2022-07-25_CC_AgendaPacket1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4.PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
4.A.PRESENTATION BY WEST BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
4.B.RECOGNIZE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY JANE ABZUG FOR HER SERVICE TO
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
RECOMMENDATION: Present certificate of recognition.
4.C.PRESENTATION FROM RANCHO PALOS VERDES' PROJECT ON WILDFIRE
CAMERA DETECTION SYSTEM
R ECOM MENDATION : Receive and file a presentation from Rancho Palos
Verdes.
5.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.PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding items not listed on this agenda.
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
AGENDA
Regular City Council Meeting
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, July 25, 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. 1304 Next Ordinance No. 380
Drought Actions.Rolling Hills.7.25.2022.pdf
1
Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda.
7.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.
7.A.APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
MEETING OF JULY 25, 2022
RECOMMENDATION: Approve.
7.B.APPROVE MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER
READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS LISTED ON THE
AGENDA
RECOMMENDATION: Approve.
7.C.APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: JULY 11, 2022
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
7.D.PAYMENT OF BILLS
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
7.E.REPUBLIC SERVICES RECYCLING TONNAGE REPORT FOR MAY 2022.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
7.F.APPROVE REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST FOR COSTS INCURRED BY
WOMEN'S CLUB BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE TO IMPROVE VIEWING SITE
ON CREST ROAD
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
7.G.ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1297 UPDATING THE CONSOLIDATED TAX AND
FEE SCHEDULE REGARDING THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS
PROCESSING FEE FOR VIEW CASES
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
7.H.RECEIVE AND FILE PENDING MONSANTO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
RELATING TO STORMWATER COMPLIANCE
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
8.EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
CL_AGN_220725_CC_AffidavitofPosting.pdf
CL_MIN_220711_CC_F.pdf
CL_AGN_220711_PaymentOfBills.pdf
CL_AGN_220711_PaymentOfBills.pg2.pdf
CL_AGN_0725 - Rolling Hills YTD Tonnage Report.pdf
CL_AGN_220725_CC_WC-Reimbursement_Receipts.pdf
ResolutionNo1297_FeeSchedule_FY22-23_CTV_Update.pdf
Notice of Monsanto Class Action Settlement 2022-07-18.pdf
2
9.COMMISSION ITEMS
9.A.ZONING CASE NO. 21-02: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN
REVIEW TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW
5,215-SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND RELATED
IMPROVEMENTS; AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A FIVE-FOOT-HIGH
RETAINING WALL IN THE SETBACK AREA AND CONDUCT NON-EXEMPT
GRADING ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 FLYING MANE ROAD (LOT 53-
SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (NEVENKA LCC)
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
9.B.ZONING CASE NO. 22-44: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SECOND MAJOR
MODIFICATION TO A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO RELOCATE THE DRIVEWAY
APRON, CONSTRUCT MAXIMUM FIVE-FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALLS, AND
FOR NON-EXEMPT GRADING; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A
750-SQUARE-FOOT STABLE AND CORRAL; AND VARIANCE REQUESTS TO
EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE, CONSTRUCT A STABLE
AND CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD, CONSTRUCT IN THE FRONT SETBACK
AREA, AND FOR RETAINING WALLS THAT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF 3 FEET UP
TO A MAXIMUM OF 5 FEET IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A
PROPERTY Â LOCATED AT 8 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 254-UR),
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (CIMMARUSTI)
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
10.PUBLIC HEARINGS
Vicinity Map - 11 Flying Mane Rd.pdf
Development Table (ZC 21-02)_V3.pdf
2022-07_PC_Resolution_11FlyingManeRoad_ZC 21-02.pdf
Traffic Engineer's Memo - M01 11 Flying Mane.pdf
C-City Grading Plan_C(6.6.22).pdf
11 Flying Mane - RHCA - 22 0527-reduced.pdf
Vicinity Map.pdf
220616_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_Development Table.pdf
EARTH-INFO-6-15-22.pdf
Memo from Traffic Engineer 052022.pdf
220512_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_Driveway Location Pictures.pdf
Resolution No. 2022-08 - 8MiddleridgeLn_S_ZC 22-44-PROPOSED.pdf
Resolution No. 2022-04 - 8 Middleridge Lane South ZC 21-10-CORRECT.pdf
Resolution No. 2021-11 for Time Ext (ZC 956) 8 Middleridge Ln S.pdf
Resolution No. 2019-13 8 Middleridge Lane South.pdf
ARCH-SITE PLAN-6-16-22 11X17.pdf
220615_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_11x17 Site Plan.pdf
220615_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_11x17 Barn Plans.pdf
220615_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_CutFill Plans.pdf
220615_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_Slope Plans.pdf
CL_AGN_220621_PC_BlueFolderItem_10A_ArchSitePlan.pdf
CL_AGN_220621_PC_BlueFolderItem_10A_2022-
08_PC_Resolution_8MiddleridgeLn_S_ZC 22-44.pdf
3
10.A.PUBLIC HEARING FOR INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF
ORDINANCE NO. 377 AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW REGARDING
EMPLOYEE, SUPPORTIVE, AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND FINDING THE
ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public
hearing; and
2. Introduce for first reading by title only Ordinance No. 377 which:
a. Amends various sections of the RHMC to ensure consistency with
State law regarding employee, supportive, and transitional
housing; and
b. Finds that the adoption of the Ordinance is not subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections
15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3).
10.B.PUBLIC HEARING FOR INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF
ORDINANCE NO. 378 AMENDING SECTION 17.19.030 OF THE ROLLING HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open the public hearing, receive public testimony,
close the public hearing; and
2. Introduce for first reading by title only Ordinance No. 378, entitled:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTION 17.19.030 OF THE ROLLING
HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES”
3. Direct staff to schedule a second reading for the August 8, 2022 City
Council meeting.
10.C.PUBLIC HEARING FOR INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF
ORDINANCE NO. 379 ADDING CHAPTER 17.62 TO THE ROLLING HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING DENSITY BONUSES AND OTHER
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND
FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public
hearing; and
2. Introduce by title only Ordinance No. 379, which:
a. Adds Chapter 17.62 to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code regarding
density bonuses and other affordable housing incentives required
by State law; and
b. Finds that the adoption of the Ordinance is not subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections
15358, 15305, and 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines
(California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3).
Attachment 1 - PC Resolution No. 2022-
10_Employee_Supportive_Transitional_Housing.pdf
Attachment 2 - Ordinance 377_EmployeeSupportiveTransitionalHousing.pdf
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2022-11_Family_Day_Care_Homes.pdf
Attached 2 - Ordinance No. 378_Family_Day_Care__Homes.A.pdf
4
11.OLD BUSINESS
12.NEW BUSINESS
12.A.APPROVE ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION'S REQUEST TO
INSTALL NATURAL GAS UNIT TO SUPPLY STAND-BY POWER FOR THE CITY
HALL CAMPUS.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
12.B.REVIEW AMENDED GENERAL FUND RESERVE POLICY AND PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Consider changes to the City's reserve policies and, if
so, direct staff to work with the Finance Committee to review existing policies
for possible revision.
13.MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
13.A.UPDATE ON SOUTH BAY CITIES COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SBCCOG)
REGIONAL PLANNER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT (DIERINGER)
RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff.
14.MATTERS FROM STAFF
15.RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
16.RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
17.ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Monday, August 8, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber,
Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, 90274.
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2022-
12_Density_Bonuses_and_Affordable_Housing_Incentives.pdf
Attachment 2 - Ordinance No. 379-Density_Bonus_and_Affordable_Housing_Incentives.pdf
CL_AGN_220725_CC_RHCA_StandbyGenerator.pdf
CL_AGN_220725_CC_FinancialPolicies_05.20.pdf
CL_AGN_220725_CC_SBCCOG_RegionalPlanner_SteeringCommitteeItem.pdf
CL_AGN_220613_SBCCOG_22-23_Assessment_RegionalPlanner.pdf
CL_AGN_220725_CC_SBCCOG_RegionalPlanner_SummaryOfWork.pdf
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.
5
6
Agenda Item No.: 4.A
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
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 BY WEST BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
Drought Actions.Rolling Hills.7.25.2022.pdf
7
WEST BASIN
Municipal Water District
www.westbasin.org
July 25, 2022
City of Rolling Hills
Drought Update
8
www.westbasin.org 2
Provide a safe and reliable
supply of high -quality water
to the communities we serve.
Mission
9
www.westbasin.org 3
Board of Directors
Division I
Harold C. Williams
Immediate Past
President
Division II Division III Division IV Division V
Gloria D. Gray
Secretary
Desi Alvarez
Treasurer
Scott Houston
Vice President
Donald L. Dear
President
10
www.westbasin.org 4
Service Area
Division I
Carson, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes,
Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, and unincorporated
LA County areas of Rancho Dominguez
Division II
Inglewood, and unincorporated LA County areas of
Lennox, South Ladera Heights, West Athens, and
Westmont
Division III
Hermosa Beach, Lomita, Manhattan Beach,
Redondo Beach, portion of Torrance and West Carson
Division IV
Culver City, El Segundo, Malibu, West Hollywood, and
unincorporated LA County areas of Del Aire, Lennox,
Marina del Rey, North Ladera Heights, Topanga,
View Park -Windsor Hills and Wiseburn
Division V
Gardena, Hawthorne, Lawndale, and unincorporated
LA County area of El Camino Village
11
www.westbasin.org 5
Gregory Reed, P.E.
•Newly Appointed General Manager to the
West Basin Municipal Water District
•Professional Civil Engineer having graduated
from Cal State University Northridge with a
Bachelor’s of Science in Civil Engineering
•Previously served as Assistant Director of
Water Engineering and Technical Services
for the Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power (LADWP)
•Former member of the West Basin Water
Association (regularly meeting in Carson)
12
www.westbasin.org 6
Drought Update
•California is in third straight year of drought
•According to U.S. Drought Monitor, 98% of
CA is in severe drought
•All 58 Counties under state-mandated
drought emergencies since last year
•January-March 2022 were the driest first
three months of the year in CA history
•Key state and federal reservoir storage is
below last year’s levels
13
www.westbasin.org 7
Statewide Prohibitions on Wasteful Water Uses
•Outdoor watering that allows water to run onto
sidewalks and other areas
•Washing vehicles without an automatic shutoff
nozzle
•Washing hard surfaces like driveways or sidewalks
that don’t absorb water
•Street cleaning or construction site preparation
•Filling decorative fountains, lakes, or ponds
•Outdoor watering within 48 hours after it rains at
least ¼ inch of rainfall
•Watering ornamental turf on public medians
14
www.westbasin.org 8
West Basin Actions for Service Area
1.Water use reduction target of 30% (Level 3 shortage)
2.Uniform Two Days Per Week outdoor watering
3.Removal of municipal ornamental turf to set example
4.Coordinated advertising efforts, including the use of
outdoor signage space for conservation messaging
15
Conservation &
Water Use Efficiency
A California Way of Life
16
www.westbasin.org 10
Public Agency Grass Replacement
•Rebate incentives starting at $4 per square
foot to remove non-essential grass on
public property in the West Basin service
area
•Free professional design assistance to
envision a new water saving landscape
•Rebate application assistance to help
secure necessary funding for the project
17
www.westbasin.org 11
Residential/Commercial Grass Replacement Program
18
Water Recycling
Diversifying the Water Supply
Portfolio
19
13www.westbasin.org
The Palos Verdes Recycled Water
Pipeline Project
•Connecting 7 new sites to
recycled water in Torrance &
Palos Verdes Peninsula
•Convert 240 acre-feet per
year of drinking water to
recycled water use (almost 80
million gallons annually)
•3.6 miles of new purple pipe
•New pump station for delivery
to elevated sites
F
New Pump
Station
New
Pipeline
20
14
Palos Verdes Recycled Water Pipeline Budget and Funding
Project Budget/Fed. Request
•Total Project Cost: $12.9 million
•West Basin share: $6.335 million
•State & Other Funding: $5.045 million
•Fed. Funding Request : $1.5 million
Design Completion : Fall 2021
21
15www.westbasin.org
1.Anza Medians……………………Torrance
2.Lago Seco Park …………………Torrance
3.Medians along PCH ……..……Torrance
4.Richardson Middle School …Torrance
5.Los Arboles Park…………………Torrance
6.Riviera Elementary…….………Torrance
7.Palos Verdes Golf Club……PVE
Proposed Pipeline Alignment
1
2
3
4
5
6
Delivering Drought Proof
Supply of Recycled Water to:
7
22
16www.westbasin.org
Lago Seco Booster Pump Station
1 2 3
4
5
6
Pump
Station
7
23
www.westbasin.org 17
•Creates drought-proof sustainable water supply for maintaining beautiful
green spaces at local schools, parks, street medians, and a golf course
•Supports water reliability in multiple communities with positive impacts
on local youth, residents, and general public
•Conserves drinking water for local communities in the midst of a severe
and worsening drought
•Delivers water to an area with little recycled water; considerable
opportunities for future recycled water expansion
•Provides water cost savings to customers
Project Benefits
24
West Basin @ WestBasin
Connect with us
www.westbasin.org
West Basin Municipal
Water District
@ WestBasin
Gregory Reed
General Manager
GregoryR@westbasin.org
25
Agenda Item No.: 4.B
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
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:RECOGNIZE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY JANE ABZUG FOR HER
SERVICE TO THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Present certificate of recognition.
ATTACHMENTS:
26
Agenda Item No.: 4.C
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
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 RANCHO PALOS VERDES' PROJECT ON
WILDFIRE CAMERA DETECTION SYSTEM
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file a presentation from Rancho Palos Verdes.
ATTACHMENTS:
27
Agenda Item No.: 7.A
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
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 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 25, 2022
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220725_CC_AffidavitofPosting.pdf
28
Administrative Report
7.A., File # 1334 Meeting Date: 07/25 /2022
To: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
From: Christian Horvath, City Clerk
TITLE
APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 25 , 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
City Website: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php
https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/city_council/city_council_archive_agendas/index.php
Meeting Date & Time July 25 , 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: July 22 , 2022
29
Agenda Item No.: 7.B
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
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 MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER
READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS LISTED ON THE
AGENDA
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
ATTACHMENTS:
30
Agenda Item No.: 7.C
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
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 THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: JULY 11, 2022
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_MIN_220711_CC_F.pdf
31
MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, July 11, 2022
Page 1
Minutes
Rolling Hills City Council
Mon day, July 11, 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 James Black
presiding.
2. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Mayor Pro Tem Wilson, Mayor Black
Councilmembers Absent: None
Staff Present: Elaine Jeng, City Manager
Jane Abzug, City Attorney (virtually)
John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director
Christian Horvath, City Clerk / Executive Assistant to the City Manager
Robert Samario, Finance Director
Vanessa Hevener, Senior Management Analyst
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Mayor Pro Tem Wilson
4. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS – NONE
5. BLUE FOLDER ITEMS (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Dieringer to receive and file supplemental
items for 10A, 12B and 13B. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6. PUBLI C COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS – NONE
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
7.A. APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF JULY
11, 2022
7.B. APPROVE MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER READING OF ALL
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS LISTED ON THE AGENDA
7.C. PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER MIRSCH
7.D. PAYMENT OF BILLS
7.E. RECEIVE AND FILE THE INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE ELEVEN MONTHS
ENDED MAY 31, 2022
7.F. RECEIVE AND FILE MAY 31, 2022 INVESTMENT REPORT
32
MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, July 11, 2022
Page 2
7.G. DESIGNATE VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE VOTING DELEGATE TO THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 7-9 TO BE HELD IN LONG BEACH,
CA
7.H. CONSIDER AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH WILLDAN ENGINEERING TO PROVIDE CODE
ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $55,000
Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Dieringer to approve Consent Calendar
excluding Item 7C. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8. EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
7.C. APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: JUNE 27, 2022
Motion by Councilmember Dieringer, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to approve with minor revisions
as indicated by Councilmembers Dieringer and Mirsch. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
9. COMMISSION ITEMS – NONE
Mayor Black moved to Item 13.A. Without objection, so ordered.
13. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
13.A. DISCUSS SUNDAY, JUNE 26, 2022 FIRE INCIDENT IN RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND
LESSONS LEARNED (MIRSCH)
Presentation by Elaine Jeng, City Manager
Chief Brian Bennett, Los Angeles County Fire Department
Public Comment: Alfred Visco, Abas Goodarzi, Gene Honbo, Diana Howard, Jim Aichele, Arlene Honbo,
Melissa McNabb, Debi Fournier
Motion by Councilmember Dieringer, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to receive and file. Motion carried
unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Black moved to Item 10.A. Without objection, so ordered.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
33
MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, July 11, 2022
Page 3
10.A. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
PLACEMENT OF SOLID WASTE SERVICE CHARGES OWED TO REPUBLIC SERVICES
PURSUANT TO ITS SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE WITH THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ON THE
FY 2022-2023 LOS ANGELES COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER'S OFFICE ANNUAL TAX
ROLL.
Presentation by Robert Samario, Finance Director
Motion by Councilmember Dieringer, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to make a finding that there is no
majority protest by property owners within the City of Rolling Hills; and adopt the enclosed Resolution, with
attached Report, and place the sanitation service charge on the annual County of Los Angeles Tax Roll.
Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
11. OLD BUSINESS – NONE
12. NEW BUSINESS
12.A. RECEIVE AND FILE A REPORT ON THE NEXT CITY SPONSORED COMMUNAL BINS EVENT
SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 5, 2022 THROUGH AUGUST 13, 2022, TO ASSIST RESIDENTS
WITH FIRE FUEL REDUCTION IN THE COMMUNITY
Presentation by Vanessa Hevener, Senior Management Analyst
Motion by Councilmember Dieringer, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to receive and file. Motion carried
unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
12.B. RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE CREST ROAD EAST AND EASTFIELD DRIVE ELECTRIC
UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING PROJECTS; DISCUSS PRESENTED OPTIONS TO COMPLETE
PROJECTS; AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF
Presentation by Elaine Jeng, City Manager
Public Comment: Abas Goodarzi, Diana Howard
Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Wilson to receive and file. Motion carried
unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
13. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
13.B. RECEIVE A REPORT ON THE MAY 4, 2022 FIRE FUEL COMMITTEE MEETING; APPROVE FIRE
FUEL COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO DISCONTINUE WORK ON THE DRAFT
34
MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, July 11, 2022
Page 4
ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE FIRE FUEL MANAGEMENT IN THE CANYONS; AND DISCUSS THE
COMMITTEE'S FUTURE ASSIGNMENTS
Presentation by Vanessa Hevener, Senior Management Analyst
Public Comment: Melissa McNabb, Arlene Honbo, Jim Aichele
Motion by Mayor Black, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to have the Fire Fuel Committee continue
meeting no more frequently than bi-monthly starting in October 2022. Motion carried unanimously with the
following vote:
AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
13.C. DISCUSS THE CITY COUNCIL'S PREVIOUS APPROVAL TO UPDATE THE CONSOLIDATED
TAX AND FEE SCHEDULE TO INCREASE THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS
PROCESSING FEE FOR VIEW CASES
Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director
Public Comment: Jim Aichele
Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to change the Committee on Trees
and Views processing fee back to $2000.00 and apply a separate and distinct $2000.00 fee per individual
properties in a multiple view case scenario. Motion carried with the following vote:
AYES: Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black
NOES: Dieringer
ABSENT: None
13.D. APPROVE REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES INCURRED BETWEEN DECEMBER 2019 AND
JUNE 2022 (DIERINGER)
Motion by Mayor Black, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to approve Councilmember Dieringer’s
reimbursement request. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Black
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Black directed staff to prepare a policy relating to Council expenses and bring back an agenda item.
Councilmember Dieringer discussed the South Bay Cities Council of Governments Steering Committee
Agenda Item regarding the Regional Planner and the amount contributed by the City of Rolling Hills.
Councilmember Dieringer will follow-up with the Chair and bring back an update to the Council.
14. MATTERS FROM STAFF – NONE
15. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION – NONE
16. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION – NONE
35
MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, July 11, 2022
Page 5
17. ADJOURNMENT : 9:36 P.M.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m on July 11, 2022. The next regular meeting of the City Council is
scheduled to be held on Monday, Ju ly 25, 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
36
Agenda Item No.: 7.D
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
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:PAYMENT OF BILLS
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220711_PaymentOfBills.pdf
CL_AGN_220711_PaymentOfBills.pg2.pdf
37
38
39
Agenda Item No.: 7.E
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
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:REPUBLIC SERVICES RECYCLING TONNAGE REPORT FOR MAY
2022.
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_0725 - Rolling Hills YTD Tonnage Report.pdf
40
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%
Mar Greenwaste 111.44 111.44 - 100.00%
Trash 183.40 - 183.40 0.00%
Mar Total 294.84 111.44 183.40 37.80%
Apr Greenwaste 100.44 100.44 - 100.00%
Trash 156.07 - 156.07 0.00%
Apr Total 256.51 100.44 156.07 39.16%
May Greenwaste 111.54 111.54 - 100.00%
Trash 162.42 - 162.42 0.00%
May Total 273.96 111.54 162.42 40.71%
Grand Total 1,307.52 514.68 792.84 39.36%
514.68
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL FRANCHISE
2022
Contract Requires 30% Household -
Page 1 of 2
41
Agenda Item No.: 7.F
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
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 REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST FOR COSTS INCURRED BY
WOMEN'S CLUB BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE TO IMPROVE
VIEWING SITE ON CREST ROAD
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
In recent years, the City Council has provided an annual allotment to local city organizations of
$5,000 for use on events and projects that have a positive effect on the Rolling Hills
community. Some of Women's Community Club of Rolling Hills community efforts include
appreciation luncheons for City Hall and the RHCA, and the Snow Day.
DISCUSSION:
The Women's Community Club of Rolling Hills and their Beautification Committee has also
been working on improvements at the Crest Road viewing site. This includes landscaping of
local indigenous plants, new benches and water fountain. Their current expenses for fiscal
year 2021-2022 have exceeded the allotment of $5,000 by $644.47.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This $644.47 expense would be recorded as a FY 21/22 transaction, if approved. The
expense can be funded using General Fund, in the Non-Department, account 901 - South Bay
Community Organizations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220725_CC_WC-Reimbursement_Receipts.pdf
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
Agenda Item No.: 7.G
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
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:ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1297 UPDATING THE CONSOLIDATED TAX
AND FEE SCHEDULE REGARDING THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND
VIEWS PROCESSING FEE FOR VIEW CASES
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
For Fiscal Year 2022-2023, staff originally proposed the following change to the Consolidated
Tax and Fee Schedule:
A. View Impairment
1. Review by Committee on Trees and Views Processing fee $6,000 for complaints against
one property. Review by Committee on Trees and Views Processing fee $10,000 for
complaints against multiple properties.
Chapter 17.26 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) was adopted by Ordinance 354 on
October 23, 2017. Since adoption, the first view case to be processed was the case between
59 and 61 Eastfield Drive. The case was filed in October 2020. The vegetation owner filed an
appeal of the Committee on Trees and Views decision to the City Council and the City Council
denied the appeal at the April 11, 2022 City Council meeting, bringing the case to a close.
Staff, including the City Attorney's office, has worked on the case since the initial filing. Taking
a snap shot of the City Attorney expenses relating to the 59 and 61 Eastfield Drive view case
between May, 2021 and November, 2021, a total of $10,678 was paid by the city to the
contracted attorney for services relating to the case. Currently, the Consolidated Tax and Fee
Schedule allows the city to charge $2,000 for view impairment case to be reviewed by
Committee on Trees and Views. The charge is purposed to recover city expenses relating to
processing the case by staff and by contracted staff. Not taking into consideration staff time
spent on the 59 and 61 Eastfield Drive case, and taking a very conservative inventory of the
City Attorney's expenses relating to the case, the recovery on the case was 19% of the actual
cost.
105
Additionally, according to the City Attorney's reading of RHMC Chapter 17.26.040, the city's
current view preservation ordinance anticipates that one complaint might allege obstruction of
"multiple views," which implies that views could conceivably be obstructed by vegetation on
multiple owners' properties:
RHMC Section 17.26.040(C)(1)(a) A view impairment complaint ... shall consist of ... [a]
description of the nature and extent of the view, as well as of the alleged obstruction. If
multiple views are identified, each must be disjointed and observable from a separate viewing
area. Evidence of the views and alleged obstructions must be pertinent and may include, but
is not limited to, documentary evidence, (as described by Section 17.26.050), dated
photographs, or written declarations.
The City Attorney noted that if the city's current fee resolution does not address a view
preservation complaint alleging multiple views by multiple properties, the city is limited to
collecting the one fee for the one complaint that includes allegations of multiple views
obstructed by multiple properties. In order to avoid this situation, the city could consider
amending its fee resolution to charge the higher cost of processing a view preservation
complaint that alleges multiple views obstructed by multiple properties. This would help
alleviate the concern that property owners will frivolously allege multiple views obstructed by
multiple properties.
DISCUSSION:
At the May 9, 2022 City Council meeting, the City Council approved the staff recommendation
of raising Committee on Trees and Views Processing fee to $6,000 for complaints against one
property and $10,000 for complaints against multiple properties. The motion carried on a 3/2
vote with Mayor Black and Councilmember Pieper dissenting.
At the June 27, 2022 City Council meeting, Councilmember Mirsch pulled the item from
consent calendar and requested it be tabled for further discussion.
At the July 11, 2022 City Council meeting, Councilmember Mirsch noted that she had a
change of mind regarding her previous vote. The City Council discussed the matter and
approved revising the fee back to $2000.00. The City Council further clarified and approved
that additional $2000.00 fees would be applied to each individual view complaint against any
separate property. The motion carried 4/1 with Councilmember Dieringer dissenting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Fiscal impact depends on changes and level of activity for proposed fee increases.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
ResolutionNo1297_FeeSchedule_FY22-23_CTV_Update.pdf
106
Resolution No. ____ 1
RESOLUTION NO. 1297
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS MODIFYING THE ROLLING HILLS FEE
RESOLUTION AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 1278.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The following fees are established and charged for applications for
processing discretionary cases for Planning, Zoning and Subdivisions and shall be paid by
the applicant prior to submission for public hearing, pursuant to Title 16 (Subdivision) and
Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code:
A. Site Plan Review $ 1,500
B. Conditional Use Permit $ 1,500
C. Variance $ 1,250
D. Variance, Minor $ 750
1. Minor deviation into required yard setback, not exceeding 5’ and
attached to main residential structure
E. Multiple discretionary reviews; Most expensive fee for the first
review and 1/2 fee for second
review. No cost for third or more
reviews.
F. Lighting Ordinance Modification $ 375
G. Outdoor Lighting Audit $ 150 (initiated by resident)
H. Time extension $ 200
I. Zone Change $ 2,000
J. General Plan Amendment $ 2,000
K. Zoning/Subdivision Code Amendment $ 2,000
L Discretionary Approval Modification $ 2/3 of original application fee
M. Appeal Fee $ 2/3 of original application fee
N. City Council and Planning $ 375 Fee to be credited if
Commission interpretation results in filing of a formal
107
Resolution No. ____ 2
and miscellaneous reviews application to City Council or
Planning Commission
O. Environmental Review fees for
discretionary permits
1. Preparation and Staff Review $ 200
of Initial Study
2. Preparation of Negative $ 50 (plus fee charged by CA
Declaration or Mitigated Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Negative Declaration applicable, as adjusted annually)
P. Environmental Impact Reports Consultant fee plus 10%
Q. County Clerk Processing Fee County fee
R. Lot Line Adjustment $ 1,500, plus County fee
S. Tentative Parcel/Tract Map $ 1,500, plus County fee
T. Final Parcel/Tract Map County fee
U. Zoning violation and construction $ 1,500
penalty fee
1. Applications for illegal or “as built” grading or construction or non-
compliance with approved plans for projects that require Planning
Commission review. Fee is charged in addition to the discretionary
application review fee.
V. Stop work order $ 200
1. Fee charged for each additional “stop work order” that is issued
beyond the original stop work order for illegal construction and
grading activity.
W. Service Request County fee, plus 20%
(For services provided by L.A. County not included in the General
Services Agreement)
X. Appeal of Zone Clearance $ 375
Y. Stable Use Permit $ 375
(For stables under 800 sq ft considered by the Planning Commission)
Z. Major Remodel Review $ 375
(For remodels of more than 50% demolition)
108
Resolution No. ____ 3
Section 2. The following fees are established and charged for applications for
processing View Impairment, Traffic Commission, and Accessory Dwelling Unit cases:
A. View Impairment
1. Review by Committee on Trees and Views
Processing fee
A. Complaint against single property $2,000
B. Complaint against multiple properties $2,000 per property
2. Environmental Review Fees
A. Preparation and Staff Review of Initial Study $ 200
B. Preparation of Negative Declaration or $ 50
Mitigated Negative Declaration (plus fee charged by
CA Department of
Fish and Wildlife, if
applicable, as
adjusted annually)
B. Traffic Commission Review
1. New driveways or other traffic $ 300
related items
C. Accessory Dwelling Unit
1. Accessory Dwelling Unit or $ 375
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit
Section 3. The following fees are established and charged for General Administration
processing:
A. General Plan $ 30
B. Zoning Code $ 25
C. Subdivision Code $ 25
D. Budget $ 30
E. Zoning Map $ 3
F. Xeroxed copies, each page $ 0.25
109
Resolution No. ____ 4
G. False Alarms
Fee for 1st and 2nd incident involving a false alarm is waived
If paid within 30 days If paid after 30 days
3rd false alarm $ 50 $100
4th false alarm $ 100 $300
5th false alarm $ 150 $600
6th false alarm $ 200 $1,000
Section 4. The following fees are established and shall be collected for each permit
pursuant to Title 15, (Building and Construction) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code:
A. 1. BUILDING PERMIT Two and one-quarter
times the amount set forth in the
Building Code for each fee, table
and schedule therein.
2. PARKS AND RECREATION Each new residential dwelling shall
pay 2% of the first $ 100,000 of
construction valuation, plus 0.25% of
such valuation over $ 100,000.
B. PLUMBING PERMIT Two and one-quarter times the
amount set forth in the Plumbing Code
for each fee, table and schedule therein.
C. MECHANICAL PERMIT Two and one-quarter times the
amount set forth in the Mechanical
Code for each fee, table and schedule
therein.
D. ELECTRICAL PERMIT Two and one-quarter times the
amount set forth in the Electrical Code
for each fee, table and schedule therein.
E. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, 0.42% of the valuation of the proposed
SITE AN D PLAN REVIEW structures; however, minimum fee shall
be $ 535.00 and the maximum fee shall
be $ 3,588.00
F. SOLAR AND PHOTOVOLTAIC The amount set forth in the Los
SYSTEMS AND APPURTENANT Angeles County Building and
EQUIPMENT Electrical Codes for each fee, table and
110
Resolution No. ____ 5
schedule therein, plus $ 60.11 City
administrative fee.
Section 5. The following fees are established and shall be collected for each permit
pursuant to Title 15, (Building and Construction) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code for review
conducted by the City’s contract building official, other than Los Angeles County Department
of Building and Safety:
A. BUILDING PERMIT In addition to the provisions of Section
4 A.1 of this resolution, a 25% surcharge
on Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety fees shall be
charged for the alternative use of the
City’s contract building official.
B. PLUMBING PERMIT In addition to the provisions of Section
4 B. of this resolution, a 25% surcharge
on Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety fees shall be
charged for the alternative use of the
City’s contract building official.
C. MECHANICAL PERMIT In addition to the provisions of Section
4 C. of this resolution, a 25% surcharge
on Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety fees shall be
charged for the alternative use of the
City’s contract building official.
D. ELECTRICAL PERMIT In addition to the provisions of Section
4 D. of this resolution, a 25% surcharge on
Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety fees shall be charged
for the alternative use of the City’s
contract building official.
E. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT,
SITE AND PLAN REVIEW In addition to the provisions of Section
4 E. of this resolution, a 25% surcharge
on Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety fess shall be
charged for the alternative use of the
City’s contract building official.
111
Resolution No. ____ 6
F. SOLAR AND PHOTOVOLTAIC In addition to the provision of Section
SYSTEMS AND APPURTENANT 4 F. of this resolution, a 25% surcharge
EQUIPMENT on Los Angeles County Department of
Building and Safety fees, plus $60.11
City administrative fee, shall be
charged for the alternative use of the
City’s contract building official.
Section 6. The following fees are established and shall be collected for each permit
relating to construction and demolition waste:
A. CONSTRUCTION AND $ 150 single project permit, plus
DEMOLITION PERMIT $1,000 deposit refundable upon
submittal of a Certificate of
Compliance.
Section 7. The following fines are established for issuance of administrative citations
relating to a violation of Chapter 9.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code:
Administrative Penalty for $ 2,500 1st violation
violation of Chapter 9.58 $ 5,000 2nd violation within one year of the 1st
violation
$ 7,500 Each additional violation within one
year of the 1st violation
Section 8. The following fees are established and charged for processing landscaping
submittals subject to the requirements of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
Review of landscape submittal $1,500 (portion refunded if not spent;
package and verification of compliance additional funds may be collected, if
needed to complete the review); plus
$5,000 deposit refundable upon
submittal of a Certificate of
Compliance.
Section 9. The following fees are established and charged for processing utility pole
removal reimbursement applications pursuant to City Council Resolution No.
1259.
Review of utility pole removal reimbursement $100
application.
Appeal of utility pole removal reimbursement $300
decision.
112
Resolution No. ____ 7
Section 10. The following fee is established and charged for processing wireless
telecommunication facility applications:
Application fee: $1,000
Section 11. Should the City accept payment of any fee identified in this resolution by
means of credit card, an additional 3% surcharge on such fee shall be charged as a convenience
fee for processing the payment. When City accepts payment by means of credit card, it shall also
accept payment by means of cash or check.
Section 12. The fees set forth do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing
such services.
Section 13. The City Council Resolution No. 1278 is hereby repealed and superseded
by this Resolution .
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of July, 2022.
_________________________________
JIM BLACK
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH
CITY CLERK
113
Resolution No. ____ 8
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1297 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
MODIFYING THE ROLLING HILLS FEE RESOLUTION AND REPEALING
RESOLUTION NO. 1278
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 25th day of July 2022
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
__________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH
CITY CLERK
114
Agenda Item No.: 7.H
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:VANESSA HEVENER, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:RECEIVE AND FILE PENDING MONSANTO CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT RELATING TO STORMWATER COMPLIANCE
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
In 2016, a group of cities and counties including City of Long Beach, City of Berkeley, City of
Chula Vista, County of Los Angeles, City of Oakland, City of Portland, Port of Portland, City of
San Diego, City of San Jose, as well as City of Portland, City of Spokane and Baltimore
County filed lawsuits against Monsanto and two related companies claiming that
polychlorinated biphenyls manufactured by Monsanto contaminated waterbodies throughout
California and in other areas of the country. PCBs were widely used in paint, ink, paper
products, fireproofing products, hydraulic fluids and other industrial applications, and then
discharged into the subject waterbodies.
In March 2022, the United States District Court for the Central District of California
consolidated the lawsuits and certified a single class action. Shortly after, a proposed
settlement was reached between the various entities and Monsanto. Final approval of the
settlement will be considered on October 13, 2022.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Rolling Hills is an initial settlement class member of the Monsanto Class Action
because the City is located in a watershed that includes waterbodies that have been impaired
or threatened by PBCs. The City is subject to three separate Total Maximum Daily Loads
where PBCs is a named pollutant (TMDL is a numerical value that represents the highest
amount of a pollutant a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards). The
City already has been incurring monitoring costs for the following PBC-related TMDLs in the
following waterbodies:
Machado Lake TMDL for Pesticides and PCBs
115
Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Toxic Pollutants
TMDL
Santa Monica Bay TMDL for DDTs and PCBs
If the settlement is approved, Monsanto would establish a series of funds to be allocated for
certain water or sediment monitoring and cleanup costs. The City is eligible to receive a
settlement in the proposed TMDL Fund and/or the Monitoring Fund. Attached to the staff
report is a copy of the Notice of Monsanto Class Action Settlement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City may receive $20,000 if the pending settlement is approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
Notice of Monsanto Class Action Settlement 2022-07-18.pdf
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
Agenda Item No.: 9.A
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
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 NO. 21-02: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE
PLAN REVIEW TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND
CONSTRUCT A NEW 5,215-SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS; AND A VARIANCE TO
CONSTRUCT A FIVE-FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALL IN THE SETBACK
AREA AND CONDUCT NON-EXEMPT GRADING ON A PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 11 FLYING MANE ROAD (LOT 53-SF), ROLLING HILLS,
CA (NEVENKA LCC)
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On May 17, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a field trip and held an evening
meeting on this item. At the conclusion of the evening meeting, the Planning Commission
directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval and continued the public hearing to June 21,
2022.
On May 26, 2022, the Traffic Commission held a meeting to discuss the location of the
driveway and apron and recommended to the City Council approval with a condition that the
front hedge be removed or trimmed to no more than 24 inches to protect line of sight.
Since the May 17th meeting, the applicant has since revised the retaining wall in the side yard
setback to be a double wall that is five feet high and three feet high. According to the
applicant, this was at the direction of Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) because of
grading concerns in the easement. The double wall will not be visible from the adjacent
easement and will provide pedestrian access to the side of the building. However, the five-
foot-high portion still requires a variance for being in the setback area and 10 feet away from
the property line.
On June 21, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-07 approving
Zoning Case No. 21-02 for a Site Plan Review to demolish an existing residence and
construct a new 5,215-square-foot single-family residence and related improvements, and
variances to construct a five-foot-high retaining wall in the setback area and conduct non-
exempt grading.
134
Zoning, Location, and Lot Description
The property located at 11 Flying Mane Road is zoned RAS-1 and has a net lot area of 0.9
acre (39,556 square feet). However, for purposes of calculating net lot area, Rolling Hills
Municipal Code (RHMC) Section 17.16.060(A) indicates that properties less than an acre are
to be considered an acre (43,560 square feet). Only one building pad exists on the property
and is located at the highest portion adjacent to the roadway easement.
The lot is developed with a 5,292-square-foot single-family residence built in 1953. In 1962,
the Planning Commission approved a variance for an indoor swimming pool and structure to
encroach into the required 20-foot side yard setback by eight feet. The pool was constructed in
late 1963. In 1968, the Planning Commission re-approved the variance on a technicality that it
originally expired before the pool was completed.
The existing residence is located 30 feet from the front roadway easement, 10 feet from the
northern side property line, and eight feet from the southern side property line. The rear
property line is located downslope of the building pad over 250 feet to the west. Since the
house was built prior to the City’s incorporation, the front and northern side setback are
considered legal nonconforming; as mentioned, the southern side setback was reduced with
approval of a variance.
DISCUSSION:
Applicant Request
The applicant is requesting a site plan review to demolish an existing 5,292-square-foot single-
family residence and construct a new 5,215-square-foot single-family residence and garage in
a similar footprint. The new residence meets the requirements for reduced setbacks on a
smaller lot. According to RHMC Section 17.24.045, reduced setbacks may apply to properties
in the RAS-1 zoning district that have a lot area of 1.25 acres or less, excluding roadway
easements.
The proposed project includes a 485-square-foot swimming pool, 85-square-foot pool
equipment, 337 square feet of attached covered porches, 15-square-foot barbecue, and 288-
square-foot service yard.
The total structures, excluding exempt structures, is 6,384 square feet or 14.7% of the net lot
area.
The flatwork area, which includes the driveway, paved walkways, patios, and courtyards is
3,338 square feet. This covers 7.7% of the net lot area.
Disturbance covers 12,521 square feet and accounts for 28.7% of the net lot area.
The residential building pad is 8,780 square feet and covers 20% of the net lot area.
A future stable and corral are proposed downslope near the rear of the property and will cover
1,000 square feet. The stable and corral are not proposed at this time.
Grading includes 3,372 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 3,315 CY of fill for a total of 6,687 CY. The
135
project requires 57 CY of export.
Landscaping includes 13,350 square feet of new and altered areas. The landscape plan is
being reviewed by the City’s landscape consultant.
Site Plan Review
The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review (SPR) to demolish the existing residence and
construct the new residence, attached garage, swimming pool, retaining walls, and other
improvements.
Non-exempt grading
The applicant is requesting a total of 6,687 CY of grading, including 57 CY of export. The 110
CY of excavation for the swimming pool is exempt and could be exported from the site without
relief from the Code. Grading will be done on the building pad for the new residence, driveway,
and yard area. Grading includes 2,000 CY of over-excavation and 2,350 CY of recompaction.
Retaining Walls
Retaining walls are proposed to the rear (west) of the swimming pool and along the southern
side property line next to the residence, which requires a variance. Retaining walls are also
needed for the stable and corral set-aside area. The maximum height of the retaining walls is
five feet and the average height is not to exceed two and one-half feet.
Variances
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance for a new five-foot-high retaining wall within
the southern side yard setback. A variance is also requested for grading within the southern
side yard setback for the retaining wall to allow for wider access. Export of 57 CY of dirt is
required.
Variance request to allow a new five-foot-high retaining wall within the side yard setback
Pursuant to RHMC Section 17.16.150(F-G), retaining walls are permitted in setback areas if
they do not exceed three feet in height, do not require grading, and are located along a
walkway; or if they do not exceed three feet in height and are necessary to improve drainage
or prevent slope erosion and are not in an easement, unless approved by the Association.
Such walls must be screened from the public right-of-ways, easements and adjacent
properties with appropriate landscaping.
The applicant is requesting the variance to allow for a retaining wall up to five feet in height to
allow for a wider access to an existing horse trail which has been filled with imported material.
The retaining wall will be located in the side setback approximately 10 feet from the property
line. It extends nearly the full length of the residence. A portion of the wall extends into the
front yard setback, but tapers from 24 inches to six inches toward the front of the property.
Variance request for non-exempt grading
Pursuant to Section 17.16.230, no export or import of cut or fill material shall be permitted in
connection with any grading performed in the City, unless otherwise permitted by the
136
provisions of Title 15 of the Code. The project does not meet the exemptions in Title 15 in that
grading consists of 6,687 CY total and covers nearly the entire building pad and set aside area
for the future stable and corral. Additionally, 57 CY of export is required.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
Lot Coverage
The proposed structural coverage on the lot will be 6,384 square feet, or 14.7% of the lot,
which is less than the lot coverage limitation of 20% maximum. The proposed total coverage
including structures and flatwork will be 9,722 square feet or 22.3% of the lot area, which is
less than the lot coverage limitation of 35% maximum.
Area of Disturbance
The project site has been previously disturbed due to development of the existing residence.
The proposed project will add 2,124 square feet of disturbance for a total of 12,521 square
feet, or 28.7% of the net lot area.
Access to Future Stable
A stable and corral is not proposed to be constructed, however, a set aside area of 1,000
square feet is included in the rear portion of the property downslope from the main pad.
Access to the set aside area is via a bridle trail along the southern property line approximately
35 feet away.
Swimming Pool
The proposed swimming pool is 485 square feet and located behind the proposed residence
at the edge of the building pad. The pool will be designed to have an infinity edge in which
water flows into a surge basin. The edge of the pool and building pad will be supported by
retaining walls. The pool equipment will be located in a crawl space underneath the master
bedroom. Approval of a swimming pool less than 800 square feet is typically approved
administratively if no discretionary application is involved.
Raised Deck
A raised deck is located next to the master bedroom in the southwestern portion of the
residence. The deck is raised two and one-half feet above finished grade above the retaining
walls. The deck is approximately five feet wide by 35 feet long along the western elevation of
the residence and connects to the pool deck.
Landscaping
There is an existing hedge in the front of the property which helps screen the residence for
privacy. The hedge is entirely on the property with a portion extending into the roadway
easement. It is a policy that hedges not be allowed for new projects. The Planning
Commission should consider if the hedge should be removed.
The Preliminary Landscape Plan shows an olive grove and vineyard in the rear portion of the
property. Two new trees are shown in the front yard next to the street. The Plan is being
137
reviewed by the City’s landscape consultant for compliance with water efficiency
requirements. The Planning Commission should consider if conditions are necessary to limit
the height of trees to protect neighboring views.
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 a
single-family residence, swimming pool, and accessory structures.
Public Participation
None received.
CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
17.46.050 - Required Site Plan Review findings.
1. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally
approve, or deny a Site Plan Review application.
2. No project which requires Site Plan Review approval shall be approved by the
Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be
made:
3. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general
plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
4. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by
minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums,
and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable
area of the lot;
5. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and
surrounding residences;
6. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible,
existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature
trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
7. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the
amount of grading required to create the building area;
8. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless
such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
9. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements
these elements with drought-tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and
enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or
transition area between private and public areas;
10. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of
pedestrians and vehicles; and
11. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
12. If all of the above findings cannot be made with regard to the proposed project, or cannot
be made even with changes to the project through project conditions imposed by City
staff and/or the Planning Commission, the site plan review application shall be denied.
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
138
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:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
Vicinity Map - 11 Flying Mane Rd.pdf
Development Table (ZC 21-02)_V3.pdf
2022-07_PC_Resolution_11FlyingManeRoad_ZC 21-02.pdf
Traffic Engineer's Memo - M01 11 Flying Mane.pdf
C-City Grading Plan_C(6.6.22).pdf
11 Flying Mane - RHCA - 22 0527-reduced.pdf
139
City of Rolling Hills 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
TITLE
VICINITY MAP
CASE NO.
Zoning Case No. 22-02
Site Plan Review, Variance
OWNER Nevenka LLC
ADDRESS 11 Flying Mane Road, Rolling Hills 90274 SITE
140
*Allowable deductions; excluded from Total Structure Area/Total Structural Coverage
**Future stable not part of project
^Actual net lot area is 39,556 SF but per Code it is rounded to 1 acre (43,560 SF)
Development Table Zoning Case No. 21-02
(11 FLYING MANE ROAD)
Site Plan Review and Variance PAD 1 PAD 2 TOTAL
RAS-1 Zone Setbacks
Front: 50 ft. from front easement line
Side: 20 ft. from side property line
Rear: 50 ft. from rear easement line
Single family
residence, garage,
pool, equipment,
entryways (SF)
Future Stable
(SF)
Pad/Net Lot Area 8,780 1,000 43,560^
Residence 4,795
Garage 420
Swimming Pool/Spa 485
*Pool Equipment 85
Stable (min. 450 SF) 450**
Attached Covered Porches 396
*Outdoor Barbecue 15
Service Yard 288
Total Structure Area 6,384 450** 6,384
Total Structural Coverage (20% max) 14.7%
Total Flatwork 3,338
Total Structural and Flatwork 9,722
Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) 22.3%
Building Pad Coverage
(Policy: 30% maximum)
72.7% 45%**
Disturbed Area (40% maximum; up to
60% with slopes less than 3:1)
12,521
28.7%
Grading 3,372 CY cut
3,315 CY fill
6,687 CY
57 CY export
141
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 21-02 FOR
A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND
CONSTRUCT A NEW 5,215-SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS; AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A
FIVE-FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALL IN THE SETBACK AREA AND
CONDUCT NON-EXEMPT GRADING ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11
FLYING MANE ROAD (LOT 53-SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (NEVENKA LLC)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND,
RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Nevenka LLC with respect to real property
located at 11 Flying Mane Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 53-SF) requesting a site plan review to
demolish an existing 5,292-square-foot single-family residence and construct a new 5,215-
square-foot single-family residence and attached garage in a similar footprint, and construct
five-foot-high retaining walls in the rear portion of the building pad and in the side yard setback.
The project also includes a 485-square-foot swimming pool, 85-square-foot pool equipment,
337 square feet of attached covered porches, 15-square-foot barbecue, and 288-square-foot
service yard, which are not subject to discretionary review. A variance is requested for a new
five-foot-high retaining wall within the southern side yard setback and for non-exempt grading
including 57 cubic yards (CY) of exported dirt.
Section 2. The existing single-family residence was built in 1953. In 1962, the
Planning Commission approved a variance for an indoor swimming pool and structure to
encroach into the required 20-foot side yard setback by eight feet. The pool was constructed in
late 1963. In 1968, the Planning Commission re-approved the variance on a technicality that
the original permit expired before the pool was completed.
Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to
consider the application at its special field trip meeting and regular meeting on May 17, 2022.
Neighbors within a 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was
published in the Daily Breeze on May 6, 2022. The applicant and agent were notified of the
public hearings in writing by first class mail and the agent was in attendance at the hearings.
Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal.
Section 4. On May 26, 2022, the Traffic Commission held a meeting to review the
shifting of the driveway apron and driveway several feet from the existing location and
recommended to the City Council approval of the proposal with the condition that the hedge in
the front of the property be trimmed to no higher than 24 inches to protect line of sight.
Section 5. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the net lot area excluding the roadway
easement is 0.9 acre (39,556 square feet). For purposes of calculating net lot area, Rolling
142
2
Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) Section 17.16.060(A) indicates that properties less than an acre
are to be considered an acre (43,560 square feet). The project includes an existing 8,780-
square-foot building pad near the front of the property closest to the street. The property has a
lot depth of over 320 feet and slopes downward toward the rear property line. The grade
elevation between the main building pad and the rear property line is over 100 feet. A second
building pad is proposed as a set aside for a future stable and corral near the rear of the
property.
Section 6. The Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures), which exempts the construction and location of a limited number of new,
small facilities or structures, including single family residence and accessory structures,
including but not limited to garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. Here, the
Project includes the demolition of a residence and construction of a new single-family
residence and related improvements. Accordingly, the Project qualifies for the exemption
pursuant to Section 15303. Further, no exceptions to the exemption apply; there is no
reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to
unusual circumstances. The site has already been graded and existing structures are on site.
Section 6. Site Plan Review. Site Plan Review is required for demolition of an
existing residence and construction of a new residence pursuant to RHMC Section
17.46.020(A), for a retaining wall above three feet in height pursuant to RHMC Section
17.16.190(F), and for non-exempt grading totaling 6,687 CY including 57 CY of export
pursuant to RHMC Section 17.46.020(A). With respect to the Site Plan Review for the
development, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
A. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of
the General Plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance.
The proposed development, which includes demolition and construction of a residence
and grading is compatible with the General Plan and Zoning ordinance, subject to the variance
for a new five-foot-high retaining wall within the southern side yard setback and a variance for
grading within the southern side yard setback for the retaining wall to allow for wider access
and export of dirt. The proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low
profile, low-density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding
structures. The new residence will be built on the existing building pad and will have a similar
footprint as the existing residence, which will reduce the visual impact and minimize grading.
The new residence meets the requirements for reduced setbacks on a smaller lot.
According to RHMC Section 17.24.045, reduced setbacks may apply to properties in the RAS-
1 zoning district that have a lot area of 1.25 acres or less, excluding roadway easements. As
such, the new residence will maintain the 30-foot front yard setback of the existing residence.
The project conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements. The net lot area of the
lot is 43,560 square feet per RHMC Section 17.16.060(A). The structural net lot coverage is
proposed at 6,384 square feet or 14.7% (20% max. permitted) excluding exempt structures;
and the total lot coverage proposed, including flatwork, would be 9,722 square feet or 22.3%
143
3
(35% max. permitted). The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 12,521 square feet or
28.7% (40% permitted).
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of
the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as
maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing
buildable area of the lot.
The topography and the configuration of the lot have been considered, and the
proposed grading and retaining wall for development will not adversely affect or be materially
detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures; the grading and retaining wall allows the
proposed construction to be constructed largely on an existing building pad which enables
proposed project elements to be the least intrusive to surrounding properties. The retaining
wall preserves the existing topography in the adjacent bridle trail easement and eliminates
grading and disturbance in the easement. Further, the grading and retaining wall allows the
proposed construction to be a sufficient distance from nearby residences so views and privacy
of surrounding neighbors will not be impacted. The pool will be behind the residence and not
visible from the street. The pool and patio area are included in the lot coverage. Lastly, the
graded areas will incorporate landscaping and the retaining wall will be screened with
landscaping. The lot will have a main building pad and a stable set aside area and 28.7% of
the lot will be disturbed with the remaining area left landscaped or in a natural state.
C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural
terrain and surrounding residences.
The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the
site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in
the vicinity of said lot. The development plan takes into consideration the visibility of the project
from Flying Mane Road as it utilizes the existing building pad and has a similar footprint to the
existing residence. The driveway will be moved several feet and repaved to align with the new
garage. The proposed pool will be located at the edge of the pad and retaining walls will be
located behind the residence at the top of the slope. The pool equipment will be located in a
crawl space underneath the residence where it will not be visible. Significant portions of the lot
will be left undeveloped or landscaped.
D. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest
extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and
knolls).
A landscape plan has been prepared to for compliance with water efficient landscape
ordinance requirements and low impact development standards. The landscape plan will
introduce additional landscaping, which will be compatible with and enhances the rural
character of the community, and the landscaping will provide a buffer or transition area
between private and public areas. The grading and retaining wall are designed to preserve
existing topography where possible and mimic the natural terrain.
144
4
E. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to
minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area.
Grading consists of 3,372 CY of cut and 3,315 CY of fill. Export of 57 CY is required and
covered by the variance contained herein. The grading and retaining wall are designed to
preserve slopes where possible and mimic the natural terrain.
F. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage
flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course.
Grading will be done to improve the driveway and walkways throughout the site.
Drainage will not change and will follow the natural drainage courses of the lot.
G. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and
supplements these elements with drought-tolerant landscaping which is compatible
with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a
buffer or transition area between private and public areas.
Surrounding native vegetation and mature trees will not be affected and new
landscaping will be considerate of the environment and will enhance the rural character of the
community. Landscaping will provide a buffer or transition between various pads on the
property. As such, the rural character of the community is maintained and privacy is
maintained with neighbors.
H. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety
of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles.
The grading and retaining wall for the project occurs in the side of the property and will
not be visible from the adjacent easement. There is ample parking in the garage and driveway
in the front of the house. An adequate pathway is proposed to safely accommodate
pedestrians from the residence to the backyard and stable set aside area in the rear of the
property. Adequate walkways will be provided to the pool and deck.
I. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
The Project is exempt from the CEQA Guidelines pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3
(New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), which exempts the construction and
location of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including single family
residence and accessory structures, including but not limited to garages, carports, patios,
swimming pools and fences. Here, the Project includes the construction of a new single-family
residence, swimming pool, retaining walls, and associated grading. Accordingly, the Project
qualifies for the exemption pursuant to Section 15303. Further, no exceptions to the exemption
apply; there is no reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the
environment due to unusual circumstances. The building pad has already been graded and
existing structures are on site.
145
5
Section 7. Variances. Section 17.38.050 sets forth the required findings for
granting variances to construct a five-foot-high retaining wall in the side yard setback with non-
exempt grading and export of dirt identified in Section 17.16.120, Section 17.16.150(F), and
Section 17.16.230. With respect to the request for variances, the Planning Commission finds
as follows:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same
vicinity and zone.
There are extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property. The residence was
developed prior to the City’s incorporation and has a legal nonconforming front yard setback of
30 feet which may continue pursuant to Section 17.24.045. However, the small lot size and
location of the building pad near the street are exceptional circumstances applicable to the
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone. A
retaining wall in the side yard setback is warranted in order to maintain the existing topography
and provide emergency access around the residence. The encroachment is considered
minimal given the existing residence already encroaches eight feet into the required side yard
setback. The improvement will enhance the usability of the residence and be compatible with
existing development in the area. Further, a five-foot-high retaining wall with an average height
of two and one-half feet is needed to improve accessibility. The variance is warranted due to
the unique sloping topography that does not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity.
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone
but which is denied the property in question.
Granting the requested variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of property rights on the property. The existing main building pad encroaches into the front
and side setback areas making it necessary for the retaining wall and other improvements to
also encroach. Other properties in the vicinity enjoy these types of improvements.
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
Granting the variances to encroach into the front and side setbacks will not be
detrimental to the public welfare and will not be injurious to properties in the vicinity; a retaining
wall and other improvements are allowed in the Rolling Hills community. Further, the project
will be consistent with other development in the area. The new residence is substantially in the
same location as the existing residence to be demolished; the driveway will be relocated
several feet and repaved and the retaining wall will improve access to the side of the
residence.
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be
observed.
146
6
Allowing construction in the side setback will improve access to the side of the
residence and allow the existing topography to remain. The project is harmonious in
scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because
the proposed construction complies with the low-profile residential development pattern
of the community and will not give the property an over-built look. The lot is sufficient
to accommodate the proposed use.
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant.
The construction in the side setback allows a new single family home similar to
others enjoyed by many properties throughout the City. The project, together with the
variances, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and
programs specified in the General Plan.
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los
Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for
hazardous waste facilities.
Granting a variance for the project will be consistent with the applicable portions of
the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related to siting criteria for
hazardous waste facilities. The project site is not listed on the current State of California
Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List.
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of
Rolling Hills.
Granting the variance will be consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills,
which allows and encourages residential uses and property improvements. It will further the
low-profile residential development pattern of the community and will not give the
property an over-built look.
Section 8. Approval; Conditions. Based upon the foregoing findings, and the
evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves Zoning Case No. 21-02
subject to the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan and Variance approvals shall expire within two years from the
effective date of approval as defined in RHMC Sections 17.46.080 and 17.38.070 unless
otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections.
B. If any condition of this resolution is violated, the entitlements granted by this
resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon
receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject
property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her
designee required to cure the violation. The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once
the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In
the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee’s determination that
a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a
147
7
hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of
the City Council for which the agenda has not yet been posted; the Applicant shall be provided
written notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of
the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this
Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has
been cured by the time of the hearing, the Council will lift the suspension and the stop work
order. If the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, the
Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no construction work
shall be performed on the property until and unless the violation is cured by the deadline, other
than work designated by the Council to accomplish the cure. If the violation is not cured by
the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at the Applicant’s request or schedule
a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by this Resolution pursuant to RHMC
Chapter 17.58 .
C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning
ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with
unless otherwise a variance to such requirement has been approved.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the
site plan on file at City Hall and approved by the Planning Commission on June 21, 2022
except as otherwise provided in these conditions. The working drawings submitted to the
Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the approved
development plan. All conditions of the Site Plan Review and Variance approvals shall be
incorporated into the building permit working drawings, and where applicable complied with
prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the building department.
The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto a separate sheet and
included in the building plans submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be
kept on site at all times.
Any proposed modifications and/or changes to the approved project, including resulting
from field conditions, shall be discussed with staff so that staff can determine whether the
modification is minor or major in mature. Minor modifications are subject to approval by the
City Manager or his or her designee. Major modifications are subject to approval by the
Planning Commission after a public hearing. The applicant shall not implement modifications
or changes to the approved project without the appropriate approval from the City Manager or
designee or the Planning Commission, as required.
E. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to Building and Safety Department for
issuance of building and grading permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to City
staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the
Planning Commission.
F. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building
Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to
this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth herein and the City’s
Building Code and Zoning Ordinance.
148
8
Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this project shall
execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to
this Resolution and any plans approved therewith.
G. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 6,384 square feet or 14.7% of
the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (20% maximum).
The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork, shall not exceed
9,722 square feet or 22.3% of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations
(35% maximum).
H. The disturbed area of the lot, including the future stable and corral area shall not
exceed 28.7%, or 12,521 square feet surface area. Grading for this project shall not exceed
3,372 CY of cut and 3,315 CY of fill with 57 CY of export for a total of 6,687 cubic yards
balanced on site.
I. The residential building pad is proposed at 8,780 square feet and shall not
exceed coverage of 6,384 square feet or 72.7% with allowed deductions. The set aside pad for
a future stable and corral is proposed at 1,000 square feet and shall not exceed 450 square
feet of coverage or 45% with allowed deductions.
J. A driveway access shall be provided per the Fire Department requirements and
the apron of the driveway shall be roughened and the first 20 feet of the driveway shall not
exceed 7% in slope.
K. Access to the set aside area for the future stable and corral shall be decomposed
granite or 100% pervious roughened material; the access route shall not be wider than 12 feet.
L. A minimum of five-foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have to be
paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of all of the proposed structures, or as
otherwise required by the Fire Department.
M. Per LA County Building Code, a pool barrier and/or fencing shall be required for
the pool.
N. A drainage plan, as required by the Building Department shall be prepared and
approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a construction permit. Such plan shall be subject to
LA County Code requirements.
O. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Lighting Ordinance of the
City of Rolling Hills (RHMC 17.16.190.E), pertaining to lighting on said property, roofing and
material requirements of properties in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and Low
Impact Development requirements for storm water management on site (RHMC Chapter 8.32).
P. All utility lines shall be undergrounded pursuant to Section 17.27.030.
149
9
Q. Hydrology, soils, geology and other reports, as required by the Building and
Public Works Departments, and as may be required by the Building Official, shall be prepared.
R. Prior to issuance of a final construction approval of the project, all graded slopes
shall be landscaped. Prior to issuance of building permit, the landscaping plan shall meet the
requirements of the City, shall be submitted to the City in conformance with Fire Department
Fuel Modification requirements, and shall be approved by the City’s landscape consultant.
S. The project shall be landscaped, and continually maintained in substantial
conformance with the landscaping plan on file approved by the City’s landscape consultant. A
detailed landscaping plan shall provide that any trees and shrubs used in the landscaping
scheme for this project shall be planted in a way that screens the project development from
adjacent streets and neighbors, such that shrubs and trees as they mature do not grow into a
hedge or impede any neighbors views and the plan shall provide that all landscaping be
maintained at a height no higher than the roof line of the nearest project structure. In addition,
the landscaping plan shall provide for screening of the proposed retaining wall with vegetation
not to exceed 10 feet in height, and that the vegetation used for screening shall be planted in
an offset manner, to prevent it, as it grows from forming a solid hedge. The landscaping plan
shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area, are water-wise
and are consistent with the rural character of the community. Plants listed as high hazardous
plants under RHMC Section 8.30.015 are prohibited.
T. The applicant shall submit a landscaping performance bond or other financial
obligation, to be kept on deposit by the City, in the amount of the planting plus irrigation plus
15%. The bond shall be released no sooner than two years after completion of all plantings,
subject to a City staff determination that the plantings required for the project are in substantial
conformance with approved plans and are in good condition.
The landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance, (Chapter 13.18 of the RHMC).
Pursuant to Chapter 8.30 of the RHMC, the property shall at all times be maintained
free of dead trees and vegetation.
U. The retaining wall shall not exceed five feet in height at any point along the wall
and shall have an average height of two and one-half feet.
V. The setback lines and roadway easement lines in the vicinity of the construction
for this project shall remain staked throughout the construction. A construction fence may be
required.
W. Perimeter easements, including roadway easements and trails, if any, shall
remain free and clear of any of improvements to advance equestrian use and emergency
preparedness for evacuation within the City. Where RHCA has demonstrated authority over
the easement, the City’s Planning Director may grant relief from this condition upon
satisfactory proof of permission from RHCA and a legitimate showing that there is no need for
the condition to advance equestrian uses and emergency preparedness.
150
10
X. Minimum of 65% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted from
landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City’s Construction and Demolition permits for
waste hauling prior to start of work and provide proper documentation to the City.
Y. During construction, the site shall be maintained in a safe manner so as not to
threaten the health, safety, or general welfare of the public.
Z. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district
requirements, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and
engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise,
dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required.
AA. During construction, to the extent feasible, all parking shall take place on the
project site, on the new driveway and, if necessary, any overflow parking may take place within
the unimproved roadway easements along adjacent streets, and shall not obstruct neighboring
driveways, visibility at intersections or pedestrian and equestrian passage. During construction,
to the maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City. To the
extent feasible, a minimum of 4’ wide path, from the edge of the roadway pavement, for
pedestrian and equestrian passage shall be available and be clear of
vehicles, construction materials and equipment at all times.
AB. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and
regulate construction and relate traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM
and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise
is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling
Hills.
AC. Prior to demolition of the existing structures, an investigation shall be conducted
for the presence of hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or products, mercury and
asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). If hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or products,
mercury or ACMs are identified, remediation shall be undertaken in compliance with California
environmental regulations and policies.
AD. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be responsible for
compliance with the no-smoking provisions in the Municipal Code. The contractor shall not use
tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning
conditions. Weather conditions can be found at:
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard_definitions#FIRE. It
is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag
warning conditions.
AE. Storm water shall drain in accordance with the approved grading and drainage
plan. Drainage dissipaters shall be constructed outside of any easements. The drainage
system shall be approved by the Department of Building and Safety. If an above ground swale
and/or dissipater is required, it shall be designed in such a manner as not to cross over any
equestrian trails or discharge water onto a trail, shall be stained in an earth tone color, and
151
11
shall be screened from any trail, road and neighbors’ view to the maximum extent practicable,
without impairing the function of the drainage system.
AF. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from
wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in
accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local
ordinances and engineering practices.
AG. During construction, an Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in
Section 7010 of the 2016 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to
minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution.
AH. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and
maintenance of storm water drainage facilities and septic tank.
AI. The applicant shall pay all of the applicable Building and Safety and Public
Works Department fees and Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District fees, if any.
AJ. Prior to final inspection of the project, “as graded” and “as constructed” plans and
certifications shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Department to
ascertain that the completed project is in compliance with the Planning Commission approved
plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during construction, shall be depicted
on the “as built/as graded” plan.
AK. This Resolution’s approvals shall not be effective until the applicants execute an
Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions set forth herein.
AL. All conditions of this Resolution, when applicable, must be complied with prior to
the issuance of a grading or building permit from the Building and Safety Department.
AM. Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public
hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in section 17.54.070 of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21th DAY OF JUNE, 2022.
BRAD CHELF, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
____________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
152
12
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-07 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 21-02 FOR
A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND
CONSTRUCT A NEW 5,215-SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS; AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A
FIVE-FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALL IN THE SETBACK AREA AND
CONDUCT NON-EXEMPT GRADING ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11
FLYING MANE ROAD (LOT 53-SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (NEVENKA LLC)
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 21,
2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
__________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
153
Memorandum
TO: Elaine Jeng, PE, City Manager
FROM: Vanessa Munoz, City Traffic Engineer
DATE: May 20, 2022
SUBJECT: 11 Flying Mane Road
This memorandum is in response to the request by the city to review and provide input on
the proposed driveway being requested by the residents of 11 Flying Mane Road. The
proposed driveway will be shifted southerly from the existing location 4-5 feet. The
proposed driveway will have an 18-foot driveway aisle with a 28-foot driveway apron.
On May 18, 2022, a field review of existing conditions was performed to assess the
proposed location and width of the driveway. Based on the field observations and
engineering judgement, the driveway proposed location is acceptable.
154
N 73°11'06" E
326.70'N 05°58'24" W78.33'N 63°12'59" E (R
A
D
I
A
L
)
341.34'
20.00'
321.34'
20.00'
306.70'
N 73°06'18" E
(RADIAL)
(RADIAL)
N 61°45'40" E=09°53'19"R=700.00'L=120.81'T=60.56'=09°53'27"R=720.00'L=124.29'T=62.30'N 25°35'54" W103.57'=01°27'19"
R=700.00'
L=17.78'
T=8.89'
FD. 2" I.P. & WOODPLUG, FLUSH, ACCEPTEDPER R.S. 59, PGS. 8-10
FD.
2
"
I
.
P
.
&
T
A
G
,
R
E
1
2
2
,
PER
R
.
S
.
5
9
,
P
G
S
.
8
-
1
0
ESTAB. AT R
E
C
.
R
A
D
I
A
L
DIST. (341.34
'
)
F
R
O
M
N
E
PER R.S. 59,
P
G
S
.
8
-
1
0
FD. 3/4" REB
A
R
,
N
O
C
A
P
,
NO REF., N60
°
3
6
'
0
9
"
W
,
0
.
5
8
'
FROM PROPE
R
T
Y
C
O
R
N
E
R
ESTAB. AT REC. C
A
L
C
.
DELTA (17°27'12"
)
ALONG CURVE FR
O
M
N
W
PER R.S. 59, PGS.
8
-
1
0
ESTAB. AT REC. CALC.
DELTA (9°53'19") ALONG
CURVE FROM NW PER
R.S. 59, PGS. 8-10LEGENDABBREVIATIONS Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
PRELIMINARY: FOR PLANNING PURPOSES
C0.030306030LEGENDABBREVIATIONSSHEET INDEXOWNER / CLIENT:CONCEPT GRADING PLAN11 FLYING MANERolling Hills, CA 90275CIVIL ENGINEER / PREPARED BY:155
326.70'
341.34'
20.00'
321.34'
20.00'306.70'N 73°06'18" E(RADIAL)
(RADIAL)
N 61°45'40" E=09°53'19"R=700.00'L=120.81'T=60.56'=09°53'27"R=720.00'L=124.29'T=62.30'=01°27'19"
R=700.00'
L=17.78'
T=8.89'
ESTAB. AT REC. CALC.DELTA (17°27'12")ALONG CURVE FROM NWPER R.S. 59, PGS. 8-10
ESTAB. AT REC. CALC.
DELTA (9°53'19") ALONG
CURVE FROM NW PER
R.S. 59, PGS. 8-10
N 73°11'06" E
N 05°58'24" W78.33'N 63°12'59" E (
R
A
D
I
A
L
)
321.34'
306.70'N 25°35'54" W103.57'FD.
2
"
I
.
P
.
&
W
O
O
D
PLU
G
,
F
L
U
S
H
,
A
C
C
E
P
T
E
D
PER
R
.
S
.
5
9
,
P
G
S
.
8
-
1
0
FD.
2
"
I
.
P
.
&
T
A
G
,
R
E
1
2
2
,
PER
R
.
S
.
5
9
,
P
G
S
.
8
-
1
010102010
Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
PRELIMINARY: FOR PLANNING PURPOSES
C0.110102010156
ESTAB. AT REC. CALC.DELTA (17°27'12")ALONG CURVE FROM NWPER R.S. 59, PGS. 8-10
ESTAB. AT REC. CALC.
DELTA (9°53'19") ALONG
CURVE FROM NW PER
R.S. 59, PGS. 8-10
LEGENDLEGENDABBREVIATIONS 10102010Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
PRELIMINARY: FOR PLANNING PURPOSES
C1.1157
N 73°11'06" EN 05°58'24" W78.33'N 63°12'59" E (
R
A
D
I
A
L
)
321.34'
306.70'N 25°35'54" W103.57'FD. 2" I.P. & WOODPLUG, FLUSH, ACCEPTEDPER R.S. 59, PGS. 8-10
FD.
2
"
I
.
P
.
&
T
A
G
,
R
E
1
2
2
,
PER
R
.
S
.
5
9
,
P
G
S
.
8
-
1
0
ESTAB. AT R
E
C
.
R
A
D
I
A
L
DIST. (341.3
4
'
)
F
R
O
M
N
E
PER R.S. 59,
P
G
S
.
8
-
1
0
FD. 3/4" REB
A
R
,
N
O
C
A
P
,
NO REF., N60
°
3
6
'
0
9
"
W
,
0
.
5
8
'
FROM PROPE
R
T
Y
C
O
R
N
E
R
LEGENDLEGENDABBREVIATIONS 10102010Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
PRELIMINARY: FOR PLANNING PURPOSES
C1.2158
SECTIONS LEGENDBolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
PRELIMINARY: FOR PLANNING PURPOSES
C2.0159
,3 :22'6+$&&(37('3*6(67$%$75(&5$',$/',67
)5201(3(556 3*6)'5(%$512&$3125()1
:
)5203523(57<&251(5(67$%$75(&&$/&'(/7$
$/21*&859()5201:3(556 3*6(67$%$75(&&$/&'(/7$
$/21*&859()5201:3(556 3*61
(
1
:
1
( 5$',$/
1
( 5$',$/ 5$',$/ 1
(
5
/
7
5
/
7
1
:
5
/
7
*+,//6686%(17(7$/)&$/,)251,$7<'(6&5,%('(&25'2)/122)) )/<,1*0$1(52$'
:,'(35,9$7(67((7
(::0:0^
)22735,172) ( +20(72%(5(029('/,1(2)522)29(5+$1*322/
352326('6))22735,176725<6)'))(
( 58%%/(:$//672%(5(029(' 1 7$//58%%/(:$//725(3/$&( ( /,1(2) ( '5,9(:$<72%(5(029('
7:7:
7:
7:
7:
7:
7:)6
7:
7:
7:
7:
7:
7:
($6(0(17
($6(0(17
6<6%
6<6%
5 <6 %
5<6%
7:
7:
7:
7:
7:
)6/,1(2) ( 3$7,272%(5(029('1(:'5,9(:$< 6)
1(:&21&5(7(3$'667(33,1*:$/.:$<
)65(7$,1,1*:$//
/(1*7+$9*+7
0$;+7
5(7$,1,1*:$//
/(1*7+$9*+7
0$;+7
322/685*(%$6,1
7:5(7$,1,1*:$//
/(1*7+$9*(;326('+7
0$;(;326('+7
1(:3$7,2(175<&2857<$5'1257+
6(7$6,'()25)8785(67$%/($1'&255$/
)<6%
($6(0(17
32&+(5(*,21,1',&$7,1*(;7(172)(;,67,1*%8,/',1*3$' 6)32&+(5(*,21,1',&$7,1*)22735,172)352326('1(:6)' 6)&5266+$7&+('5(*,21,1',&$7,1*(;7(172)352326('%8,/',1*3$' 6)/,1(2)522)($9(352-(&7,21
%%4
( 32:(532/(726(59(1(:5(6,'(1&(1(:&21&'5,9(:$<2)1(7)5217<$5'6/23(6/23(6/23(1(:6(37,&7$1.$1'/($&+),(/'
)/<,1*0$1(5')/<,1*0$1(5')/<,1*0$1(5')/<,1*0$1(5'
$&&(6625<6758&785($7)/<,1*0$1(5'
7:
7:3/$17(5:$//
+(,*+7322/(48,33$'
)6$5&+,7(&785$/$ &29(56+((7$ 6,7(/,*+7,1*',$*5$0$ ),567)/2253/$1$ 522)3/$1$ ),567)/2255()/(&7('&(,/,1*3/$1$ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$ %8,/',1*6(&7,216$ %8,/',1*6(&7,216$ 352326('(;7(5,25),1,6+(6ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<&29(56+((7$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$
3/273/$19,&,1,7<0$3352-(&7$''5(66 )/<,1*0$1(5'52//,1*+,//6&$ 6&23(2):25. 1(:21(6725<6,1*/()$0,/<':(//,1*/(*$/'(6&5,37,21 $66(6625
63$5&(/180%(5 /276,=( =21( &216758&7,217<3( <($5%8,/7 180%(52)6725,(6 ( )/225$5($ 352326(')/225$5($ 5(48,5('%8,/',1*6(7%$&.6 )5217<$5'6,'(<$5'5($5<$5'0$;,080%8,/',1*+(,*+7$//2:(' ( 522)5,'*(+(,*+7 (;,67,1*%8,/',1*3$'$5($ 352326('%8,/',1*3$'$5($ *5$',1*48$17,7,(6 727$/&87727$/),//(;3257$//2:$%/((;3257 322/ /27+5$1&+2/263$/269(5'(6 $& 6)5$69% 635,1./(5(' 6,1*/(6725< 6)6)
21(6725<
6)6)&<&<&<&<352-(&7'(6&5,37,216+((7/,67352-(&7',5(&725<2:1(5 1(9(1.$//&)/<,1*0$1(5'52//,1*+,//6&$ $5&+,7(&7$33/,&$17 -2+158=,&.$$,$/(('$3*$7(:22'67/26$1*(/(6&$ MRKQ#UX]DUFKFRP6758&785$/(1*,1((5 7%'&,9,/(1*,1((5 %2/721(1*,1((5,1*&2531$5%211($9(68,7(/20,7$&$ WDOHV#EROWRQHQJLQHHULQJFRP'9,(:*(27(&+1,&$/(1*,1((5 &2$67*(27(&+1,&$/,1&:(67&20021:($/7+)8//(5721&$ FRDVWJHRWHF#VEFJOREDOQHW6859(<25 &+5,61(/621 $662&,$7(6,1&9,$&2/,1$668,7(+:(67/$.(9,//$*(&$ 0(3(1*,1((5 7%';/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7 1$785$/$57/$1'6&$3(&$6,$125'/26$1*(/(6&$ WRPDV#QDWXUDODUWODQGVFDSHVFRP160
)',3 :22'3/8*)/86+$&&(37('3(556 3*6)',3 7$*5(3(556 3*6(67$%$75(&5$',$/',67
)5201(3(556 3*6)'5(%$512&$3125()1
:
)5203523(57<&251(5(67$%$75(&&$/&'(/7$
$/21*&859()5201:3(556 3*61
(
1
:
1
( 5$',$/
1
( 5$',$/ 5$',$/ 1
(
5
/
7
5
/
7
1
:
5
/
7
2)817<$%29('(6&5,%(' )/<,1*0$1(52$'
:,'(35,9$7(67((7
(::0:0^/,1(2)522)29(5+$1*322/352326('6))22735,176725<6)'))(
7:7:
7:
1(:'5,9(:$<
1(:&21&5(7(3$'667(33,1*:$/.:$<1(:3$7,2(175<&2857<$5'1257+6(7$6,'()25)8785(67$%/($1'&255$/
5(&(66('/('675,3/,*+7,181'(56,'(2)&21&5(7(3$9(56:$//02817('(;7(5,25'2:1/,*+76$7($&+'22523(1,1* 5()(572(/(9$7,216 322//,*+76ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<6,7(/,*+7,1*',$*5$0$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$
6,7(/,*+7,1*',$*5$0161
:'
),5(3/$&(
)$0,/<5220/,9,1*5220(175<&2857<$5'*<0678'<0$67(5%('52200$67(5%$7+6+2:(5:&0$67(5&/26(7%('5220%$7+32:'(5/$81'5<&+()
6.,7&+(1.,7&+(1',1,1*5220(175<*$5$*(&/26(7%('5220%('5220&/26(7%$7+&/26(7%$7+79322/%$7+
322/)22735,172)(;,67,1*+20(72%(5(029('/,1(2)522)29(5+$1*&29(5('325&+
75$6+<$5'
63$1(:7$//9(+,&/(*$7($BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB6.</,*+7$%29(7<3
23(13$7,2
'5,9(:$<9,(:'(&.
6<6%
6<6%
6725$*(
&2$76 7 2 5 $*(
$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB($6(0(17
5())=5:,1(
$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB:$7(5),/7(51(:5$,/)(1&($$$$
*/$66*8$5'5$,/
'*67(33,1*6721($&&(663$7+21*5$'(
1,&+(
$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
%%4
1257+23(1&251(5),5(3/$&(666666$77,&$&&(66$%29($77,&$&&(66$%29(1(:$(/(&75,&$/6(59,&( ( 32:(532/(1(:3$,17('5(':22')(1&(726&5((175$6+<$5'
7$1./(66+:
5(&(66('$8720$7,&322/&29(55 $,6 ('3/$1 7 (5
5 $,6 ('3 /$17 (5
7:+$//0(&+$1,&$/9(17,/$7,21&$3$%/(2)&)0(;+$867('72(;7(5,25 5 &20%,1$7,21602.($1'&$5%210212;,'('(7(&725+$5':,5(' 5 66<0%2/6/(*(1'ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<),567)/2253/$1$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$
352326('),567)/225162
$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB23(1
$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
$$$$$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
1257+6721(&/$'0$6215<&+,01(<
/,1(2):$//%(/2:7<3
ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<522)3/$1$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$
352326('522)352326('522)0$7(5,$/63(&,),&$7,21163
$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$$$$$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB23(1726.<ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<),567)/2255()/(&7('&(,/,1*3/$1$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$
5()/(&7('&(,/,1*3/$1164
*/$66*8$5'5$,/,15(&(66('6+2(32:'(5&2$7('$/80,180*877(5 '$5.*5(< 678&&2),1,6+216,7(5(7$,1,1*:$//6
),1,6+)/225
&21&5(7(7,/(522)'$5.&+$5&2$/&2/256.</,*+77<3;+25,=217$/:22'6,',1*:,7+648$5(*5229(2%8,/',1*3$3(52+55$7(''(16*/$666+((7,1* 3$,17(':+,7( '$5.*5(<32:'(5&2$7('$/80,180)5$0('2256$1':,1'2:67<3:,'(75,0 3$,17(':+,7( 62/,':22')$6&,$ 3$,17(''$5.*5(< )5(()250528*+6721(&/$'',1*$7&+,01(<
&5$:/63$&($&&(66'225 ;
),1,6+)/225
(;7(5,25:$//6&21&(7<3,&$/$//(;7(5,25/,*+7,1*72%(6+,(/'(''2:1/,*+76ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$
($67(/(9$7,21
:(67(/(9$7,21165
&21&5(7(7,/(522)'$5.*5(<&2/256.</,*+77<3;+25,=217$/:22'6,',1*:,7+648$5(*5229(2%8,/',1*3$3(52+55$7(''(16*/$666+((7,1* 3$,17(':+,7( '$5.*5(<32:'(5&2$7('$/80,180)5$0('2256$1':,1'2:67<3:,'(75,0 3$,17(':+,7( 62/,':22')$6&,$ 3$,17(''$5.*5(< :22'*$5$*('2253$,17(':+,7(&8672062/,'2$.(175<'225
(4(4
ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$
1257+(/(9$7,21
6287+(/(9$7,21166
&5$:/63$&( &5$:/63$&(
(175<&2857<$5'/,9,1*5220
322/
685*(%$6,172: 9$5,(6 72: 9$5,(6
322/
685*(%$6,172: 9$5,(6 72:
:$7(5/,1(
72:',1,1*5220)$0,/<5220ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<%8,/',1*6(&7,216$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$
6(&7,21
6(&7,21167
($6(0(17
&5$:/63$&(/,1(2) ( *5$'(
7:7:
%('5220+$//0$;
3529,'(6/855<6/$%$7&5$:/63$&(7<3,&$/0$67(5%('5220
&5$:/63$&(
0$67(5%('52200$67(5%$7+
ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<%8,/',1*6(&7,216$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$
6(&7,21
6(&7,21
6(&7,21168
ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<'9,(:6$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$ +,//6,'(3(563(&7,9(+,//6,'(3(563(&7,9(675((7)$&$'(169
ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<352326('(;7(5,25),1,6+(6$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$ &21&5(7(7,/(522),1*%<($*/('$5.&+$5&2$/ 62/,':22'6,',1*:,'(+25,=217$/%2$5'6:,7+648$5(*$3$1'0,75('&251(56&87%/8(6721(3$9,1*$7'5,9(:$</$5*()250$77,/(6)5(()250528*+6721(&/$'',1*$7&+,01(<6$7,1$/80,180'225$1':,1'2:)5$0(6723&$67&21&5(7()/$7:25.:,7+(;326('$**5(*$7(685)$&(02817('(;7(5,25'2:1/,*+76170
Agenda Item No.: 9.B
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
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 NO. 22-44: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SECOND
MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO RELOCATE THE
DRIVEWAY APRON, CONSTRUCT MAXIMUM FIVE-FOOT-HIGH
RETAINING WALLS, AND FOR NON-EXEMPT GRADING;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 750-SQUARE-FOOT
STABLE AND CORRAL; AND VARIANCE REQUESTS TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE, CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND
CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD, CONSTRUCT IN THE FRONT
SETBACK AREA, AND FOR RETAINING WALLS THAT EXCEED A
HEIGHT OF 3 FEET UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 5 FEET IN THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 MIDDLERIDGE
LANE SOUTH (LOT 254-UR), ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(CIMMARUSTI)
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On June 21, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-08 approving
Zoning Case No. 22-44 for a second major modification to a Site Plan Review to relocate the
driveway apron, construct maximum five-foot-high retaining walls, and for non-exempt
grading; conditional use permit to construct a stable and corral; and variance requests to
exceed the maximum permitted disturbance, construct a stable and corral in the front yard and
front yard setback, and for retaining walls that exceed a height of 3 feet up to a maximum of 5
feet in the front yard setback. The Planning Commission included the Traffic Commission's
recommendation on safety improvements made on May 26, 2022.
Previous Approvals
On July 16, 2019, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2019-13 approving
Zoning Case No. 956 for a Site Plan Review for grading of 6,790 cubic yards of cut and 5,955
cubic yards of fill with 835 cubic yards of dirt to be exported from the excavation of the
171
basement and pool; to construct a 6,201-square-foot residence with a 3,000-square-foot
basement and 880-square-foot attached garage; to construct a 1,172 square foot swimming
pool; and to construct a not to exceed 5-foot-high retaining wall along the driveway; a
Condition Use Permit (CUP) to construct an 800-square-foot guest house; and Variances to
exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot by 9.9% to up to 49.9%, where
maximum permitted is 40%; and to cover 33.3% of the front yard setback with a driveway,
where the maximum permitted is 20%. The driveway apron was approved by the Traffic
Commission. The project also included accompanying administrative approvals to construct
the following: 1) 1,222 square feet of covered porches for the residence; 2) 238-square-foot
entryway for the residence; 3) 40 square foot pool equipment area; 4) 100-square-foot water
feature; 5) 400-square-foot outdoor kitchen; 6) 100-square-foot service yard area; and 7) 337-
square-foot attached porch for the guest house.
On August 17, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2021-11 granting a
two-year time extension for Zoning Case No. 956 to July 16, 2023. The time extension applies
to the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances.
On April 19, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-04 approving
Zoning Case No. 21-10 for a major modification to a Site Plan Review to relocate the
residence and ancillary structures 30 feet to the east. The plan also converted the 800-square-
foot guest house to a 1,000-square-foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU) eliminating the need for
a CUP. No changes were made to the location of the driveway apron nor to the lot disturbance
of 49.9%.
Zoning, Location, and Lot Description
The property is zoned RAS-2 and excluding roadway easement the net lot area is 137,810
square feet (3.16 acres) in size. The lot is vacant. The existing topography of the project site
slopes down approximately 40 feet from the upper area of Middleridge Lane South to the
lowest portion of the lot.
DISCUSSION:
Applicant's Request
On May 20, 2022, the property owner, Ralph Cimmarusti (Colorado St. Brand Blvd LLC),
submitted a major modification request for the Site Plan Review to relocate the driveway
apron, construct maximum five-foot-high retaining walls in the front yard setback, construct a
new 750-square-foot stable and corral in the front yard, construct in the front and side yard
setback areas, and for non-exempt grading.
The proposed project does not affect the major modification for the relocation of the residence
and ancillary structures approved by the Planning Commission on April 19, 2022.
Site Plan Review
Site Plan Review is required for a second major modification to relocate the driveway apron,
construct maximum five-foot-high retaining walls with an average height of two and one-half
feet, and for non-exempt grading of 12,280 cubic yards as identified in Rolling Hills Municipal
Code (RHMC) Section 17.46.020.
172
Driveway Apron
The driveway apron will be relocated from the northwestern corner of the lot approximately
200 feet to the south, which shortens the driveway length by nearly half. The total driveway will
be reduced from 10,770 square feet to 6,722 square feet, and the portion of the driveway in
the front yard setback will be reduced from 8,500 square feet to 4,452 square feet. This
eliminates the variance request approved under Resolution No.2019-13 since the area of the
driveway in the front yard setback is reduced from 33.3% to 17.4%, which is less than the 20%
maximum permitted.
A secondary driveway will extend from the main driveway to the proposed stable and corral.
The secondary driveway will be 10 feet wide and of a permeable material such as
decomposed granite. It will be entirely in the front yard setback.
The City's traffic engineer reviewed the driveway apron and advised that landscaping not be in
the sight triangle, which is defined as the sight distance 222 feet to the east and 180 feet to
the west. This meets and exceeds the 155-foot distance for a 25-mph roadway and 173-foot
distance for downgrades exceeding 9% slope. The traffic engineer's report is attached.
On May 26, 2022, the Traffic Commission reviewed the relocation of the driveway apron and
recommended approval, 4-0, with a condition that safety improvements be included as
advised by the traffic engineer. This includes a restriction that landscaping in the front
easement not exceed 24 inches in height and that the front of the driveway be scored or
roughened for horses.
Retaining Walls
The project includes three sets of retaining walls: a retaining wall at the stable and corral to
support the building pad; a retaining wall adjacent to the driveway and motor court; and a set
of retaining walls at the front of the property to support two existing mature trees. The walls will
have a maximum height of five feet with an average height of two and one-half feet. The
retaining walls will be located in the front yard with the wall supporting the driveway and motor
court and the walls supporting the tree wells located in the front yard setback. A variance has
been requested for these encroachments which is described below.
Grading
The total grading for the project is proposed to be 12,280 cubic yards (CY): 6,140 CY of cut
and 6,140 CY of fill. Grading will be balanced on site. The western portion of the lot includes
961 CY of cut and 752 CY of fill for the driveway; the depth of the cut will be eight feet and the
fill will be six feet. The project includes 1,740 CY of overexcavation and 1,740 CY of
recompaction.
The applicant is proposing to use the excavated dirt to flatten surrounding areas. No dirt will be
exported. Maximizing the amount of fill on the subject property complies with the goals of the
General Plan to balance grading on site. A breakdown of the cubic yards of cut and fill is
shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Grading
Area of Grading CY of Cut Depth of Cut CY of Fill Depth of Fill Total CY of
Grading
173
Walls
Driveway
Yard
142
961
230
7.7’
8’
2.7’
224
752
121
3.8’
6’
3.2’
366
1,713
351
Main Residence
Basement
ADU
Pool and Spa
128
2,392
191
306
2’
14.3’
7.1’
8.1’
0
0
12
0
0
0
2.2’
0
128
2,392
203
306
Stable 20 1'190 4'210
Pathway to Stable 0 0'430 10.3'430
Slope Grading 1,770 10 4,411 11'6,181
Total (Grading
Balanced on-site)6,140 n/a 6,140 n/a 12,280
Source: Grading calculations provided by applicant
Area of Grading CY of Cut Depth of Cut CY of Fill Depth of Fill Total CY of
Grading
Lot and Building Pad Coverage
Net Lot Area: 137,810 square feet (3.16 acres)
Structural Coverage: 12,147 square feet or 8.8%, excluding exempt structures (20%
max. permitted)
Flatwork (including driveways and walkways): 12,812 square feet or 9.3%
Total Lot Coverage (structures and flatwork): 24,959 square feet or 18.1%, excluding
exempt structures
Total Disturbed Area: 72,646 square feet or 52.7% of the lot (40% maximum permitted;
variance required)
Variance
Zoning Case No. 956 approved under Resolution No. 2019-13 includes variance requests
from Section 17.16.070 for lot disturbance and exceeding the 20% maximum permitted
coverage in the front setback with a driveway. The project will increase the lot disturbance
from 49.9% to 52.7%, thus necessitating a new variance. However, the project will reduce the
driveway coverage in the front yard setback from 33.3% to 17.4%, thus eliminating the need
for a variance since coverage will be less than the 20% maximum permitted.
The project also includes variance requests to construct a stable and corral in the front yard
identified in Sections 17.18.060(A)(2) and 17.18.090(3), construct in the front yard setback
area identified in Sections 17.16.110, and to construct a five-foot-high retaining wall in the side
and front yard setbacks identified in Section 17.16.150(F). Findings to support the variance
requests are included in the resolution.
Conditional Use Permit
174
Zoning Case No. 956 approved under Resolution No. 2019-13 included a conditional use
permit (CUP) for a guest house. However, the guest house has been converted to an ADU
eliminating the need for a CUP since ADUs are not subject to discretionary review.
Pursuant to RHMC Section 17.18.060, the proposed 750-square-foot stable with an attached
300-square-foot covered porch does require a CUP. Findings to support approval of the CUP
are included in the resolution.
Environmental Review
The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 3, Section 15303. New construction of a
single-family residence and accessory structures.
Rolling Hills Community Association Review
Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date.
Traffic Commission Review
On May 26, 2022, the Traffic Commission reviewed the relocation of the driveway apron and
recommended approval, 4-0. At the advice of the traffic engineer, the Traffic Commission
recommended a restriction that landscaping in the front easement not exceed 24 inches in
height and the front of the driveway be scored or roughened for horses.
Public Participation
No written correspondence received.
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
17.46.010 Purpose.
The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain
development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is
consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically
sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent
with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and
otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills.
17.46.50 Required Findings.
1. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally
approve, or deny a site plan review
2. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the
Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be
made:
3. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general
plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; the project substantially preserves the
natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage
requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage
permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot;
175
4. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and
surrounding residences;
5. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible,
existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature
trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
6. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the
amount of grading required to create the building area;
7. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless
such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
8. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements
these elements with drought-tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and
enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or
transition area between private and public areas;
9. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of
pedestrians and vehicles; and
10. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality.
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.
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
176
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:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
Vicinity Map.pdf
220616_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_Development Table.pdf
EARTH-INFO-6-15-22.pdf
Memo from Traffic Engineer 052022.pdf
220512_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_Driveway Location Pictures.pdf
Resolution No. 2022-08 - 8MiddleridgeLn_S_ZC 22-44-PROPOSED.pdf
Resolution No. 2022-04 - 8 Middleridge Lane South ZC 21-10-CORRECT.pdf
Resolution No. 2021-11 for Time Ext (ZC 956) 8 Middleridge Ln S.pdf
Resolution No. 2019-13 8 Middleridge Lane South.pdf
ARCH-SITE PLAN-6-16-22 11X17.pdf
220615_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_11x17 Site Plan.pdf
220615_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_11x17 Barn Plans.pdf
220615_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_CutFill Plans.pdf
220615_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_Slope Plans.pdf
CL_AGN_220621_PC_BlueFolderItem_10A_ArchSitePlan.pdf
CL_AGN_220621_PC_BlueFolderItem_10A_2022-08_PC_Resolution_8MiddleridgeLn_S_ZC
22-44.pdf
177
City of Rolling Hills 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
TITLE
VICINITY MAP
CASE NO.
Zoning Case No. 22-44
Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, Variance
OWNER Cimmarusti
ADDRESS 8 Middleridge Lane South, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SITE
178
COMPARISON CHART
8 MIDDLERIDGE
LANE SOUTH
2019
PRIOR APPROVAL
2022
PROPOSED PROJECT
RA-S- 2 Zone
Net Lot Area: 137,810 SF (3.16
AC)
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE, GARAGE,
GUEST HOUSE, POOL
AND SPA, FUTURE (SET
ASIDE) STABLE
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE, GARAGE, ADU,
POOL AND SPA, STABLE
Building Pad 1 30,600 SF 30,600 SF
Residence 6,201 SF
18.2’ height
6,094 SF
19.5’ height
Garage 880 SF 987 SF
Pool and Spa 1,172 SF 1,172 SF
Pool Equipment 40 SF 40 SF
Guest House 800 SF --
ADU -- 1,000 SF
Stable (450 SF minimum) 450 SF (Future Stable) 750 SF
Attached Covered Porches 1,222 SF 1,522 SF
Entryway, Porte Cochere,
Breezeways
238 SF 238 SF
Attached Trellises -- 244 SF
Outdoor Kitchen 400 SF 400 SF
Water features 100 SF 100 SF
Service Yard 100 SF 100 SF
Basement Area 3,000 SF 4,491 SF
Grading 13,580 cubic yards
(6,790 CY cut / 6,790 CY fill)
12,280 cubic yards
(6,140 CY cut / 6,140 CY fill)
Total Structure Area (20% max) 11,603 SF (8.4%) 12,647 SF (9.2%)
Total Structures (excluding up to 5
legal and up to 800 SF detached
structures that are not higher than
12 ft (no more than 120 SF per
structure per deduction, except for
trellis)
11,103 SF (8.1%) 12,147 SF (8.8%)
Total Flatwork 16,860 SF (12.2%) 12,812 SF (9.3%)
Total Lot Coverage (Structures and
Flatwork) (35% max & with
deductions)
27,963 SF (20.3%) 24,959 SF (18.1%)
Total Disturbed Area
(40% maximum)
68,886 SF (49.9%) 72,646 SF (52.7%)
179
Date 6/15/2022 Address 8 Middle Ridge South
Grading Quantities Cubic Yds.Max. Depth Max. Depth Location
For House(without basement)128 2 SW of Bldg.
Walls 142 7.7 SE of DWY.
ADU 191 7.1 SW of ADU
For Driveway 961 8 SW of SWY.
For yard areas 230 2.7 SW of Pool
For basement excavation 2392 14.3 SW of Basement
Stable 20 1 E of Stable
Pathway to stable 0 0
Slope grading 1770 10 S of DWY.
For pool/spa excavation 306 8.1 SW of Pool
Overexcavation 1740 3 Bldg.+ADU+DWY.+Hardscape
TOTAL CUT
TOTAL EXPORT
For House 0 0
Walls 224 3.8 NW of DWY.
ADU 12 2.2 NE of ADU
For Driveway 752 6 NE of DWY.
For yard areas 121 3.2 NE of Pool
For basement excavation 0 0
Stable 190 4 W of Stable
Pathway to stable 430 10.3 S of Pathway
Slope grading 4411 11 W of Bldg.
For pool/spa excavation 0 0
Recompaction 1740 3 Bldg.+ADU+DWY.+Hardscape
TOTAL FILL
TOTAL GRADING (Sum of total cut and total fill)
Residential pad Other pad
Finished Floor
Finished grade
Finished floor 1013/1014.25 ADU:1015.5
Finished grade 1011.5 to 1016.25 ADU:1014.85
Basement-finished floor 1002/1003.33
Basement-finished well wall 1001.75/1003.08
Existing pad elevations
Proposed pad elevations
GRADING AND EXCAVATION INFORMATION
CUT/EXCAVATION
For other structures:
For other structures:
PAD/FLOOR ELEVATIONS
6140(overexcavation is not included)
0
6140(Recompaction is not included)
FILL
12,280
no ex. Bldg
180
Memorandum
TO: Elaine Jeng, PE, City Manager
FROM: Vanessa Munoz, PE, TE, City Traffic Engineer
DATE: May 20, 2022
SUBJECT: 8 Middleridge Lane South Driveway
This memorandum is in response to the request by the city to review and provide input on the
revised layout for a single 20- foot driveway being proposed by the residents at 8 Middleridge
Lane South. This is a revision to the previously approved layout.
A sight tringle exhibit was submitted for the same driveway location back on October 10, 2018, to
verify sight obstructions and sight distance available from the driveway in both directions. The
sight distance shown is 222-feet to the east and 180-feet to the west which meets and exceeds
the 155-feet for a 25-mph roadway and 173-feet for downgrades exceeding 9% slope.
The revised proposed driveway layout is acceptable, however due to the curvature of road and
parcel terrain, I recommend no foliage and/or landscape higher than 24” be permitted within the
line-of-sight triangle. The limitations are proposed to always maintain the acceptable line of sight
and avoid overgrowth of landscape in the future in both directions. The line-of-sight triangle shall
be laid out on the site plan to delineate the landscape height limitations.
181
8 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH – DRIVEWAY LOCATION
Page 1 of 2
Main Driveway
Looking northwest along Middleridge Lane South
(yellow arrows depict edge of driveway apron)
Looking southeast along Middleridge Lane South
182
8 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH – DRIVEWAY LOCATION
Page 2 of 2
Looking northeast toward driveway apron
(yellow arrows depict edge of driveway apron)
183
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 22-44
FOR A SECOND MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO
RELOCATE THE DRIVEWAY APRON, CONSTRUCT MAXIMUM FIVE-
FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALLS, AND FOR NON-EXEMPT GRADING;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND
CORRAL; AND VARIANCE REQUESTS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED DISTURBANCE, CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL
IN THE FRONT YARD AND FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND FOR
RETAINING WALLS THAT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF 3 FEET UP TO A
MAXIMUM OF 5 FEET IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 254-
UR), ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (CIMMARUSTI)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE, AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. On July 16, 2019, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
2019-13 approving Zoning Case No. 956 for a Site Plan Review for grading of 6,790 cubic
yards of cut and 5,955 cubic yards of fill with 835 cubic yards of dirt to be exported from
the excavation of the basement and pool; to construct a 6,201-square-foot residence with
a 3,000-square-foot basement and 880-square-foot attached garage; to construct a 1,172
square foot swimming pool; and to construct a not to exceed 5-foot-high retaining wall
along the driveway; a Condition Use Permit to construct an 800-square-foot guest house;
and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot by 9.9% to up to
49.9%, where maximum permitted is 40%; and to cover 33.3% of the front yard setback
with a driveway, where the maximum permitted is 20%. The project also included
accompanying administrative approvals to construct the following: 1) 1,222 square feet
of covered porches for the residence; 2) 238-square-foot entryway for the residence; 3)
40 square foot pool equipment area; 4) 100-square-foot water feature; 5) 400-square-foot
outdoor kitchen; 6) 100-square-foot service yard area; and 7) 337-square-foot attached
porch for the guest house.
Section 2. On August 17, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 2021-11 granting a two-year time extension for Zoning Case No. 956 to July 16, 2023.
The time extension applies to the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and
Variances.
Section 3. On April 19, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
2022-04 approving Zoning Case No. 21-10 for a major modification to a Site Plan Review
to relocate the residence and ancillary structures 30 feet to the east and subject to the
time extension to July 16, 2023.
Section 4. On May 20, 2022, the property owner, Ralph Cimmarusti (Colorado
St. Brand Blvd LLC), submitted a request for the Site Plan Review to relocate the driveway
apron, construct maximum five-foot-high retaining walls in the front yard setback,
184
2
construct a new 750-square-foot stable and corral in the front yard, and conduct non-
exempt grading. The request includes a Conditional Use Permit to construct a stable and
corral, and Variance requests to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance, construct
a stable and corral in the front yard, construct in the front yard setback, and for retaining
walls for the driveway and two tree planters that exceed a height of 3 feet up to a
maximum of 5 feet in the front yard setback.
Section 5. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing
field trip on June 21, 2022, followed by a virtual public hearing meeting that same evening.
Neighbors within a 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearing and a notice was
published in the Daily Breeze on June 9, 2022. The Applicant and his agent were notified
of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and email and both were in attendance
at the hearing. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting
said proposal and from members of City staff. The Planning Commission reviewed,
analyzed, and studied said proposal.
Section 6. The property is zoned RAS-2, and the lot is 3.45 acres in size
excluding roadway easement. For development purposes, the net lot area is 3.16 acres,
(137,810 sq. ft.). The lot is vacant. The lot is long and narrow, having a very long frontage
along Middleridge Lane South. The rear of the lot slopes to a bridle trail that crosses the
lot.
Section 7. The Planning Commission finds that the development project is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (new
construction of single family residence and accessory structures) of the CEQA guidelines.
The Class 3 exemption consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new,
small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence and accessory
structures, including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. Here, the
development project includes construction of a stable and corral, relocation of the
driveway apron, and retaining walls and associated grading for purposes of locating and
constructing such facilities. Therefore, the project meets the Class 3 categorical
exemption under Section 15303. Further, none of the exceptions to the exemption apply.
More specifically, there is no reasonable probablity that the activity will have a significant
effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. There are no unusual
circumstances associated with the property and no reasonable probability that the
development will have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 8. The Planning Commission finds that the second Major Modification
to the Site Plan Review that was granted by Resolution No. 2019-13, extended by
Resolution No. 2021-11, and modified by Resolution No. 2022-04 for 12,280 cubic yards
of grading balanced onsite pursuant to RHMC Section 17.46.020 and for 5-foot retaining
wall along a portion of the driveway pursuant to RHMC Section 17.16.190 and 17.16.210
do not affect the findings for Site Plan Review. With respect to the second Major
Modification to the Site Plan Review for the increased grading in the additional amount of
40 cubic yards of cut and 40 cubic yards of fill pursuant to RHMC Section 17.46.020 and
5-foot-high retaining walls along a portion of the driveway pursuant to RHMC Section
17.16.190, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact pursuant to
185
3
RHMC Section 17.46.050, which supplement the Site Plan Review findings in Resolution
No. 2019-13 and 2022-04:
A. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies
of the General Plan and all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The relocation of the driveway apron, retaining walls, and grading comply with the
General Plan requirement of low profile, low-density residential development with
sufficient open space between surrounding structures and maintain sufficient setbacks to
provide buffers between residential uses.
The property is unimproved, and therefore a new driveway and building pads must
be created. The balanced grading complies with the General Plan and all requirements
of the zoning ordinance subject to the variances. The grading is necessary to create the
building pads, and a driveway of 20 feet in width with a turnaround area is required by the
Fire Department. The net lot area of the lot is over 3 acres but is constrained by the shape
of the lot, which is long and narrow, having a very long frontage along Middleridge Lane
South. The lot is adjacent to other large lots along Middleridge Lane South.
The not-to-exceed 5-foot-high retaining walls along the driveway and for the
planter areas comply with the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance.
The topography of the lot and the requirement for a 20-foot-wide driveway dictates the
location of a wall, and other retaining walls for planter areas will preserve existing mature
trees which will benefit the neighborhood character. The walls will be minimally visible
from the street or by any neighbors. The retaining wall supports the General Plan as it will
provide safety to the property owners, reduce the need for additional grading and meet
the building code and Fire Department requirements.
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state
of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded
as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the
existing buildable area of the lot.
The topography and the configuration of the lot have been considered, and the
proposed project will be constructed on the least steep area of the lot, so that the lot
experiences the least disruption. The lot coverage is 24,959 square feet or 18.1%, which
is below the maximum lot coverage limitation of 35%. The grading for the building pad
leaves the steeper and more densely vegetated areas in their existing state. The project
in general will retain the existing slopes and vegetation. The not to exceed 5-foot-high
retaining walls support the slope along the driveway and the existing mature trees to
reduce the need for additional grading.
C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural
terrain and surrounding residences.
The proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the scale of the
neighborhood when compared to new residences in the City. The proposed project is
screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The
186
4
development plan takes into consideration the views from Middleridge Lane South. The
development will be set back from the road so that views from the road will not be blocked.
Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The development location will be
the least intrusive to surrounding properties, is of sufficient distance from nearby
residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will
allow the owners to enjoy their property without significantly impacting surrounding
property owners. The grading for the building pad leaves the steeper and more densely
vegetated areas in their existing state. The proposed 5-foot-high retaining walls are
necessary to support the slope along the driveway and maintain the existing mature trees
along the street. The walls are harmonious in scale as they will be minimally visible from
the roadway and neighboring properties.
D. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the
greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including
surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms
(such as hillsides and knolls).
The area of the proposed construction does not contain any native vegetation; part
of the area is flat and through the years has been cleared for fire prevention. There are
several mature trees and shrubs that will be preserved with construction of the retaining
walls and other native vegetation will be planted. A good portion of the lot will remain in
its natural condition as it slopes into the canyon and a bridle trail. This area of the lot will
not be affected by the construction of the project. The building pad for the stable and
corral is created with a cut and fill that will be balanced on site. The resulting slopes near
the residence pad and stable pad will mostly be 3:1 or less with no slopes greater than
2:1 gradient.
The not-to-exceed 5-foot-high and 50-foot-long retaining wall along the driveway
limits preserves and integrates existing topographic features of the site because it follows
the countours of the lot and is required to support the width of the driveway. The retaining
walls along the street will preserve the existing mature trees. It will aid in the design of the
drainage on the property as the run off will travel along the driveway curb and the wall
into a dissipator located near the driveway apron and into the street. This will protect the
building pad and the structure from flooding during heavy rains. The rear of the building
pad will continue draining in sheet flow fashion to the natural drainage course below the
property.
E. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and
to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area.
The building pads are created with grading that parallels the existing topography
and the road. The dirt will be placed in natural appealing curved shape to fill an existing
depression. The resulting slopes near the residence pad and stable pad will mostly be
3:1 or less with no slopes greater than 2:1 gradient. Fill slopes follow Middleridge in a
natural form. There is no grading in the canyon and all drainage courses remain the same.
Runoff will be collected in a managed fashion so as not to flood the property.
187
5
F. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect
drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course.
The topography and hydrology of the lot dictate the location of the development so
that an acceptable drainage design for the property may be accomplished. The project
will not affect any drainage course as the drainage will mimic the existing drainage course;
however due to the introduction of impervious surfaces to the lot the lot runoff will be
collected in a managed fashion, so as not to flood the property.
G. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees
and supplements these elements with drought-tolerant landscaping which is
compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and
landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas.
The project will retain many of the existing vegetation, and add new vegetation
comatible with the rural character of the City. A large portion of the lot will remain
undisturbed and the existing vegetation will remain. A large portion of the area proposed
for construction does not contain any native or mature vegetation as it was cleared for fire
prevention through the years. The development will be screened and landscaped with
additional trees and shrubs. The landscaping will provide a buffer or transition area
between the property and surrounding properties. The retaining walls will not disturb
surrounding native vegetation or mature trees. The retaining walls are minimally visible
from adjacent properties.
H. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe
movement of pedestrians and vehicles.
This is an unimproved lot and a new driveway must be constructed. The relocated
driveway apron shortens the driveway length by approximately half which eliminates
impervious area. The Traffic Engeer has reviewed the driveway and recommends
approval with the condition that landscaping along the roadway be minimized to no higher
than 24 inches. A path for pedestrians is preserved at the street and there is ample off-
street parking due to the Fire Prevention access requirement.
The new 20’ wide driveway, as required by the Fire Department, will be safe for
two cars to drive past each other. There is ample parking in the garages and in the motor
court in front of the house so visitor parking will be contained on site.
I. The project conforms to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
The development project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 (new
construction of single-family residence and accessory structures) of the CEQA guidelines.
The Class 3 exemption consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new,
small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence and accessory
structures, including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. Here, the
development project includes construction of a stable and corral, relocation of the
driveway apron, and retaining walls and associated grading for purposes of locating and
188
6
constructing such facilities. Therefore, the project meets the Class 3 categorical
exemption under Section 15303. Further, none of the exceptions to the exemption apply.
More specifically, there is no reasonable probability that the activity will have a significant
effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. There are no unusual
circumstances associated with the property and no reasonable probability that the
development will have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 9. Section 17.16.040 (A)(6) and Section 17.18.050(A)(1) of the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a stable greater than two hundred square with
a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission must consider applications for a
Conditional Use Permit and may, with such conditions as are deemed necessary, approve
a conditional use that complies with the findings in RHMC Section 17.18.060 -
Requirements for stables requiring conditional use permit. The proposed 750-square-
foot stable with an attached 300-square-foot covered porch complies with all
requirements of this section except it exceeds the maximum permitted disturbance, is
located in the front yard, and is constructed in the front yard setback. Variances for those
conditions are being granted concurrently in this resolution.
With respect to the aforementioned request for a Conditional Use Permit from Zoning
Ordinance Section 17.42.050, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan.
The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a stable is consistent with the
purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the use is
consistent with similar uses in the community, and meets all the applicable code
development standards for a stable, subject to the variances. The propose project is
located in an area on the property that is appropriate to accommodate such equestrian
use.
B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses,
buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely
affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures.
The propoed 750-square-foot stable and 300-square-foot covered porch are
distanced from nearby residences, as well as not having any impact on the views of
surrounding neighbors. The proposed stable and corral will be 96 feet from the residence
on the subject property and over 100 feet from any neighboring residences, thus
exceeding the 35-foot required minimum distance from a residential structure.
C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and
shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed.
The proposed stable is of similar scale with existing stables in the neighborhood.
The lot is 3.45 acres in size for development purposes. The proposed project site if
sufficiently large to accommodate the proposed use.
189
7
D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable
development standards of the zone district
The proposed project requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Sections
17.18.050 and 17.18.060 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed conditional use
complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district subject to the
required variances which are approved herein.
E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the
Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting criteria
for hazardous waste facilities.
The project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste
and Substances Sites List.
F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this
title.
The proposed stable observes the spirit and intent of the zoning title because it
provides for an equestrian use that is encouraged throughout the City as each property
is required to have a stable and corral or a set aside therefor.
Section 10. Variance. Section 17.38.050 sets forth the required findings for
granting a variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance identified in Section
17.16.070(B), construct a stable and corral in the front yard identified in Sections
17.18.060(A)(2) and 17.18.090(3), construct a stable and corral in the front yard setback
identified in Sections 17.16.110, and to construct five-foot-high retaining walls to support
the driveway and create two tree wells in the front yard setback identified in Section
17.16.150(F). With respect to the requests for Variances, the Planning Commission finds
as follows:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties
in the same vicinity and zone.
There are extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property in that there are
steep slopes in the rear of the property making it more feasible to develop in the front
yard. The property also has a curvilinear street frontage of over 500 feet creating a much
larger front yard compared to other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone. An
increase in disturbance from is needed to prevent development on steep slopes. Further,
five-foot-high retaining walls with an average height of two and one-half feet are needed
in the front setback to improve accessibility and preserve existing mature trees. The
variance requests are warranted due to the unique sloping topography that does not apply
generally to other properties in the vicinity.
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity
and zone but which is denied the property in question.
190
8
Granting the requested variances are necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of property rights on the property. The stable pad encroaches into the front
yard and the retaining walls encroach into the front yard setback due to the property’s
unique shape. Other properties in the vicinity enjoy these types of improvements.
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
Granting the variances to encroach into the front yard setback will not be
detrimental to the public welfare and will not be injurious to properties in the vicinity; a
retaining wall and other improvements are allowed in the Rolling Hills community. Further,
the project will be consistent with other development in the area. Improvements in the
front yard setback will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be
observed.
Allowing the variances meets the spirit and intent of this title in that Rolling
Hills is an equestrian community and construction of a stable and retaining walls
would be harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and
surrounding residences. The proposed construction complies with the low-profile
residential development pattern of the community and will not give the property
an over-built look. The lot is sufficient to accommodate the proposed use.
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant.
The construction in the front setback allows improvement to a single-family
property similar to others in the City. The project, together with the variances, will be
compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified
in the General Plan.
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los
Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for
hazardous waste facilities.
Granting the variances for the project will be consistent with the applicable
portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related to
siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. The project site is not listed on the current
State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List.
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the
City of Rolling Hills.
Granting the variances will be consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling
Hills, which allows and encourages residential uses and property improvements. It will
191
9
further the low-profile residential development pattern of the community and will
not give the property an over-built look.
Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby
approves Zoning Case No. 2022-44, a request for a second Major Modification to a Site
Plan Review to relocate the driveway apron, construct not-to-exceed 5-foot-high retaining
walls in the front yard setback, and conduct non-exempt grading to be balanced on site;
a Conditional Use Permit to construct a stable and corral; and Variance requests to
exceed the maximum permitted disturbance, construct a stable and corral in the front
yard, construct a stable and corral in the front yard setback, and for retaining walls that
support the driveway and create two tree wells that exceed a height of 3 feet up to a
maximum of 5 feet in the front yard setback, and hereby amends the conditions of
approval in Section 9 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-13, dated July 16,
2019, and amended by Resolution No. 2022-04 dated April 19, 2022, to read as follows:
E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with
the site plan on file with the City and approved by the Planning Commission on April 19,
2022, as amended by the site plan on file with the City and approved by the Planning
Commission on June 21, 2022, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. All
conditions of the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances shall be
incorporated into the building permit working drawings, and where applicable complied
with prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the building department.
The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto building plans
submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times.
Any modifications and/or changes to the approved project, including resulting from
field conditions, shall be discussed and approved by staff prior to implementing the
changes.
G. The structural net lot coverage shall not exceed 12,647 sq.ft. or 9.2% (w/out
deductions) and 8.8% w/deductions in conformance with the lot coverage limitations; the
proposed total coverage, (structures and flatworks) shall not exceed 24,959 sq.ft.
(w/deductions) or 18.1% and 18.5% w/out deduction in conformance with the lot coverage
limitations.
The proposed residential building pad will be 30,600 sq.ft. with 36.6% structural
coverage-accounting for allowable deductions, and includes the accessory dwelling unit.
The proposed stable and corral pad will be 1,775 sq. ft. with 59.1% structural
coveral.
H. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 52.7%. Grading for this project
shall not exceed 6,140 cubic yards of cut and 6,140 cubic yards of fill balanced onsite.
192
10
AC. The Applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of
this permit pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. The
affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution.
Section 12. Except as amended herein and as amended by Resolution 2021-11
and 2022-04, the provisions and conditions of Resolution No. 2019-13 shall continue to
be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21st DAY OF JUNE, 2022.
_______________________________
BRAD CHELF, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing
on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
193
11
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-08 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 22-44
FOR A SECOND MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO
RELOCATE THE DRIVEWAY APRON, CONSTRUCT MAXIMUM FIVE-
FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALLS, AND FOR NON-EXEMPT GRADING;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND
CORRAL; AND VARIANCE REQUESTS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED DISTURBANCE, CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL
IN THE FRONT YARD AND FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND FOR
RETAINING WALLS THAT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF 3 FEET UP TO A
MAXIMUM OF 5 FEET IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 254-
UR), ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (CIMMARUSTI)
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June
21st, 2022 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
PARC
E
L
1
TRAC
T
N
o.
2
6
7
6
9
M.B. 7
9
8/
9
0-
9
1
LACA
M
A
P
N
o.
6
0
LOT 2
5
4
MB 8/1
DRIVEW
A
Y
5 MIDD
L
E
RI
D
G
E
R
O
A
D
S
O
U
T
H
DRIVEWAY
6 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOUTH
DRIVEWAY7 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOUTHDRIVEWAY
10 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOU
T
H
GUEST
H
O
U
S
E
F.F.=10
1
5
.
5
0
PARCEL 1
TRACT No. 26769
M.B. 798/90-91
LACA MAP No. 60
LOT 254
MB 8/1
F.F.=101
3
.
0
0
(RAISED
F
L
O
O
R
)
PAD=10
1
0
.
0
0
BASEME
N
T
F.F.=100
2
.
0
0
BASEME
N
T
F.F.=100
3
.
3
3
F.F.=101
3
.
0
0
(RAISED
F
L
O
O
R
)
PAD=10
1
0
.
0
0
GARAGE
F.F.=1013
.
0
0
BASEME
N
T
F.F.=100
2
.
0
0
F.F.=101
3
.
0
0
(RAISED
F
L
O
O
R
)
PAD=10
1
0
.
0
0
POOL
SPA
F.F.(ABO
V
E
)
=
1
0
1
3
.
0
0
F.F.(ABO
V
E
)
=
1
0
1
4
.
2
5
PA
LW
DRIVEW
A
Y
5 MIDD
L
E
RI
D
G
E
R
O
A
D
S
O
U
T
H
DRIVEWAY
6 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOUTH
DRIVEWAY7 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOUTHBA
R
N
PA
D
=
9
9
0
.
0
(4
0
'
x
1
5
'
)
60
0
S
F
FE
E
D
(1
0
'
x
1
0
'
)
10
0
S
F
SE
C
T
I
O
N
CUT/FILL LEGEND
EARTHWORK QUANTITIES
10' - 11'
5' - 10'
0 - 5'
-5' - 0
-10' - -5'
-14.3' - -10'
222
PARC
E
L
1
TRAC
T
N
o.
2
6
7
6
9
M.B. 7
9
8/
9
0-
9
1
LACA
M
A
P
N
o.
6
0
LOT 2
5
4
MB 8/1
DRIVEW
A
Y
5 MIDD
L
E
RI
D
G
E
R
O
A
D
S
O
U
T
H
DRIVEWAY
6 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOUTH
DRIVEWAY7 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOUTHDRIVEWAY
10 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOU
T
H
GUEST
H
O
U
S
E
F.F.=10
1
5
.
5
0
PARCEL 1
TRACT No. 26769
M.B. 798/90-91
LACA MAP No. 60
LOT 254
MB 8/1
F.F.=101
3
.
0
0
(RAISED
F
L
O
O
R
)
PAD=10
1
0
.
0
0
BASEME
N
T
F.F.=100
2
.
0
0
BASEME
N
T
F.F.=100
3
.
3
3
F.F.=101
3
.
0
0
(RAISED
F
L
O
O
R
)
PAD=10
1
0
.
0
0
GARAGE
F.F.=1013
.
0
0
BASEME
N
T
F.F.=100
2
.
0
0
F.F.=101
3
.
0
0
(RAISED
F
L
O
O
R
)
PAD=10
1
0
.
0
0
POOL
SPA
F.F.(ABO
V
E
)
=
1
0
1
3
.
0
0
F.F.(ABO
V
E
)
=
1
0
1
4
.
2
5
PA
LW
DRIVEW
A
Y
5 MIDD
L
E
RI
D
G
E
R
O
A
D
S
O
U
T
H
DRIVEWAY
6 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOUTH
DRIVEWAY7 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOUTHBA
R
N
PA
D
=
9
9
0
.
0
(4
0
'
x
1
5
'
)
60
0
S
F
FE
E
D
(1
0
'
x
1
0
'
)
10
0
S
F
SE
C
T
I
O
N
SLOPE LEGEND
0 - 10%
10% - 33.5%(3:1 SLOPE)
33.5% - 50% (2:1 SLOPE)
223
NOTE: MAX WALL HEIGHT5'-0", AVERAGE HEIGHT 3'-0"224
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 22-44
FOR A SECOND MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO
RELOCATE THE DRIVEWAY APRON, CONSTRUCT MAXIMUM FIVE-
FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALLS, AND FOR NON-EXEMPT GRADING;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND
CORRAL; AND VARIANCE REQUESTS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED DISTURBANCE, CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL
IN THE FRONT YARD AND FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND FOR
RETAINING WALLS THAT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF 3 FEET UP TO A
MAXIMUM OF 5 FEET IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 254-
UR), ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (CIMMARUSTI)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE, AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. On July 16, 2019, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
2019-13 approving Zoning Case No. 956 for a Site Plan Review for grading of 6,790 cubic
yards of cut and 5,955 cubic yards of fill with 835 cubic yards of dirt to be exported from
the excavation of the basement and pool; to construct a 6,201-square-foot residence with
a 3,000-square-foot basement and 880-square-foot attached garage; to construct a 1,172
square foot swimming pool; and to construct a not to exceed 5-foot-high retaining wall
along the driveway; a Condition Use Permit to construct an 800-square-foot guest house;
and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot by 9.9% to up to
49.9%, where maximum permitted is 40%; and to cover 33.3% of the front yard setback
with a driveway, where the maximum permitted is 20%. The project also included
accompanying administrative approvals to construct the following: 1) 1,222 square feet
of covered porches for the residence; 2) 238-square-foot entryway for the residence; 3)
40 square foot pool equipment area; 4) 100-square-foot water feature; 5) 400-square-foot
outdoor kitchen; 6) 100-square-foot service yard area; and 7) 337-square-foot attached
porch for the guest house.
Section 2. On August 17, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 2021-11 granting a two-year time extension for Zoning Case No. 956 to July 16, 2023.
The time extension applies to the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and
Variances.
Section 3. On April 19, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
2022-04 approving Zoning Case No. 21-10 for a major modification to a Site Plan Review
to relocate the residence and ancillary structures 30 feet to the east and subject to the
time extension to July 16, 2023.
Section 4. On May 20, 2022, the property owner, Ralph Cimmarusti (Colorado
St. Brand Blvd LLC), submitted a request for the Site Plan Review to relocate the driveway
apron, construct maximum five-foot-high retaining walls in the front yard setback,
225
2
construct a new 750-square-foot stable and corral in the front yard, and conduct non-
exempt grading. The request includes a Conditional Use Permit to construct a stable and
corral and Variance requests to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance, construct a
stable and corral in the front yard, construct a corral in the front yard setback, and for
retaining walls for the driveway and two tree wells in the front yard setback (that will in
some areas exceed 3 feet, and be up to a maximum of 5 feet, in height).
Section 5. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing
field trip on June 21, 2022, followed by a virtual public hearing meeting that same evening.
Neighbors within a 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearing and a notice was
published in the Daily Breeze on June 9, 2022. The Applicant and his agent were notified
of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and email and both were in attendance
at the hearing. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting
said proposal and from members of City staff. The Planning Commission reviewed,
analyzed, and studied said proposal.
Section 6. The property is zoned RAS-2, and the lot is 3.45 acres in size
excluding roadway easement. For development purposes, the net lot area is 3.16 acres,
(137,810 sq. ft.). The lot is vacant. The lot is long and narrow, having a very long frontage
along Middleridge Lane South. The rear of the lot slopes to a bridle trail that crosses the
lot.
Section 7. The Planning Commission finds that the development project is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (new
construction of single family residence and accessory structures) of the CEQA guidelines.
The Class 3 exemption consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new,
small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence and accessory
structures, including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. Here, the
development project includes construction of a stable and corral, relocation of the
driveway apron, and retaining walls and associated grading for purposes of locating and
constructing such facilities. Therefore, the project meets the Class 3 categorical
exemption under Section 15303. Further, none of the exceptions to the exemption apply.
More specifically, there is no reasonable probablity that the activity will have a significant
effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. There are no unusual
circumstances associated with the property and no reasonable probability that the
development will have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 8. Major Modification to Site Plan Review.The Planning Commission
finds that this second Major Modification to the Site Plan Review, which was granted by
Resolution No. 2019-13, and extended by Resolution No. 2021-11, and modified by
Resolution No. 2022-04 does not affect the previsouly made findings for this project. As
noted above, this second Major Modification to the Site Plan Review includes: (1) a
relocation of the driveway apron; (2) three sets of retaining walls, which are as follows:
(a) a retaining wall at the stable and corral to support the building pad, (b) a retaining wall
adjacent to the driveway and motor court, and (c) retaining walls at the front of the propety
to support two existing mature trees; and (3) increased grading in the additional amount
of 40 cubic yards of cut and 40 cubic yards of fill pursuant to RHMC Section 17.46.020.
With respect to the foregoing, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of
226
3
fact pursuant to RHMC Section 17.46.050, which supplement the Site Plan Review
findings in Resolution Nos. 2019-13 and 2022-04:
A. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies
of the General Plan and all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The relocation of the driveway apron, three sets of retaining walls, and grading
comply with the General Plan’s requirement of low profile, low-density residential
development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures and maintain
sufficient setbacks to provide buffers between residential uses.
The property is unimproved, and therefore a new driveway and building pads must
be created. The balanced grading complies with the General Plan and all requirements
of the zoning ordinance subject to the variances. The grading is necessary to create the
building pads, and a driveway of 20 feet in width with a turnaround area is required by the
Fire Department. The net lot area of the lot is over 3 acres but is constrained by the shape
of the lot, which is long and narrow, having a very long frontage along Middleridge Lane
South. The lot is adjacent to other large lots along Middleridge Lane South.
The not-to-exceed 5-foot-high retaining walls along the driveway and for the
planter areas comply with the General Plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance.
The topography of the lot and the requirement for a 20-foot-wide driveway dictates the
location of a wall, and other retaining walls for planter areas will preserve existing mature
trees which will benefit the neighborhood character. The walls will be minimally visible
from the street or by any neighbors. The retaining wall supports the General Plan as it will
provide safety to the property owners, reduce the need for additional grading and meet
the building code and Fire Department requirements.
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state
of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded
as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the
existing buildable area of the lot.
The topography and the configuration of the lot have been considered, and the
proposed project will be constructed on the least steep area of the lot, so that the lot
experiences the least disruption. The lot coverage is 24,959 square feet or 18.1%, which
is below the maximum lot coverage limitation of 35%. The grading for the building pad
leaves the steeper and more densely vegetated areas in their existing state. The project
in general will retain the existing slopes and vegetation. The not to exceed 5-foot-high
retaining walls support the slope along the driveway and the existing mature trees to
reduce the need for additional grading.
C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural
terrain and surrounding residences.
The proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the scale of the
neighborhood when compared to new residences in the City. The proposed project is
screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The
227
4
development plan takes into consideration the views from Middleridge Lane South. The
development will be set back from the road so that views from the road will not be blocked.
Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The development location will be
the least intrusive to surrounding properties, is of sufficient distance from nearby
residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will
allow the owners to enjoy their property without significantly impacting surrounding
property owners. The grading for the building pad leaves the steeper and more densely
vegetated areas in their existing state. The proposed 5-foot-high retaining walls are
necessary to support the slope along the driveway and maintain the existing mature trees
along the street. The walls are harmonious in scale as they will be minimally visible from
the roadway and neighboring properties.
D. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the
greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including
surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms
(such as hillsides and knolls).
The area of the proposed construction does not contain any native vegetation; part
of the area is flat and through the years has been cleared for fire prevention. There are
several mature trees and shrubs that will be preserved with construction of the retaining
walls and other native vegetation will be planted. A good portion of the lot will remain in
its natural condition as it slopes into the canyon and a bridle trail. This area of the lot will
not be affected by the construction of the project. The building pad for the stable and
corral is created with a cut and fill that will be balanced on site. The resulting slopes near
the residence pad and stable pad will mostly be 3:1 or less with no slopes greater than
2:1 gradient.
The not-to-exceed 5-foot-high and 50-foot-long retaining wall along the driveway
preserves and integrates existing topographic features of the site because it follows the
countours of the lot and is required to support the width of the driveway. The retaining
walls along the street will preserve the existing mature trees. It will aid in the design of the
drainage on the property as the run off will travel along the driveway curb and the wall
into a dissipator located near the driveway apron and into the street. This will protect the
building pad and the structure from flooding during heavy rains. The rear of the building
pad will continue draining in sheet flow fashion to the natural drainage course below the
property.
E. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and
to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area.
The building pads are created with grading that parallels the existing topography
and the road. The dirt will be placed in natural appealing curved shape to fill an existing
depression. The resulting slopes near the residence pad and stable pad will mostly be
3:1 or less with no slopes greater than 2:1 gradient. Fill slopes follow Middleridge Lane
South in a natural form. There is no grading in the canyon and all drainage courses remain
the same. Runoff will be collected in a managed fashion so as not to flood the property.
228
5
F. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect
drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course.
The topography and hydrology of the lot dictate the location of the development so
that an acceptable drainage design for the property may be accomplished. The project
will not affect any drainage course as the drainage will mimic the existing drainage course;
however due to the introduction of impervious surfaces to the lot the lot runoff will be
collected in a managed fashion, so as not to flood the property.
G. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees
and supplements these elements with drought-tolerant landscaping which is
compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and
landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas.
The project will retain many of the existing vegetation, and add new vegetation
comatible with the rural character of the City. A large portion of the lot will remain
undisturbed and the existing vegetation will remain. A large portion of the area proposed
for construction does not contain any native or mature vegetation as it was cleared for fire
prevention through the years. The development will be screened and landscaped with
additional trees and shrubs. The landscaping will provide a buffer or transition area
between the property and surrounding properties. The retaining walls will not disturb
surrounding native vegetation or mature trees. The retaining walls are minimally visible
from adjacent properties.
H. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe
movement of pedestrians and vehicles.
This is an unimproved lot and a new driveway must be constructed. The relocated
driveway apron shortens the driveway length by approximately half which eliminates
impervious area. The Traffic Engeer reviewed the driveway and recommended approval
with the condition that landscaping along the roadway be minimized to no higher than 24
inches. A path for pedestrians is preserved at the street and there is ample off-street
parking due to the Fire Prevention access requirement.
The new 20’ wide driveway, as required by the Fire Department, will be safe for
two cars to drive past each other. There is ample parking in the garages and in the motor
court in front of the house so visitor parking will be contained on site.
I. The project conforms to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
The development project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 (new
construction of single-family residence and accessory structures) of the CEQA guidelines.
The Class 3 exemption consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new,
small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence and accessory
structures, including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. Here, the
development project includes construction of a stable and corral, relocation of the
driveway apron, and retaining walls and associated grading for purposes of locating and
229
6
constructing such facilities. Therefore, the project meets the Class 3 categorical
exemption under Section 15303. Further, none of the exceptions to the exemption apply.
More specifically, there is no reasonable probability that the activity will have a significant
effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. There are no unusual
circumstances associated with the property and no reasonable probability that the
development will have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 9. Conditional Use Permit. Section 17.16.040 (A)(6) and Section
17.18.050(A)(1) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a stable greater
than two hundred square with a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission must
consider applications for a Conditional Use Permit and may, with such conditions as are
deemed necessary, approve a conditional use that complies with the findings in RHMC
Section 17.18.060 - Requirements for stables requiring conditional use permit. The
proposed 750-square-foot stable with an attached 300-square-foot covered porch
complies with all requirements of this section except it exceeds the maximum permitted
disturbance, is located in the front yard, and is constructed in the front yard setback.
Variances for those conditions are being granted concurrently in this Resolution.
In accordance with RHMC Section 17.42.050, the Planning Commission makes the
following findings with respect to the request for a Conditional Use Permit described
above:
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan.
The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a stable is consistent with the
purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the use is
consistent with similar uses in the community, and meets all the applicable code
development standards for a stable, subject to the variances. The propose project is
located in an area on the property that is appropriate to accommodate such equestrian
use.
B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses,
buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely
affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures.
The propoed 750-square-foot stable and 300-square-foot covered porch are
distanced from nearby residences, as well as not having any impact on the views of
surrounding neighbors. The proposed stable and corral will be 96 feet from the residence
on the subject property and over 100 feet from any neighboring residences, thus
exceeding the 35-foot required minimum distance from a residential structure.
C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and
shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed.
The proposed stable is of similar scale with existing stables in the neighborhood.
The net lot area is 3.16 acres in size for development purposes. The proposed project
site if sufficiently large to accommodate the proposed use.
230
7
D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable
development standards of the zone district
The proposed project requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Sections
17.18.050 and 17.18.060 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed conditional use
complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district subject to the
required variances which are approved herein.
E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the
Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting criteria
for hazardous waste facilities.
The project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste
and Substances Sites List.
F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this
title.
The proposed stable observes the spirit and intent of the zoning title because it
provides for an equestrian use that is encouraged throughout the City as each property
is required to have a stable and corral or a set aside therefor.
Section 10. Variance. Section 17.38.050 sets forth the required findings for
granting a variance. This Resolution includes the following variances: (1) to exceed the
maximum permitted disturbance identified in Section 17.16.070(B); (2) to construct a
stable and corral in the front yard identified in Sections 17.18.060(A)(2) and 17.18.090(3);
(3) to construct a corral in the front yard setback identified in Sections 17.16.110, and (4)
to construct retaining walls up to five feet in height to support the driveway and create two
tree wells in the front yard setback identified in Section 17.16.150(F). With respect to
these requests for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties
in the same vicinity and zone.
There are extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property in that there are
steep slopes in the rear of the property making it more feasible to develop in the front
yard. The property also has a curvilinear street frontage of over 500 feet creating a much
larger front yard compared to other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone. An
increase in disturbance from is needed to prevent development on steep slopes. Further,
retaining walls (that may be up to five feet in height, but average two and one-half feet
in height) are needed in the front setback to improve accessibility and preserve existing
mature trees. The variance requests are warranted due to the unique sloping topography
that does not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity.
231
8
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity
and zone but which is denied the property in question.
Granting the requested variances are necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of property rights on the property. The stable pad encroaches into the front
yard and the retaining walls encroach into the front yard setback due to the property’s
unique shape. Other properties in the vicinity enjoy these types of improvements.
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
Granting the variances to encroach into the front yard setback will not be
detrimental to the public welfare and will not be injurious to properties in the vicinity;
retaining walls and other improvements are allowed in the Rolling Hills community.
Further, the project will be consistent with other development in the area. Improvements
in the front yard setback will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be
observed.
Allowing the variances meets the spirit and intent of this title in that Rolling
Hills is an equestrian community and construction of a stable and retaining walls
would be harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and
surrounding residences. The proposed construction complies with the low-profile
residential development pattern of the community and will not give the property
an over-built look. The lot is sufficient to accommodate the proposed use.
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant.
The construction in the front setback allows improvement to a single-family
property similar to others in the City. The project, together with the variances, will be
compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified
in the General Plan.
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los
Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for
hazardous waste facilities.
Granting the variances for the project will be consistent with the applicable
portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related to
siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. The project site is not listed on the current
State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List.
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the
City of Rolling Hills.
232
9
Granting the variances will be consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling
Hills, which allows and encourages residential uses and property improvements. It will
further the low-profile residential development pattern of the community and will
not give the property an over-built look.
Section 11. Approval. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves Zoning Case No. 2022-44, which includes the approval of
the following:
1. A second Major Modification to a Site Plan Review to: (i) relocate the
driveway apron, (ii) construct not-to-exceed 5-foot-high retaining walls in the front yard
setback, and (iii) conduct non-exempt grading to be balanced on site;
2 A Conditional Use Permit to construct a 750-square-foot stable with a 300-
square-foot covered porch and a corral; and
3. Variances to: (i) exceed the maximum permitted disturbance, (ii) construct
a stable and corral in the front yard, (iii) construct a corral in the front yard setback, and
(iv) for retaining walls in the front yard setback that support the driveway and create two
tree wells. Such retaining walls may exceed a height of 3 feet but shall not exceed 5 feet
in height.
Section 12. Amended Conditions of Approval. All the conditions of approval from
Resolution No. 2019-13, Resolution No. 2021-11, and Resolution 2022-04 are restated
herein and the Planning Commission hereby amends conditions of approval E, G, H, and
AC to read as follows:
“E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with
the site plan on file with the City and approved by the Planning Commission on April 19,
2022, as amended by the site plan on file with the City and approved by the Planning
Commission on June 21, 2022, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. All
conditions of the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances shall be
incorporated into the building permit working drawings, and where applicable complied
with prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the building department.
The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto building plans
submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times.
Any modifications and/or changes to the approved project, including resulting from
field conditions, shall be discussed and approved by staff prior to implementing the
changes.
G. The structural net lot coverage shall not exceed 12,647 sq.ft. or 9.2% (w/out
deductions) and 8.8% w/deductions in conformance with the lot coverage limitations; the
proposed total coverage, (structures and flatworks) shall not exceed 24,959 sq.ft.
(w/deductions) or 18.1% and 18.5% w/out deduction in conformance with the lot coverage
limitations.
233
10
The proposed residential building pad will be 30,600 sq.ft. with 36.6% structural
coverage-accounting for allowable deductions, and includes the accessory dwelling unit.
The proposed stable and corral pad will be 1,775 sq. ft. with 59.1% structural
coveral.
H. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 52.7%. Grading for this project
shall not exceed 6,140 cubic yards of cut and 6,140 cubic yards of fill balanced onsite.
AC. The Applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of
this permit pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. The
affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution.”
Section 12. Except as amended herein and as amended by Resolution 2021-11
and 2022-04, the provisions and conditions of Resolution No. 2019-13 shall continue to
be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21st DAY OF JUNE, 2022.
_______________________________
BRAD CHELF, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing
on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
234
11
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-08 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 22-44
FOR A SECOND MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO
RELOCATE THE DRIVEWAY APRON, CONSTRUCT MAXIMUM FIVE-
FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALLS, AND FOR NON-EXEMPT GRADING;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND
CORRAL; AND VARIANCE REQUESTS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED DISTURBANCE, CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL
IN THE FRONT YARD AND FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND FOR
RETAINING WALLS THAT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF 3 FEET UP TO A
MAXIMUM OF 5 FEET IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 254-
UR), ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (CIMMARUSTI)
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June
21st, 2022 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
235
Agenda Item No.: 10.A
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
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:
PUBLIC HEARING FOR INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF
ORDINANCE NO. 377 AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW
REGARDING EMPLOYEE, SUPPORTIVE, AND TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
In recent years, the State of California has preempted local regulation of certain residential
uses, including employee, supportive, and transitional housing. State law generally defines
each use follows:
Employee Housing: refers to privately-owned housing that houses five or more
employees and meets specified criteria (e.g., the living quarters are provided in
connection with employment). (see Health and Safety Code, § 17008(a)).
Supportive Housing : refers to housing that is occupied by an homeless individual or
family with no limit on the length of stay and that is linked to onsite or offsite services.
(see Gov. Code, § 65650(a)).
Transitional Housing: refers to rental housing operated under program requirements that
require termination of assistance and recirculating the unit to another recipient at a
predetermined future date that is not less than six months from the beginning of the
assistance. (see Gov. Code, § 65582(j)).
The proposed ordinance (the “Ordinance”) updates the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (“RHMC”)
to clarify that the City permits these uses as required by State law.
DISCUSSION:
As required by State law, the Ordinance amends the RHMC to:
236
Add definitions for “employee housing,” “supportive housing,” and “transitional housing”
to the Zoning Code’s “Definitions” provided in Chapter 17.12 of the RHMC.
Specify that for purposes of the RHMC, “employee housing,” “supportive housing,” and
“transitional housing” have the same meaning as defined under State law.
Indicate that employee housing (with a permit from the statutory enforcement agency) to
serve six or fewer employees is considered a single-family residential structure.
The Ordinance specifies that the “statutory enforcement agency” refers to the
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) unless and until the
City of Rolling Hills or the County of Los Angeles assume responsibility for
enforcing the Employee Housing Act under Health and Safety Code Section 17050.
Clarify that no conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance will be
required for employee housing serving six or fewer employees unless the same is
required for a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone.
Specify that “supportive housing” and “transitional housing” are considered residential
uses of property and subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings
of the same type in the same zone.
Clarify that “supportive housing” is a use by right in all zones where multifamily and
mixed uses are permitted.
The Ordinance’s amendments to the RHMC are mandated by State law. For these reasons,
staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the Ordinance. The Planning Commission
held a public hearing to consider the Ordinance on June 21, 2022 and, thereafter,
recommended that the City Council adopt the Ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Adoption of this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a
project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the
environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from
CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in
question may have a significant effect on the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §
15061(b)(3)).
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public hearing; and
2. Introduce for first reading by title only Ordinance No. 377, entitled:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW REGARDING EMPLOYEE,
SUPPORTIVE, AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND FINDING THE ACTION TO
BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA”
3. Direct staff to schedule a second reading for the August 8, 2022 City Council meeting.
237
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - PC Resolution No. 2022-10_Employee_Supportive_Transitional_Housing.pdf
Attachment 2 - Ordinance 377_EmployeeSupportiveTransitionalHousing.pdf
238
65277.00010\40131166.1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS
SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENSURE
CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW REGARDING EMPLOYEE,
SUPPORTIVE, AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND FINDING
THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation,
duly organized under the California Constitution and laws of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, in recent years, the State of California has preempted local regulation
of certain residential uses, including employee, supportive, and transitional housing; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (“RHMC”)
to keep it in compliance with state law; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance, which would amend various
provisions of the RHMC to clarify that the City permits employee, supportive, and
transitional housing as required by state law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the staff report, supporting
documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information that has been submitted with
the proposed ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills does
hereby resolve, determine, find, and order as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are
incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution.
Section 2. CEQA. The Planning Commission finds that adoption of the
proposed ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is
not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical
change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the adoption of this
ordinance is exempt from CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.
(State CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3).)
239
65277.00010\40131166.1
Page 2 of 3
Section 3. General Plan. The proposed ordinance’s amendments to Title 17 of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code are consistent with, and in furtherance of, the City’s
adopted General Plan as they effectuate the Fifth Cycle Housing Element’s
Implementation Program No. 8—which provides that the City would amend the Municipal
Code to add definitions for employee, supportive, and transitional housing.
Section 4. Recommendation. Based on the foregoing recitals and findings, the
Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt of
the proposed ordinance and code amendments that are attached as Exhibit “A” hereto
and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 5. Certification. The Planning Commission Chair shall sign and the
Secretary shall attest to the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution takes effect immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21th DAY OF JUNE, 2022.
BRAD CHELF, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
____________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing
on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
240
65277.00010\40131166.1
Page 3 of 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-12 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW
REGARDING EMPLOYEE, SUPPORTIVE, AND TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 21,
2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
__________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
241
ORDINANCE NO. 377
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING VARIOUS
SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENSURE
CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW REGARDING
EMPLOYEE, SUPPORTIVE, AND TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT
FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation,
duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, in recent years, the State of California has preempted local regulation
of certain residential uses, including employee, supportive, and transitional housing; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance amends Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code to ensure that the City’s regulation of the above mentioned uses is clear and in
accordance with state law; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2022, the City gave public notice of a Planning
Commission public hearing to be held to consider this Ordinance by advertisement in a
newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed
public hearing to consider the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony
concerning this Ordinance. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted
to forward the Ordinance to the City Council with a recommendation in favor of its
adoption; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2022 the City gave public notice of a City Council public
hearing to be held to consider this Ordinance by advertisement in a newspaper of general
circulation; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2022, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing
to consider the Ordinance, including: (1) the public testimony and agenda reports
prepared in connection with the Ordinance, (2) the policy considerations discussed
therein, and (3) the consideration and recommendation by the City’s Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The Recitals above are true and correct and are hereby
adopted as findings as if fully set forth herein.
242
2
ORDINANCE NO. 377
Employee Supportive Transitional Housing
SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections
15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as
defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the
environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt
from CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. (State CEQA
Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3).)
SECTION 3. General Plan. This Ordinance’s amendments to Title 17 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code are consistent with, and in furtherance of, the City’s adopted
General Plan as they effectuate the Fifth Cycle Housing Element’s Implementation
Program No. 8—which provides that the City would amend the Municipal Code to add
definitions for employee, supportive, and transitional housing.
SECTION 4. Code Amendment. Section 17.12.050 (“E” words, terms and
phrases) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a definition for
“Employee housing,” to read in its entirety as follows:
“Employee housing” has the same meaning as in California Health and
Safety Code Section 17008(a), as that section is amended from time to
time.
SECTION 5. Code Amendment. Section 17.12.109 (“S” words, terms and
phrases) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a definition for
“Supportive housing,” to read in its entirety as follows:
“Supportive housing” has the same meaning as in California Government
Code Section 65650(a), as that section is amended from time to time.
SECTION 6. Code Amendment. Section 17.12.200 (“T” words, terms and
phrases) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a definition for
“Transitional housing,” to read in its entirety as follows:
“Transitional housing” has the same meaning as in California Government
Code Section 65582(j), as that section is amended from time to time.
SECTION 7. Code Amendment. Section 17.16.250, entitled “Employee,
Supportive, and Transitional Housing,” is hereby added to the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code and shall read in its entirety as follows:
“Section 17.16.250 – Employee, Supportive, and Transitional Housing
A. In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section
10721.5, subdivision (b):
243
3
ORDINANCE NO. 377
Employee Supportive Transitional Housing
1. Employee housing with a permit from the statutory
enforcement agency to serve six or fewer employees is
considered a single-family residential structure.
2. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning
clearance is required for employee housing serving six or
fewer employees unless the same is required for a family
dwelling of the same type in the same zone.
3. In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section
17007, for purposes of this subsection (A), “statutory
enforcement agency” refers to the Department of Housing and
Community Development unless and until the City of Rolling
Hills or the County of Los Angeles assume responsibility for
enforcing the Employee Housing Act under Health and Safety
Code Section 17050.
B. Supportive housing is a use by right in all zones where multifamily
and mixed uses are permitted, in accordance with Government Code
Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 11 (commencing with Section
65650).
C. Transitional housing and supportive housing are each considered a
residential use of property and are subject to those restrictions that
apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same
zone, in accordance with Government Code Section 65583,
subdivision (c)(3).”
SECTION 8. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance is declared to be
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect any remaining provision
hereof. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills hereby declares that it would have
adopted this Ordinance despite any partial invalidity.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance takes effect 30 days after its
passage and adoption in accordance with California Government Code section 36937.
SECTION 10. Certification. The City Clerk is hereby directed to certify to the
passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause the same, or a summary thereof, to be
published or posted in the manner required by law; and file a notice of exemption within
five business days after adoption of the Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 8th day of August, 2022.
244
4
ORDINANCE NO. 377
Employee Supportive Transitional Housing
____________________________
James Black, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
245
5
ORDINANCE NO. 377
Employee Supportive Transitional Housing
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I, Christian Horvath, City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 377 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Rolling Hills held on the 8th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Christian Horvath
City Clerk
246
Agenda Item No.: 10.B
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
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:
PUBLIC HEARING FOR INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF
ORDINANCE NO. 378 AMENDING SECTION 17.19.030 OF THE
ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FAMILY DAY CARE
HOMES
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
Senate Bill (SB) 234 prohibits cities from requiring any Family Child Care Home licensed by
the Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division, large or small as
defined in Health and Safety Code 1596.78, from having to obtain a land use/zoning permit
and/or business license for their operation. Health and Safety Code section 1597.45 now
states that Large Family Child Care Homes (caring for up to 14 children) shall be treated the
same as Small Family Child Care Homes (caring for up to 8 children) under all local laws.
Cities must now consider the operation of a Large Family Child Care Home as a residential
use of property by right, just as they have historically been required to treat Small Family Child
Care Homes as residential property uses by right.
DISCUSSION:
The enclosed Ordinance amends Section 17.19.030 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, which
previously provided that homes in the Rancho Del Mar Housing Opportunity Zone were
required to get a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) before operating a day care home. This is no
longer permitted by SB 234, so the enclosed Ordinance removes the requirement to get a
CUP. Staff worked with the City Attorney’s office to draft the ordinance, which amends the
Municipal Code so that the City is in compliance with SB 234’s requirements. For this reason,
staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the Ordinance. The Planning Commission
held a public hearing to consider the Ordinance on June 21, 2022 and, thereafter,
recommended that the City Council adopt the Ordinance.
247
CEQA CONSIDERATIONS:
The Ordinance is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”),
pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that the proposed
adoption will not have a significant effect on the environment, primarily because the
amendment removes the requirement for a use permit for large family day care homes, and
regardless of the use permit requirement, state law already establishes that CEQA does not
apply to either large or small family day care homes pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15274 and
California Health & Safety Code 1597.45(d). Thus, the action on the Ordinance is not
anticipated to have any impact under CEQA primarily because the State has already decided
that CEQA does not apply to large or small family day care homes.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public hearing; and
2. Introduce for first reading by title only Ordinance No. 378, entitled:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS,
CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTION 17.19.030 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES”
3. Direct staff to schedule a second reading for the August 8, 2022 City Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2022-11_Family_Day_Care_Homes.pdf
Attached 2 - Ordinance No. 378_Family_Day_Care__Homes.A.pdf
248
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.19.030 OF THE
ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES
WHEREAS, Governor Newsom signed SB 234 (Skinner, Chapter 244) into law,
amending the Health and Safety Code relating to family daycare homes, including
requiring all local ordinances t o treat family daycare homes as a residential use of
property; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 1597.45(a), a small or
large family daycare home shall be considered a residential use of property by right for
purposes of all City ordinances, including zoning ordinances; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 1597.45(b), cities cannot
impose a business license, fee, or tax on a small or large family daycare home; and
WHEREAS, the use of a home as a small or large family daycare home does not
constitute a change of occupancy for purposes of the State Housing Law or local building
codes; and
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code section 1596.78(a) defines a “family daycare
home” to mean a “facility that regularly provides care, protection, and supervision for 14
or fewer children, in the provider’s own home, for periods of less than 24 hours per day,
while the parents or guardians are away, and is either a large family daycare home or a
small family daycare home”; and
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code section 1596.78(b) defines a “large family
daycare home” as a facility that provides care, protection, and supervision for 7 to 14
children…” and section 1596.78 defines a “small family daycare home” as a facility that
provides care, protection, and supervision for eight or fewer children…”; and
WHEREAS, adoption of this Ordinance will bring the City’s Zoning Code into
compliance with the changes made to family child day care home law pursuant to SB 234
by removing and amending certain regulations for small and large family child care homes
in the City; and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance proposed for adoption by the City Council will result in
the amendment of certain zoning provisions within the Rolling Hills Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65853 et seq. requires the Rolling Hills
Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) to hold a public hearing and render a
written recommendation to the City Council prior to its adoption of an ordinance that
amends zoning provisions within the Municipal Code; and
249
2
Resolution 2022-11
Family Day Care Homes
WHEREAS, the Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 21, 2022
to consider the facts as presented in the staff report prepared for this purpose, and to
accept public testimony regardi ng this proposed zoning update.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills does
hereby resolve, determine, find, and order as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by this reference as findings in support of this Resolution.
Section 2. CEQA. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this
Ordinance is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”),
pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that the
proposed adoption will not have a significant effect on the environment, primarily because
the amendment removes the requirement for a use permit for large family day care
homes, and regardless of the use permit requirement, state law already establishes that
CEQA does not apply to either large or small family day care homes pursuant to CEQA
Guideline 15274 and California Health & Safety Code 1597.45(d). Thus, the action on this
Ordinance is not anticipated to have any impact under CEQA primarily because the State
has already decided that CEQA does not apply to large or small family day care homes.
Section 3. General Plan. The Planning Commission finds that this
Ordinance is, as a matter of law, consistent with the City’s General Plan pursuant to
Government Code Section 1597.45.
Section 4. Recommendation. Based on the foregoing recitals and findings,
the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt
a proposed ordinance that amends Subdivision E. of Section 17.19.030 to read as follows
“E. Daycare;” and accordingly the requirement for daycares to obtain a conditional use
permit is stricken.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21st DAY OF JUNE, 2022.
________________________________
Brad Chelf, Chair
ATTEST:
__________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
250
3
Resolution 2022-11
Family Day Care Homes
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing
on this application must be filed within th e time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
251
4
Resolution 2022-11
Family Day Care Homes
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022 -11 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.19.030
OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FAMILY
DAY CARE HOMES.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June
21st, 2022 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
252
ORDINANCE NO. 378
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTION
17.19.030 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES
WHEREAS, Governor Newsom signed SB 234 (Skinner, Chapter 244) into law,
amending the Health and Safety Code relating to family daycare homes, including
requiring all local ordinances to treat family daycare homes as a residential use of
property; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 1597.45(a), a small or
large family daycare home shall be considered a residential use of property by right for
purposes of all City ordinances, including zoning ordinances; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 1597.45(b), the City
cannot impose a business license, fee, or tax on a small or large family daycare home;
and
WHEREAS, the use of a home as a small or large family daycare home does not
constitute a change of occupancy for purposes of the State Housing Law or local building
codes; and
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code section 1596.78(a) defines a “family daycare
home” to mean a “facility that regularly provides care, protection, and supervision for 14
or fewer children, in the provider’s own home, for periods of less than 24 hours per day,
while the parents or guardians are away, and is either a large family daycare home or a
small family daycare home”; and
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code section 1596.78(b) defines a “large family
daycare home” as a facility that provides care, protection, and supervision for 7 to 14
children…” and section 1596.78 defines a “small family daycare home” as a facility that
provides care, protection, and supervision for eight or fewer children…”; and
WHEREAS, adoption of this Ordinance will bring the City’s Zoning Code into
compliance with the changes made to family child day care home law pursuant to SB 234
by removing and amending certain regulations for small and large family child care homes
in the City; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June
21, 2022, to consider making a recommendation to the City Council on making the
proposed changes to the zoning chapter of the City’s Municipal Code, and voted in favor
of making such a recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 14, 2022,
at which time all interested persons were allowed to address the City Council regarding
adoption of this ordinance; and
253
2
ORDINANCE NO. 378
Family Day Care
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have
occurred.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct
and are incorporated herein by this reference as findings in support of this Ordinance.
Section 2. CEQA. The City Council’s adoption of this Ordinance is not a project
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline
15061(b)(3) as it can be seen with certainty that the proposed adoption will not have a
significant effect on the environment, primarily because the amendment removes the
requirement for a use permit for large family day care homes, and regardless of the use
permit requirement, state law already establishes that CEQA does not apply to either
large or small family day care homes pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15274 and California
Health & Safety Code 1597.45(d). Thus, the City Council’s action is not anticipated to
have any impact under CEQA primarily because the State has already decided that
CEQA does not apply to large or small family day care homes.
Section 3. Section 17.19.030 Amended. Subdivision E. of Section 17.19.030,
which reads “E. Daycare*;” is hereby amended to read “E. Daycare;” and accordingly the
requirement for daycares to obtain a conditional use permit is stricken.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance or the application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for any
reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not
affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without
the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The people of the City of Rolling Hills hereby declare that they would have
adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses or
phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30
days after the date of its passage and adoption.
Section 6. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby directed to certify to the
passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause the same, or a summary thereof, to be
published or posted in the manner required by law; and file a notice of exemption within
five business days after adoption of the Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 8th day of August, 2022.
254
3
ORDINANCE NO. 378
Family Day Care
____________________________
James Black, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
255
4
ORDINANCE NO. 378
Family Day Care
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I, Christian Horvath, City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 378 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Rolling Hills held on the 8th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Christian Horvath
City Clerk
256
Agenda Item No.: 10.C
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
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:PUBLIC HEARING FOR INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF
ORDINANCE NO. 379 ADDING CHAPTER 17.62 TO THE ROLLING
HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING DENSITY BONUSES AND
OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES REQUIRED BY STATE
LAW AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
California Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915 et seq.) requires a city to grant a
developer, at the developer ’s request, a density bonus and concessions or incentives for
affordable housing projects. (Gov. Code, § 65915(b)(1).) A density bonus means an increase,
by a certain percentage, of the number of housing units that may be built for the site. (Gov.
Code, § 65915(f).) A concession or incentive means a modification of zoning code standard
for the site, such as reduced setbacks, a reduced parking requirement, or allowance of mixed-
use zoning. (Gov. Code, § 65915(k).) The degree of density bonus and number of
concessions or incentives is based on the number of affordable units in the project (by
percentage of all units in the project) and the level of affordability (i.e., for very low income,
lower-income, moderate-income, senior housing, etc.).
DISCUSSION:
State law requires cities to adopt an ordinance specifying how the city will implement State
Density Bonus Law. (Gov. Code, § 65915(a).) The proposed ordinance (the “Ordinance”)
amends the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (“RHMC”) to satisfy this requirement. The Ordinance
will add a new Chapter 17.62 to the RHMC, which will read as follows:
“Chapter 17.62 Density Bonuses and other Affordable Housing Incentives
Section 17.62.010 – Purpose
257
The purpose of this Chapter is to allow density bonuses and other affordable housing
incentives to qualifying projects in accordance with State law.
Section 17.62.020 - Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives
The density bonuses and other affordable housing incentives required by State law, including,
but not limited to, Government Code Section 65915 et seq., shall be available to applicants on
the terms and conditions specified in State law.”
The Ordinance will bring the RHMC into compliance with State Density Bonus Law. By
incorporating the State’s standards by reference, the RHMC will also stay current if and when
changes in State law occur. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the City Council
adopt the proposed Ordinance. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider
the Ordinance on June 21, 2022 and, thereafter, recommended that the City Council adopt the
Ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
pursuant to Section 15358 (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to
the environment, directly or indirectly. Moreover, the proposed action is also exempt under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 as a minor alteration in land-use limitation, as the proposed
action does not allow any more density than before; it merely incorporates California’s density-
bonus statute and allowances by direct reference to the statute. Lastly, the City Council finds
that this Ordinance is also exempt under CEQA pursuant to Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
(there exists no possibility that the activity will have a significant adverse effect on the
environment) because this Ordinance will not cause a change in any of the physical conditions
within the area affected by the Ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public hearing; and
2. Introduce for first reading by title only Ordinance No. 379, entitled:
“AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 17.62 TO THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING DENSITY BONUSES AND OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING
INCENTIVES REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE
EXEMPT FROM CEQA ”
3. Direct staff to schedule a second reading for the August 8, 2022 City Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2022-
12_Density_Bonuses_and_Affordable_Housing_Incentives.pdf
258
Attachment 2 - Ordinance No. 379-Density_Bonus_and_Affordable_Housing_Incentives.pdf
259
65277.00010\40138374.1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 17.62
TO THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
DENSITY BONUSES AND OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING
INCENTIVES REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND FINDING THE
ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, California’s Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915 et seq.)
encourages developers to build affordable housing (e.g., very low-, low- and moderate-
income units) by requiring cities to grant a density bonus, concessions, incentives, and
waivers of developments standards for projects that commit certain percentages of their
units to affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65915 requires cities to adopt an
ordinance specifying how the city will implement State Density Bonus Law; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (“RHMC”)
to keep it in compliance with State law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance (the “Ordinance”) amends the RHMC to
specify that density bonuses and other affordable housing incentives required by State
law (including but not limited to Government Code section 65915 et seq.) will be available
to applicants on the terms and conditions specified in State law; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony
concerning the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the staff report, supporting
documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information that has been submitted with
the Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills does
hereby resolve, determine, find, and order as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are
incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution.
Section 2. CEQA. The Planning Commission finds that adoption of this
Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to
Section 15358 (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical
260
65277.00010\40138374.1
Page 2 of 4
change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Moreover, the proposed action is also
exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 as a minor alteration in land-use
limitation, as the proposed action does not allow any more density than before; it merely
incorporates California’s density-bonus statute and allowances by direct reference to the
statute. Lastly, the Planning Commission finds that this Ordinance is also exempt under
CEQA pursuant to Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (there exists no possibility that the
activity will have a significant adverse effect on the environment) because this Ordinance
will not cause a change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the
Ordinance.
Section 3. General Plan. The Ordinance’s amendments to Title 17 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code are consistent with, and in furtherance of, the City’s adopted
General Plan as they effectuate the Fifth Cycle Housing Element’s Implementation
Program No. 9—which provides that the City would amend the Municipal Code to adopt
density bonus requirements in accordance with State law.
Section 4. Recommendation. Based on the foregoing recitals and findings, the
Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the
proposed ordinance and code amendments that are attached as Exhibit “A” hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
Section 5. Certification. The Planning Commission Chair shall sign and the
Secretary shall attest to the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution takes effect immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21th DAY OF JUNE, 2022.
BRAD CHELF, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
____________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing
on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
261
65277.00010\40138374.1
Page 3 of 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-12 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 17.62 TO THE
ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING DENSITY BONUSES
AND OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES REQUIRED BY
STATE LAW AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 21,
2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
__________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
262
65277.00010\40138374.1
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 17.62 Density Bonuses and other Affordable Housing Incentives
Section 17.62.010 – Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to allow density bonuses and other affordable housing
incentives to qualifying projects in accordance with State law.
Section 17.62.020 - Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives
The density bonuses and other affordable housing incentives required by State law,
including, but not limited to, Government Code Section 65915 et seq., shall be available
to applicants on the terms and conditions specified in State law.
263
ORDINANCE NO. 379
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 17.62
TO THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
DENSITY BONUSES AND OTHER AFFORDABLE
HOUSING INCENTIVES REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND
FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, California’s Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915 et seq.)
encourages developers to build affordable housing (e.g., very low-, low- and moderate-
income units) by requiring cities to grant a density bonus, concessions, incentives, and
waivers of developments standards for projects that commit certain percentages of their
units to affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65915 requires cities to adopt an
ordinance specifying how the city will implement State Density Bonus Law; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (“RHMC”)
to keep it in compliance with State law; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance amends the RHMC to specify that density bonuses
and other affordable housing incentives required by State law (including but not limited to
Government Code section 65915 et seq.) will be available to applicants on the terms and
conditions specified in State law; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2022, the City gave public notice of a Planning
Commission public hearing to be held to consider this Ordinance by advertisement in a
newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed
public hearing to consider the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony
concerning this Ordinance. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted
to forward the Ordinance to the City Council with a recommendation in favor of its
adoption; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2022 the City gave public notice of a City Council public
hearing to be held to consider this Ordinance by advertisement in a newspaper of general
circulation; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2022, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing
to consider the Ordinance, including: (1) the public testimony and agenda reports
prepared in connection with the Ordinance, (2) the policy considerations discussed
therein, and (3) the consideration and recommendation by the City’s Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have occurred.
264
2
ORDINANCE NO. 379
Density Bonus
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The Recitals above are true and correct and are hereby
adopted as findings as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section
15358 (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the
environment, directly or indirectly. Moreover, the proposed action is also exempt under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 as a minor alteration in land-use limitation, as the
proposed action does not allow any more density than before; it merely incorporates
California’s density-bonus statute and allowances by direct reference to the statute.
Lastly, the City Council finds that this Ordinance is also exempt under CEQA pursuant to
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (there exists no possibility that the activity will have a
significant adverse effect on the environment) because this Ordinance will not cause a
change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the Ordinance.
SECTION 3. General Plan. This Ordinance’s amendments to Title 17 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code are consistent with, and in furtherance of, the City’s adopted
General Plan as they effectuate the Fifth Cycle Housing Element’s Implementation
Program No. 9—which provides that the City would amend the Municipal Code to adopt
density bonus requirements in accordance with State law.
SECTION 4. Code Amendment. Chapter 17.62, entitled “Density Bonuses and
other Affordable Housing Incentives,” is hereby added to Title 17 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code and shall read in its entirety as follows:
“Chapter 17.62 Density Bonuses and other Affordable Housing
Incentives
Section 17.62.010 – Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to allow density bonuses and other affordable
housing incentives to qualifying projects in accordance with State law.
Section 17.62.020 - Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives
The density bonuses and other affordable housing incentives required by State
law, including, but not limited to, Government Code Section 65915 et seq., shall
be available to applicants on the terms and conditions specified in State law.”
SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance is declared to be
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect any remaining provision
265
3
ORDINANCE NO. 379
Density Bonus
hereof. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills hereby declares that it would have
adopted this Ordinance despite any partial invalidity.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance takes effect 30 days after its
passage and adoption in accordance with California Government Code section 36937.
SECTION 7. Certification. The City Clerk is hereby directed to certify to the
passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause the same, or a summary thereof, to be
published or posted in the manner required by law; and file a notice of exemption within
five business days after adoption of the Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 8th day of August, 2022.
____________________________
James Black, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
266
4
ORDINANCE NO. 379
Density Bonus
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I, Christian Horvath, City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 379 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Rolling Hills held on the 8th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Christian Horvath
City Clerk
267
Agenda Item No.: 12.A
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
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 ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION'S REQUEST
TO INSTALL NATURAL GAS UNIT TO SUPPLY STAND-BY POWER
FOR THE CITY HALL CAMPUS.
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
The current emergency standby generator is outdated and no longer functioning properly.
Over the past few years City staff has enlisted several maintenance firms to service the
existing generator. The existing emergency standby generator is at the end of its life cycle and
the City is looking to replace the existing equipment with a new emergency standby generator.
Repair activities for the current generator was presented to the City Council on October 26,
2020. Based on the information provided, the City Council directed staff to seek professional
expertise to assist staff with unit replacement.
At the January 11, 2021 City Council meeting, City Council approved an amended agreement
with Pacific Architecture and Engineering Inc. to assess the existing standby generator for the
City Hall campus, provide a report on their findings, and discuss options to replace the existing
non-working standby generator. The draft of the Standby Generator Assessment Report was
delivered to the City on April 21, 2021. Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. met with City
staff on April 30, 2021 to review and discuss the report and findings. The Final Report was
updated and submitted to the City on May 5, 2021 and City Staff presented to City Council on
May 10, 2021. In summary, The report identified the parameters and constraints for the
replacement standby generator/system Based on review of the prior 12 months electric bills,
determined the existing 75 kw could be replaced with an equivalent sized system that would
sufficient for the current building loads (City Hall and Rolling Hills Community Association
(RHCA) Building). The existing structure housing the generator does not comply with current
code requirements for clearances and has water intrusion with water collecting in the fuel moat
with the potential infiltrate into the electrical system and cause damage. This building would
need to be removed, replaced, or repaired for repurposing.
The report presented to City Council on May 10, 2021 provided 3 Options for consideration
268
and an interim solution. City Council raised numerous questions about the report during the
May 10, 2021 meeting and moved to continue this item to a future meeting pending responses
to questions raised. Pacific Architecture and Engineering Inc. provided responses to the list of
questions generated. The questions and responses were reviewed and discussed at the May
24, 2021 City Council meeting. At the May 24, 2021 meeting City Council directed staff to: 1)
Pursue the Solar Option to replace the existing Emergency Standby Generator, and; 2)
Consider leasing portable generator to provide emergency standby power until the Solar
option is designed and installed, and; 3) Verify the portable generator could connect to the
existing Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS), and; 4) Remove the existing non-functioning
emergency standby generator, and: 5) Repair the water intrusion problem at the existing
generator structure repaired.
At the June 14, 2021 City Council meeting, City Council approved the second amendment to
the contract with Pacific Architecture and Engineering Inc. for design services required to
address the direction provided by City Council and outlined in items 1 through 5 in the last
paragraph in the background section for approximately $59,000.
DISCUSSION:
As the City Council liaison to the RHCA Board, Councilmember Jeff Pieper informed the City
Council that the RHCA expressed concerns about the capacity of the solar option to meet the
RHCA's operational needs. Councilmember Pieper also reported that RHCA expressed
interest in taking the lead in the project.
At the February 14, 2022 City Council meeting, the Council unanimously directed staff to write
a letter to the RHCA Board requesting that they take on the emergency standby power project
and provide the city, within a 60 day period, a workable proposal that the city could review to
ensure it meets the City's needs. In May, 2022, RHCA staff requested an extension to the 60
day period as they were research another option for standby power.
On July 11, 2022, the RHCA provided a letter to the city noting that a standby generator
powered by natural gas is the best option. Consulting with contractors, RHCA believes the
natural gas generator will fit in the existing shed that houses the diesel generator but notes
that it would also require a propane tank for back-up adjacent to the generator enclosure. In
the July 11 letter, a proposal from LT Generators was included, listing the features of the
proposed natural gas unit. The estimated cost for the proposed unit and installation is
$156,500.
FISCAL IMPACT:
If the City Council approves RHCA's approach to providing standby power for the City Hall
campus, the RHCA intends to follow up with the to have a discussion on funding the project.
In the adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2022, there are no funds for standby power
project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220725_CC_RHCA_StandbyGenerator.pdf
269
270
271
272
273
Agenda Item No.: 12.B
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ROBERT SAMARIO, FINANCE DIRECTOR
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:REVIEW AMENDED GENERAL FUND RESERVE POLICY AND
PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
During the recent budget discussions, Council noted a preference for maintaining General
Fund reserves at or above 100% of the operating budget. Given that existing reserve policies
state that reserves be established at 30%, staff would like to have Council determine if a
change to the policies is warranted.
If Council wishes to consider a change to reserve policies, staff recommends forwarding the
item to the Finance Committee for a more in depth discussion, including reviewing relevant
data that may help guide the Committee in determining what level of reserves is appropriate
for the City.
DISCUSSION:
Virtually every governmental agency sets aside funds, referred to as reserves, to be available
for unexpected financial impacts that result in increased costs and/or a significant reduction in
revenues. For example, if the City experiences a wildfire that results in a significant loss to
property, the City would face extraordinary costs and a potential loss of revenues. Having
reserves to respond to such events is not only prudent, but essential.
While having a rainy day fund is essential, determining on the appropriate amount requires
careful consideration of key factors that help guide in making such a determination. In
addition, given the planned use of reserves for capital improvement over the next few years,
having a clear policy for reserves is extremely important.
As a related topic, the investment of such funds is also important, particularly given the
planned use of reserves. Consequently, staff will provide Council with some understanding of
how idle funds are invested that align with the capital improvement plan.
274
The existing Reserve Policy is included in the attached Financial Polices as amended in May
of 2020.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Any change in reserve policies would not have an immediate financial impact.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council direct staff to work with the Finance Committee to develop
proposed changes to reserve policies.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220725_CC_FinancialPolicies_05.20.pdf
275
FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/11/2020 1
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/PROCEDURES
FINANCIAL, BUDGET AND DEBT POLICIES
Original Version Effective: 09/24/2007
See end of document for complete policy history.
Current Version Effective: 05/11/2020
Policy Framework:
The purpose of the Financial, Budget and Debt Policies is to guide the City Council and other City
officials in developing sustainable, balanced budgets and managing the City’s finances in a
prudent manner consistent with best practices. The City’s commitment to adopting and operating
within a balanced budget is a core financial value and policy of the City.
The City of Rolling Hills Financial Policies represents the City’s framework for planning and
management of the City’s fiscal resources. Adherence t o the Financial Policies promote sound
financial management which can lead to unqualified annual audits, provide assurance to the
taxpayers that tax dollars are being collected and spent per City Council direction and provide a
minimum of unexpected impacts upon taxpayers and users of public services.
The City Council Finance / Budget Committee shall serve as the City’s audit committee for the
purpose of recommending the selection of an auditor to the City Council, meeting with the City
Auditor, reviewing the annual audit and necessary financial statements, responding to conflicts
between management and the auditor and respond ing to fraudulent activities. The City Council
will conduct a competitive process for the selection of the independent external aud itor every 6
years to be in conformance with California Government Code Section 12410.6. (b). commencing
for Fiscal Year 2021-22. Any non- audit work performed by the independent external auditor, if
allowed, will be done under a separate contract approved by the City Council.
The City Manager shall be responsible for developing and, as appropriate, implementing and
managing these policies as well as subsidiary policies that execute the City’s Financial Policies.
The City’s Financial Policies shall be in conformance with all state and federal laws, generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and standards of the Governmental Accounting
Standards Board (GASB) and the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA).
1. Financial Reporting Entity:
The City of Rolling Hills was incorporated in 1957 under the general laws of the State of California.
The City operates under the Council-Manager form of government. The City Council consists of
five members elected at large for overlapping four -year term s. The Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem
are selected from the City Council members and serve a one-year term. The City Council
appoints a City Manager, City Attorney and City Treasurer. In addition, the City Council appoints
the members of advisory Commissions and Committees.
The City, directly or by contract, provides municipal services as authorized by statute. Services
provided include:
• Public safety through the Los Angeles County Sheriff and Fire Department
• Refuse collection by contract with a private hauler
• Water through California Water Service Company
276
FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/11/2020 2
• Sewer through Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
• Recreation
• Public improvements
• Planning and zoning
• General administrative and support services
2. Financial Reporting Policies:
The City’s accounting and financial reporting systems will be maintained in conformance with all
state and federal laws, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and standards of the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and the Government Finance Off icers
Association (GFOA). Further, the City will make every attempt to implement all changes to
governmental accounting practices at the earliest practical time.
• The financial report should be in conformity with GAAP, demonstrate compliance with
finance related legal and contractual provisions, disclose thoroughly with detail sufficient
to minimize ambiguity and potential for misleading interferences.
• An annual audit will be performed by an independent public accounting firm with an audit
opinion to be included with the City’s published Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
• The City’s budget should satisfy criteria as a financial and programmatic policy document,
as a comprehensive financial plan, as an operations guide for all organizational units and
as a communications device for all significant budgetary issues, trends, and resource
choices.
• The City shall evaluate the fiscal impact of proposed changes in employee benefits to be
provided. Prior to assuming liability for expanded benefits, a viable funding plan with
estimates of long term impacts shall be incorporated into the analysis.
• The City shall endeavor to avoid committing to new spending for operating or capital
improvement purposes until an analysis of all current and future cost implications is
completed.
• The City shall endeavor to maintain cash reserves sufficient to fully fund the next present
value of accruing liabilities, obligations to employees for vested payroll and benefits and
similar obligations as they are incurred.
• The City sh all prepare and present to the City Council monthly interim revenue and
expenditure reports and a Mid-Year Review to allow evaluation of potential discrepancies
from budget assumptions.
3. Internal Control Accounting Policies:
To provide a reasonable basis for making management’s required representations concerning the
finances of the City.
• Accounting Records – Maintain accounting records in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
• Monthly Posting – Post a monthly record, which maintains each month’s activities
separate and distinct from another month’s work. This provides visibility in locating errors
and fixing corrections. Accounting ledgers will be reviewed and reconciled on a monthly
277
FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/11/2020 3
basis to supporting documentation – Cash Receipts, Accounts Payable, Payroll and
Monthly Journal Entries.
• Sequential Number – Sequentially numbered instruments will be used for checks and cash
receipts. Pre-numbered receipts are controlled and accounted for by an individual with no
accounting handling responsibilities. The City’s pre-numbered checks and pre-numbered
cash receipts should be safeguarded in the Vault. All copies of voided receipt forms are
retained, accounted for, and documented.
• Audit Trail – The City’s accounting records and systems shall provide an audit trail (e.g.
paper document) that allows for the tracing of each transaction from its original document
to completion.
4. Operating Management Policies:
The budget process is intended to weigh all competing requests for City resources within
expected fiscal constraints. Requests for new, on-going programs made outside the budget
process will be discouraged.
• Budget development will consider multi-year implications of current decisions and
allocations and use conservative revenue forecasts.
• Revenues will not be dedicated for specific purposes, unless required by law or Generally
Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP). All non-restricted revenues will be deposited in
the General Fund (or other designated fund as approved by the City Manager) and
appropriated by the City Council.
• Current revenues will fund current expenditures. City revenues will be managed to protect
programs from short-term fluctuations that impact expendit ures.
• The City will endeavor to identify entrepreneurial solutions to cover or recover costs of
operating program.
• The City shall strive to avoid returning to the City Council for new or expanded
appropriations during the fiscal year. Exceptions may include emergencies, unforeseen
impacts, mid-year adjustments or new opportunities.
• Additional personnel will be requested after service needs have been thoroughly
examined and is substantiated for new program initiatives or policy directives.
• All non-Enterprise user fees and charges will be evaluated at least every three years to
determine the direct and indirect cost recovery rate. The analysis will be presented to the
City Council.
• The City shall endeavor to maintain adequate cash reserves to fund 100% replacement
of capital equipment. Replacement costs will be based upon equipment lifecycle financial
analysis developed by the Finance Director and approved by the City Manager.
• Balanced revenue and expenditure forecasts will be prepared to examine the City’s ability
to absorb operating costs due to changes in the economy, service demands, and capital
improvements. The forecast will be updated annually and include a four -year outlook.
278
FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/11/2020 4
• Cash and investment programs will be maintained in accordance with the Government
Code and the adopted investment policy will ensure that proper controls and safeguards
are maintained. City funds will be managed in a prudent and diligent manner with an
emphasis on safety of principal, liquidity, and financial return on principal, in that order.
Pursuant to State law, the City, at least annually, revises and the City Council affirms a
detailed investment policy.
5. Capital Management Policies:
• Capital improvement projects are defined as infrastructure or equipment purchases or
construction which results in a capitalized asset and having a useful (depreciable) life of
at least one year with a cost of $5,000 or more per the City’s resolution Number 953.
• The Finance Department shall utilize the straight-line method of calculating depreciation
over the estimated useful life for all classes of assets.
• The capital improvement plan will attempt to include, in addition to current operating
maintenance expenditures, adequate funding to support, repair and replace deteriorating
infrastructure and avoid a significant unfunded liability.
• Capital improvement lifecycle costs will be coordinated with the development of the City’s
operating budget. Future operating, maintenance, and replacement costs associated with
new capital improvements will be forecast, matched to available revenue sources and be
included in the operating budget. Capital project contract awards or purchases will include
a fiscal impact statement disclosing the expected operating impact of the project or
acquisition and when such cost is expected to occur.
6. Reserve Policies:
It is the goal of the City to obtain and maintain a General Fund operating reserve (Rainy day fund)
in the form of cash, of at least 40% of prior year audited annual General Fund revenues to cover
normal seasonal cash flow variations, as well as unforeseen emergency or catastrophic impacts
upon the City.
• One-time revenue windfalls should be designated as a reserve or used for one-time
expenditures. The funds should not be used for on-going operations. For purposes of
this policy, one-time revenue windfalls shall include:
CalPERS rebates
Tax revenue growth in excess of 10% in a single year
Unexpected revenues (e.g., litigation settlement)
Any other revenues the City Council may elect to designate as extraordinary
• All unexpended General Funds from the prior fiscal year will be deposited in the General
Fund R eserve Fund (Rainy Day Fund.)
• The City will strive to maintain the Municipal Self-Insurance Fund with a July 1 balance of
$500,000.
• The City will strive to transfer $250,000 annually into the Utilities Fund for the purpose of
building up the necessary balance for underground projects.
279
FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/11/2020 5
• Enterprise Fund (e.g., for refuse collection) user fees and charges will be examined
annually to ensure that they recover all direct and indirect costs of th e service, provide for
capital improvements and maintenance and maintain adequate reserves. Moreover,
maintenance of cash reserves will provide a de facto rate stabilization plan. Rate
increases shall be approved by the City Council following formal noticing and public
hearing. Rate adjustments for enterprise operations will be based on five-year financial
plans unless a conscious decision is made to the contrary. The current cash reserves
shall be adjusted annually and will be equal to the proposed annual General Fund subsidy
to the Refuse Fund and will be budgeted as a Transfer into the Refuse Fund.
• The City has established a PARS Pension Rate Stabilization Program Section 115 Trust.
The Trust was created to fund the City’s unfunded PERS Pension Liab ility and as funds
are available they would be deposited into the Trust in order to maintain adequate
reserves.
7. Budget Policies:
The function of the City of Rolling Hills is primarily administrative.
A. Categories of Funds
• The City’s annual budget contains fifteen different funds managed in conformance with
the City’s Fund Balance Policy:
General Fund
Community Facility Fund
Self -Insurance Fund
Refuse Fund
Traffic Fund
Transit Fund - Proposition A
Transit Fund - Proposition C
Transit Fund – Measure R
Transit Fund – Measure M
LA County Measure W
Capital Projects Fund
Citizens Options for Public Safety Fund (COPS) Fund
California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP) Fund.
Utility Fund
OPEB (Post-Employment Benefits Other Than Pensions) Fund
• Each fund is considered to be a separate accounting entity for budgeting and financial
reporting purposes.
• The operations of each fund are accounted for by providing a separate set of self -
balancing accounts which are comprised of eac h fund’s assets, liabilities, equity,
revenues and expenditures, as appropriate.
• The City resources are allocated to and for individual funds based upon the purpose
of the spending activities.
• All funds and reserves will be evaluated annually for long-term adequacy and use
requirements in conjunction with development of the City’s long-term budget
assumptions.
280
FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/11/2020 6
• For approved capital projects unexpended budget appropriations would be reviewed
annually by the Finance/Budget/Audit Committee for recommendation for carryover to
the following fiscal year.
B. Operating Budget Guidelines
• The Budget is detailed - Expenditures are authorized line by line, item by item. Line
items are used to limit precisely the amount and narrowly define what can be spent.
• The Budget is annual - The annual budget period is from July 1 to June 30. The time
span of the authority to spend is restricted to one year. Each year the regular cycle of
budgeting is repeated.
• The budget is comprehensive – The budget is prepared for all funds expended by the
City.
• The City adopts a budget by June 30 of each year.
• Comparative Data - Comparative data from the prior year is presented in the annual
budget in order to provide an understanding of changes in the City’s financial position
and operation.
• Public Hearing - The City Council reviews a tentative budget and adopts the final
budget. A public hearing is conducted to receive comments prior to adoption.
C. Financial Review
Throughout the fiscal year, monthly financial reports comparing actual amounts with
budgeted amounts are prepared by the Finance Director and submitted to the City
Manager and members of the City Council. As these reports are reviewed, attention is
drawn to variances between budgeted amounts and actual amounts.
D. Budgeted Revenues & Expenditures
The City reviews fees and charges to keep pace with the cost of providing the service.
8. Debt Management Policies:
The City will seek to avoid incurring debt. While the City is disposed to funding capital
improvements and expenditures on a cash basis, the City will consider, and when necessary,
enter into debt financing for citywide public improvement projects such as sewers and utility
undergrounding.
• Lease Equipment - Office Equipment has been leased on a monthly basis with the
expense incurred at the time of payment.
Policy Administrative History:
Adopted September 24, 2007
Revised and Adopted March 24, 2008
Revised and Adopted February 23, 2009
Revised and Adopted March 8, 2010
281
FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/11/2020 7
Reviewed and Adopted February 28, 2011
Revised and Adopted May 23, 2011
Reviewed and Adopted May 14, 2012
Reviewed and Adopted April 22, 2013
Revised and Adopted September 9, 2013
Reviewed and Adopted March 24, 2014
Reviewed and Adopted April 27, 2015
Reviewed and Revised April 25, 2016
Reviewed and Adopted April 24, 2017
Reviewed and Adopted April 22, 2019
Reviewed and Adopted May 11, 2020
282
Agenda Item No.: 13.A
Mtg. Date: 07/25/2022
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:UPDATE ON SOUTH BAY CITIES COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
(SBCCOG) REGIONAL PLANNER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
(DIERINGER)
DATE:July 25, 2022
BACKGROUND:
Last year, the South Bay Cities Council of Government (SBCCOG) hired a regional planner to
assist its city members with land use issues, the monitoring and interpretation of housing
legislation and to enhance the SBCCOG's climate action work. The regional planner was
meant to be a resource to address issues common to all of the cities.
The idea of hiring a regional planner arose from continuing land use issues that need to be
addressed by COG and its member cities. Many of these land use issues deal with the
numerous housing bills being introduced at the state level. Another issue was the need for the
COGs to administer the Regional Early Action Program which provides one-time funding to
accelerate housing production and facilitate compliance in implementing the 6th Cycle
Housing Element. SBCCOG intended to use REAP funding to augment a portion of the
planner position. Any funding not used from the assessment would roll over to the following
year.
Last year, the SBCCOG assumed a region-wide cost of $110,500 with the City of Rolling Hills
assessment of $4,000 due to population size. The City Council approved a $1,000
contribution to participate.
This year, the SBCCOG was been able to lower the region-wide cost and individual city
assessments. The City of Rolling Hills assessment for FY 2022/23 would have been $2,000.
The City Council approved a $1,000 contribution to participate at the June 27, 2022 City
Council meeting.
283
DISCUSSION:
At the SBCCOG's July Steering Committee meeting, a discussion item was agendized
regarding the City of Rolling Hills's FY 22/23 contribution and whether or not to remove certain
aspects and/or benefits of the regional planner's duties as a result of the partial payment.
Councilmember Dieringer was able to have the item tabled and set-up a meeting with the
Chair to discuss further.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Council has already approved $1000.00 towards the annual assessment as part of the FY
22/23 Budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220725_CC_SBCCOG_RegionalPlanner_SteeringCommitteeItem.pdf
CL_AGN_220613_SBCCOG_22-23_Assessment_RegionalPlanner.pdf
CL_AGN_220725_CC_SBCCOG_RegionalPlanner_SummaryOfWork.pdf
284
From:Jacki Bacharach
To:"Bea Dieringer
Cc:Elaine Jeng; John Cruickshank
Subject:Steering Committee item re: Rolling Hills
Date:Thursday, July 7, 2022 5:23:23 PM
Attachments:image001.jpg
SBCCOG Regional Planner Summary of Work 2022.pdf
I wanted to let you know that I am recommending to the Steering Committee on Monday that unless
Rolling Hills pays the full assessment for the regional planner this year - $2000 instead of $1000 –
the SBCCOG should stop providing service to your city in the area of regional planning – specifically
your city’s participation in the $146,250 study of Accessory Dwelling Units that we are doing for 7
other cities and of which your city is currently a part. (see below) Additionally, we are getting ready
to plan for another round of projects on housing for which Rolling Hills would not be able to
participate.
Jonathan Pacheco Bell has done outstanding work since he has come to the SBCCOG and your city
has taken full advantage of it.
Here are some examples of what you have already received which is far more than the $6000 over 2
years ($4000 for the first year and $2000 for this year) that we are assessing:
· Served as a resource to SBCCOG member jurisdictions and Community Development
Directors providing technical assistance and support as needed. Example:
o Rolling Hills: researched and prepared memorandum on Code Enforcement contract
staffing for new Community Development Director which included links to help the
city hire your current code enforcement officer
· Lead development of ADU Calculator online tool for the South Bay. Website:
https://southbaycities.aducalculator.org/. – This tool was found by Mr. Bell and brought to
the cities.
o ADU Calculator is a FREE online tool to help residents estimate construction costs and
rental income from developing an ADU, no cost to cities.
o Researched tool, brought consultant to monthly CDD meeting for presentation,
managed cities’ data entry process, liaison to consultant for South Bay taking
multiple hours of his time
o Rolling Hills is a participating city in the ADU Calculator.
SB 330 Residential and Protected Units Supplemental Application Form – budget $42,250
Creation of a supplemental application form for SB 330 housing development projects
to preserve residential and protected dwelling units, prevent displacement, and help
South Bay cities meet their RHNA goals. Mr. Bell worked with lawyers at BB&K so cities
could be confident that there has been legal review and approval.
Rolling Hills received the SB 330 Supplemental Form.
Conducted one-on-one interviews with South Bay Community Development Directors to
determine their priorities, opportunities, and challenges to inform SBCCOG’s regional
planning services. Interviewed Rolling Hills Director John Signo. Prepared memorandum on
findings for SBCCOG staff and Community Development Directors.
285
Coordinate and manage monthly Community Development Directors meeting via Zoom, 3rd
Thursday each month, 12:30-2pm. Develop meeting agenda. Coordinate guest speakers. Send
meeting invitations to CDDs and staff. Chair the meeting. Rolling Hills is a regular attendee at
monthly meetings.
Manage the Community Development Director email listserv for sending critical information
updates to Directors on legislation, grant opportunities and other important issues. Engage
Directors on important planning matters through listserv. Rolling Hills receives all my
communications.
Project for which we would not include Rolling Hills:
ADU Acceleration (consultant Black & Veatch, Pocket Housing) – budget: $146,250
Research and planning project including mapping, economic analysis, policy assessment,
infrastructure impacts, surveys of applicants and tenants, best practices, and forecasting of
ADU development in eight South Bay cities:
El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach,
Rolling Hills, Rancho Palos Verdes.
Project in progress.
The purpose of the Regional Planner is that for a small amount of money from each city, projects can
be done where all cities can benefit. It is not fair to the other cities that are paying the assessment
that a city that is using all of the services provided would not pay their full assessment.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Jacki
Jacki Bacharach, Executive Director
310-293-2612
jacki@southbaycities.org
SBCCOG media: www.southbaycities.org
Facebook – Twitter
South Bay Environmental Services Center
www.sbesc.com
Facebook – Twitter – LinkedIn
286
Special Assessment Proposed for Regional Planner
2021-2022 2022-2023
OVER 75,000 population
Carson 9,000 4,500
Hawthorne 9,000 4,500
Inglewood 9,000 4,500
Los Angeles County 9,000 4,500
Los Angeles City 9,000 4,500
Torrance 9,000 4,500
30,000 TO 75,000 population
Gardena 6,500 3,250
Lawndale 6,500 3,250
Manhattan Beach 6,500 3,250
Rancho Palos Verdes 6,500 3,250
Redondo Beach 6,500 3,250
UNDER 30,000 population
El Segundo 4,000 2,000
Hermosa Beach 4,000 2,000
Lomita 4,000 2,000
Palos Verdes Estates 4,000 2,000
Rolling Hills 4,000 2,000
Rolling Hills Estates 4,000 2,000
TOTAL 110,500 55,250
287
L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T S I N A C T I O N
Carson El Segundo Gardena Hawthorne Hermosa Beach Inglewood Lawndale Lomita
Manhattan Beach Palos Verdes Estates Rancho Palos Verdes Redondo Beach Rolling Hills
Rolling Hills Estates Torrance Los Angeles District #15 Los Angeles County
2355 Crenshaw Blvd., #125
Torrance, CA 90501
(310) 371-7222
sbccog@southbaycities.org
www.southbaycities.org
SBCCOG’s Regional Planner provides technical assistance to cities on housing and land use issues and
project management for Regional Early Action Planning grant funded housing acceleration projects.
Housing and Land Use
Conducted one-on-one interviews with South Bay Community Development Directors to
determine their priorities, opportunities, and challenges to inform SBCCOG’s regional planning
services. Prepared memorandum on findings for SBCCOG staff and city Community
Development Directors.
Work in consultation with South Bay Community Development Directors to develop a coherent
South Bay housing policy to help ensure that state accelerated housing production policy goals
are met, while also meeting the local needs of the communities.
Serve as a resource to SBCCOG member jurisdictions and Community Development Directors
providing technical assistance and support as needed. Examples:
o City of Rolling Hills: researched and prepared memorandum on Code Enforcement
contract staffing for new Community Development Director.
o City of Torrance: agendized mobile home tenant protection and Rent Stabilization
Ordinance on June 2022 CDD monthly meeting for discussion in response to Skyline
Mobile Home Park landlord rent increase concerns for seniors living on fixed incomes.
o Currently researching status of SB 9 in all South Bay cities for CDD update.
Coordinate and manage monthly Community Development Directors meeting via Zoom, 3 rd
Thursday each month, 12:30-2pm. Develop meeting agenda. Coordinate guest speakers. Send
meeting invitations to CDDs and staff. Chair the meeting.
Provide research assistance to cities and SBCCOG senior staff. Examples:
o City of El Segundo: researched micro-units and Single-Room Occupancy ordinances for
city planning staff going to Planning Commission. Provided 20+ case studies, reports,
analysis on microunits/SRO and annotated summary memorandum. Principal Planner
used for staff report.
o SBCCOG: researched and prepared memorandum on potential impact of Ghost Kitchens
in South Bay, with a focus on land use and planning concerns.
288
2
Identify, research, and connect city staff with grants and funding opportunities for
implementation. Example:
o Identified State of CA Dept of Toxic Substances Control “Equitable Community
Revitalization Grant” program for brownfield clean up. Organized presentation to
Community Development Directors by DTSC staff. Liaised between DTSC and cities.
o City of Carson applied for the grant and is awaiting Round 1 results.
Manage the Community Development Director email listserv for sending critical information
updates to Directors. Engage Directors on important planning matters through listserv.
Attend SCAG meetings and committees, HCD meetings, and other housing related meetings
and trainings on behalf of the South Bay. Share value-added information and resources with
Directors at monthly CDD meetings and through email listserv.
Track state housing policy and legislation and recommend advocacy positions including drafting
and circulating position letter templates to cities.
Research state bills affecting housing law. Recommend additions and updates to Legislative
Matrix. Co-author positions on proposed state housing bills. Example:
o AB 1978 proposes to allow HCD to do local zoning on behalf of cities out of compliance
and fine cities up to $10,000 per day to gain compliance. I identified this bill as matter of
urgent concern, researched it and recommended opposition that was approved by
SBCCOG Board, and got AB 1978 added to SBCCOG Legislative Matrix for advocacy.
Co-author advocacy position letters to state representatives. Example:
o Letter of support for Housing Element Informational Hearing sent to Southern California
Assemblymembers on Housing Committee.
Lead development of ADU Calculator online tool for the South Bay. Website:
https://southbaycities.aducalculator.org/.
o ADU Calculator is a FREE online tool to help residents estimate construction costs and
rental income from developing an ADU.
o Funded by Chan Zuckerberg Initiative at no cost to cities.
o Researched tool, brought consultant to monthly CDD meeting for presentation, manage
cities’ data entry process, liaison to consultant for South Bay.
Research and contribute to potential formation of regional South Bay Housing Trust Fund.
Example:
o Co-author Pros and Cons memorandum on Housing Trust Fund for SBCCOG Board of
Directors, in collaboration with SBCCOG staff and BBK legal team.
289
3
Developed and led tour of LA County District 2 West Athens-Westmont community for
Neighborhood Broadband Center sustainability initiative in development at SBCCOG.
Served as invited panelist and subject matter expert at 2021 Environmental Justice
Enforcement Symposium representing SBCCOG. Discussed building community partnerships
through compassionate zoning code enforcement.
Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) grants for housing acceleration
REAP 1.0, 2021-2023
Oversee implementation the SCAG’s REAP 1.0 projects funded for the South Bay.
Manage four REAP 1.0 grant projects with a budget of $603,000.
Develop RFPs, lead procurement process, conduct project management, coordinate with
consultants, interface with SCAG project managers.
ADU Acceleration (consultant Black & Veatch, Pocket Housing) – budget: $146,250
Research and planning project including mapping, economic analysis, policy assessment,
infrastructure impacts, surveys of applicants and tenants, best practices, and forecasting of
ADU development in eight South Bay cities:
o El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach,
Rolling Hills, Rancho Palos Verdes.
Project in progress.
Commercial Redevelopment into Housing (consultant Studio 111, Kosmont) – budget: $308,250
Research and planning project to develop tools for cities to identify underperforming
commercial segments with potential for redevelopment into housing with zero emission
mobility options, and identify commercial properties – strip arterials, regional malls, office
buildings, and industrial parks – that are candidates for redevelopment into sustainable
affordable housing in six South Bay cities:
o Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, El Segundo, Carson, Hawthorne
Project in progress.
Housing Education Program – budget: $101,250
Workshops and online resources to encourage informed discussions about residential density
and design that support a full range of housing options in the South Bay and help
decisionmakers and stakeholders understand optimal ways to meet regional housing needs.
Project in progress.
290
4
SB 330 Residential and Protected Units Supplemental Application Form – budget $42,250
Creation of a supplemental application form for SB 330 housing development projects to
preserve residential and protected dwelling units, prevent displacement, and help South Bay
cities meet their RHNA goals.
Project completed June 2022 – SBCCOG is one of first subregions to finish REAP project
statewide.
REAP 2.0, 2023-2026
Research and preparations for REAP 2.0 application for “transformative planning” and
implementation projects with funding potential totaling $247 million for the SCAG region.
Coordinate with Community Development Directors on potential housing and infrastructure for
housing projects.
291