the goal, I would suggest interplanting with True Bay, Wax leaf Privet, or
Australian Brush Cherry. They can be planted in between the existing Oleanders and as the
Oleander continue to die, the new shrubs can take over the role of a hedge. The insect that
carries the bacterial disease (Xylella fastidiosa), gets the bacteria by feeding on diseased shrubs
and trees, so removal of these diseased shrubs may be a consideration. Once infected, the
shrubs slowly lose the ability to transport water through their Xylem to other parts of the
shrub. Trimming this hedge at the roof line should be fine.
The Schefflera shrub can be reduced in height one branch at a time with a lower risk of
damage to it.
An inspection and Arborist Report with recommendations do not in any way give or imply any
warrantee against tree or limb failures. Trees and their limbs can and do fail. No inspection can
prevent that, and recommendations given here are simply given as options to consider. Every
tree can react differently to trimming, climate, soil conditions, and watering. Any action taken
are the responsibility of the property owner and the company doing the physical work.
I thank you for the opportunity to be of help with these trees,
Gregory MacDonald
ISA Certified Arborist #We 6469A
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 941-2174
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
Agenda Item No.: 13.A
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CONSIDER REQUEST FROM THE ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION NEEDS OF SENIORS COMMITTEE TO IMPROVE CITY
HALL CAMPUS AND APPROVE SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS.
DATE:April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On March 15, 2022, staff received a letter from the Rolling Hills Community Association
(RHCA) with a request from the Needs of Senior Committee (NSC) to improve the City Hall
campus. The COVID-19 pandemic changed the practice of using residential homes to hold
social and community events indoor. The NSC noted that there is a need for outdoor
community space to meet in a safe, and well-ventilated environment. The NCS suggested the
following:
Flatten lawn area between City Hall and RHCA to make it more useful for outdoor
seating (tables and chairs or law chairs for movie, music, etc.) But keep this area open
for snow use during children's holiday party.
A gazebo or other structure with a floor and shade for events in the area between the
two buildings where the long "no mow" fescue grass is located.
Remove jasmine and agapanthas from the flower beds around RHCA to create more
usable space.
Improve lighting in City Hall parking lot.
Mark city hall parking with mile fraction markers so people may walk the parking lot
around buildings for exercise.
On Monday, March 21, 2022, staff met with Co-Chair of the NSC and RHCA Manager Kristen
Raig to discuss the suggested improvements.
DISCUSSION:
Staff invited Co-Chair of the NSC and RHCA Manager to the April 11, 2022 City Council
meeting to be a part of the presentation to the City Council. Additionally, staff was provided
with a sketch from a landscape architect showing elements of improvements for the City Hall
campus as reference.
174
The City Council recently engage the services of Evan Smith Landscape Architect (Evan
Smith) to inventory the existing irrigation system at the City Hall campus. On Thursday, March
31, 2022, staff held a kick-off meeting with Evan Smith and discussed potential improvements
suggested by the NSC.
Should the City Council approve the suggested improvements by the NSC, staff will explore
funding opportunities, develop a high level cost estimate for design and construction, and can
incorporate a budget in the FY 22-23 proposed budget for adoption in late May or early June
2022.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 bicycle and pedestrian funds are available to
local agencies in Los Angeles County. These funds may be used for design and construction
of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities (including wheelchair ramps).
TDA Article 3 local returns are allocated to local agencies on a per-capita basis. The City of
Rolling Hills is allocated $5000.00 annually and currently has an accrued balance of
$25,000.00. The 2018 allocation is due to expire on June 30, 2022. Should the City Council
approve the suggested improvements by the NSC, staff can explore the eligibility of the TDA
Article 3 available funding to be applied to the approved scope of improvements.
TDA Article 3 funds may be used for the following activities to pedestrian and bicycle facilities:
Engineering expenses leading to construction.
Right-of-way acquisition.
Construction and reconstruction.
Retrofitting existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including installation of signage, to
comply with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Route improvements such as signal control for cyclists, bicycle loop detectors,
rubberized rail crossings and bicycle-friendly drainage grates.
Purchase and installation of bicycle facilities such as secure bicycle parking, benches,
drinking fountains, changing rooms, rest rooms and showers which are adjacent to
bicycle trails, employment centers, park-and-ride lots, and/or transit terminals and are
accessible to the general-public.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
2022-03-15LtrNeedsOfSeniorCommittee.pdf
175
176
177
Agenda Item No.: 14.A
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:UPDATE ON ROLLING HILLS TENNIS COURTS IMPROVEMENTS TO
ADD PICKLEBALL COURTS. (PIEPER)
DATE:April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
At the March 14, 2022 City Council Meeting, the City Council took no further action until
Councilmember Jeff Pieper reported back on discussions with the Rolling Hills Community
Association.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive a presentation from Councilmember Jeff Pieper and provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
178
Agenda Item No.: 14.B
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:DISCUSS HOLDING AN ANNUAL STATE OF THE CITY EVENT.
(MIRSCH)
DATE:April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
At the February 14, 2022 City Council meeting, Councilmember Leah Mirsch expanded on the
Council's direction for staff to inform the community on the city's accomplishments and
activities in the last two years to support the 2020 strategic plan and inquired if the City
Council would consider holding a State of the City event annually.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider and provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
179
Agenda Item No.: 16.A
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(d)(2)
DATE:April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council on the advice of its legal
counsel, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City.
Number of Potential Cases : 1
Letter from Californians for Homeownership dated March 3, 2022
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
180
Agenda Item No.: 16.B
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6
CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: CITY MANAGER
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEE: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
CANDIDATE
DATE:April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
181
Agenda Item No.: 16.C
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6
CITY'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: MAYOR BEA DIERINGER
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEE: CITY MANAGER ELAINE JENG
DATE:April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None
DISCUSSION:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATION:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
182