1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
4.A. CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION
RECOMMENDATION:
A. PRESENTATION OF NEW MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO-TEM
B. PRESENTATION TO MAYOR DIERINGER IN RECOGNITION OF HER SERVICE DURING HER 2021-2022 TERM AS MAYOR
C. COMMENTS FROM OUTGOING MAYOR
4.B. PRESENTATION FROM REPUBLIC SERVICES ON CUSTOMER SERVICE.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File.
5. APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
This is the appropriate time for the Mayor or Councilmembers to approve the agenda as is or reorder.
6. BLUE FOLDER ITEMS (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Blue folder (supplemental) items are additional back up materials to administrative reports, changes to the posted agenda packet, and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
6.A. FOR BLUE FOLDER DOCUMENTS APPROVED AT THE CITY COUNCIL 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
AGENDA
Regular City Council Meeting
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, April 11, 2022
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
7:00 PM
The meeting agenda is available on the City’s website. The City Council meeting will be live-streamed on the City’s website. Both the agenda and the live-streamed video can be found here:
https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php Members of the public may submit written comments in real-time by emailing the City Clerk’s office at [email protected]. Your comments will become part of the official meeting record. You must provide your full name, but please do not provide any other personal information that you do not want to be published.
Recordings to City Council meetings can be found here:
https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php.
Next Resolution No. 1294 Next Ordinance No. 376
1 MEETING
RECOMMENDATION: Approved
7. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding the itemsnot listed on this agenda.
Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Business items, except those formally noticed for public hearing, or those pulled for discussion are assigned to the Consent Calendar. The Mayor or any Councilmember may request that any Consent Calendar item(s) be removed, discussed, and acted upon separately. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be taken up under the "Excluded Consent Calendar" section below. Those items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved in one motion. The Mayor will call on anyone wishing to address the City Council on any Consent Calendar item on the agenda, which has not been pulled by Councilmembers for discussion.
8.A. APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2022
RECOMMENDATION: Approve.
8.B. APPROVE MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER
READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS LISTED ON THE AGENDA
RECOMMENDATION: Approve.
8.C. APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: MARCH 28, 2022 RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
8.D. PAYMENT OF BILLS
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
8.E. REPUBLIC SERVICES RECYCLING TONNAGE REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 2022
AND FORCE MAJEURE NOTIFICATION RELATED TO UNAVAILABILITY OF CVT FACILITY DUE TO FIRE.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
8.F. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH THE PALOS
VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY TO PROVIDE ONE-YEAR FIRE FUEL MAINTENANCE SERVICE FOR PHASE 4 AREA.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
8.G. APPROVE FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HQE SYSTEMS INC. COVERING SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES FOR A CL_AGN_220411_CC_BlueFolderItem_8C_Supplemental.pdf
CL_AGN_220411_CC_BlueFolderItem_11A_Supplemental.pdf
CL_AGN_220411_CC_AffidavitofPosting.pdf
CL_MIN_220328_CC_F_A.pdf
CL_AGN_220411_PaymentOfBills.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_UnforseenCircumstances_CVTFire.pdf
0222 - Rolling Hills YTD Tonnage Report.pdf
CL_AGN_220411_CC_PVPLC_PSA_4thAmendment.pdf
CL_AGN_220411_CC_PVPLC_ReducingFuelLoadProject_Phase4.pdf 2 NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $3500.00.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
9. EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
10. COMMISSION ITEMS
10.A. ZONING CASE 21-29: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A NEW 934-SQUARE-FOOT STABLE AND EXISTING 3,500-SQUARE-FOOT CORRAL TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE
REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND EXCEED THE LOT COVERAGE FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 29 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 174-C-2-MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (PERRIN).
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 2022-03 and Zoning Case No. 21-29 for a new stable and planter walls at an existing corral located at 29 Crest Road West.
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
11.A. CONTINUATION OF APPEAL OF COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS' DECISION ON VIEW PRESERVATION COMPLAINT - 61 EASTFIELD DRIVE (JUGE - COMPLAINANT) AND 59 EASTFIELD DRIVE (TAMAYO/SIERRA -
VEGETATION OWNER)
RECOMMENDATION: Consider the appeal and provide direction to staff.
12. OLD BUSINESS
13. NEW BUSINESS
13.A. CONSIDER REQUEST FROM THE ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION NEEDS OF SENIORS COMMITTEE TO IMPROVE CITY HALL CAMPUS AND APPROVE SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
14. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
CL_AGN_220411_CC_PSA_HQE_Amendment01.pdf
01 Development Table (ZC 21-29).pdf
02 Project Plans 29 Crest Road West (ZC 21-29).pdf
03 PC Minutes and Riding Ring Easement 1973.pdf
04 Vicinity Map - 29 Crest Road West (ZC 21-29).pdf
2022-03_PC_Resolution_CUP_29CrestRdW_E.pdf
City Council Staff Report - Field Trip 040722.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_StaffReport_TVCMeeting_11.30.21.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_ArboristReport_59-61EastfieldDr.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_ResolutionNo2021-21-CTV.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_13A_Association.Withdrawal.Complaint.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_RequestForAppeal.01.27.22_PhotosRemoved.pdf CL_AGN_220328_13A_2007 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER INSPECTION REPORT.pdf CL_AGN_220411_BlueFolderItem_11A_Pictures.04.11.22.pdf
2022-03-15LtrNeedsOfSeniorCommittee.pdf
3 14.A. UPDATE ON ROLLING HILLS TENNIS COURTS IMPROVEMENTS TO ADD PICKLEBALL COURTS. (PIEPER)
RECOMMENDATION: Receive a presentation from Councilmember Jeff Pieper and provide direction to staff.
14.B. DISCUSS HOLDING AN ANNUAL STATE OF THE CITY EVENT. (MIRSCH) RECOMMENDATION: Consider and provide direction to staff.
15. MATTERS FROM STAFF
16. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
16.A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(d)(2)
RECOMMENDATION: A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council on the advice of its legal counsel, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City.
Number of Potential Cases: 1
Letter from Californians for Homeownership dated March 3, 2022
16.B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: CITY MANAGER UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEE: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
CANDIDATE
RECOMMENDATION: None.
16.C. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 Â CITY'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: MAYOR BEA DIERINGER UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEE: CITY MANAGER ELAINE JENG
RECOMMENDATION: None.
17. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
18. ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Monday, April 25, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, 90274.
Notice:
Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item.
Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting. 4 Agenda Item No.: 4.A
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION
DATE: April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
5 Agenda Item No.: 4.B
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION FROM REPUBLIC SERVICES ON CUSTOMER SERVICE.
DATE: April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
At the March 28, 2022 City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Black voiced concerns about Republic Services customer service including their lack of understanding or knowledge as to what is included in the current contract.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
6 Agenda Item No.: 6.A
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: FOR BLUE FOLDER DOCUMENTS APPROVED AT THE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
DATE: April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approved.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220411_CC_BlueFolderItem_8C_Supplemental.pdf
CL_AGN_220411_CC_BlueFolderItem_11A_Supplemental.pdf
7 BLUE FOLDER ITEM (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Blue folder (supplemental) items are additional back up materials to administrative reports, changes to the posted agenda packet, and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
April 11, 2022
8.C APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: MARCH 28, 2022 FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK/EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY
MANAGER
CL_MIN_220328_CC_F_A.pdf
8 BLUE FOLDER ITEM (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Blue folder (supplemental) items are additional back up materials to administrative reports, changes to the posted agenda packet, and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
April 11, 2022
11.A CONTINUATION OF APPEAL OF COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS' DECISION ON VIEW PRESERVATION COMPLAINT - 61 EASTFIELD DRIVE (JUGE - COMPLAINANT) AND 59 EASTFIELD DRIVE (TAMAYO/SIERRA - VEGETATION OWNER)
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK/EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY
MANAGER
CL_AGN_220411_BlueFolderItem_11A_Pictures.04.11.22.pdf
9 Agenda Item No.: 8.A
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2022
DATE: April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220411_CC_AffidavitofPosting.pdf
10 Administrative Report
8.A., File # 1121 Meeting Date: 04/11/2022
To: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
From: Christian Horvath, City Clerk
TITLE
APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2022
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In compliance with the Brown Act, the following materials have been posted at the locations below.
Legislative Body City Council
Posting Type Regular Meeting Agenda
Posting Location 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 City Hall Window
Meeting Date & Time April 11, 2022 7:00pm Open Session
As City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills, I declare under penalty of perjury, the document noted above was posted at the date displayed below.
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
Date: April 7, 2022
11 Agenda Item No.: 8.B
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVE MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER
READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS LISTED ON THE AGENDA
DATE: April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
ATTACHMENTS:
12 Agenda Item No.: 8.C
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: MARCH 28, 2022
DATE: April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_MIN_220328_CC_F_A.pdf
13 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, March 28, 2022
Minutes
Rolling Hills City Council
Monday, March 28, 2022
Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills met in person on the above date at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Bea Dieringer presiding.
2. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson, Mayor Pro Tem Black, Mayor Dieringer Councilmembers Absent: None
Staff Present: Elaine Jeng, City Manager
Jane Abzug, City Attorney
John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director
Christian Horvath, City Clerk / Executive Assistant to the City Manager
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Dieringer
4. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS – NONE
5. APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Black, seconded by Councilmember Wilson to approve order of the agenda.
Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6. BLUE FOLDER ITEMS (SUPPLEMENTAL)
City Clerk Horvath provided explanations for what was included in the Blue Folders and what if any differentiation existed between files already in the agenda packet.
Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to receive and file supplemental Items for 8.C, 8.D, 11.B, 11.C, 12.A, 13.A, and 13.B. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: Black
ABSENT: None
7. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS – NONE
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
8.A. APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 28, 2022
14 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, March 28, 2022
8.B. APPROVE MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER READING OF ALL
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS LISTED ON THE AGENDA
8.C. APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: MARCH 14, 2022
8.D. PULLED BY COUNCILMEMBER MIRSCH FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION
8.E. RECEIVE AND FILE THE ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AND
HOUSING ELEMENT
8.F. CONSIDER AND APPROVE THE PLANNED EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
SAFE CLEAN WATER MUNICIPAL PROGRAM FUNDS FOR SUBMISSION TO LOS ANGELES
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
8.G. RECEIVE AND FILE THE INITIAL JURISDICTION COMPLIANCE REPORT TO BE SUBMITTED TO CALRECYCLE BY APRIL 1, 2022
8.H. RECEIVE AND FILE A REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR THE SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE
FROM CALOES
8.I. RECEIVE AND FILE A LETTER FROM THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD REGARDING THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT GROUP'S TIME SCHEDULE ORDER FOR MACHADO LAKE Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Black to approve Consent Calendar excluding Item 8D. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
9. EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
8.D. PAYMENT OF BILLS
Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to receive and file. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
10. COMMISSION ITEMS – NONE
11. NEW BUSINESS
11.A. RECEIVE AND FILE A VERBAL REPORT FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE
DEPARTMENT ON FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Presentation by Battalion Chief Matt Briones, Los Angeles County Fire Department No action taken.
15 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, March 28, 2022
11.B. PROPOSAL FROM PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY FOR A FOURTH
PHASE OF FUEL ABATEMENT IN THE NATURE PRESERVE CLOSEST TO THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS
Presentation by Cris Sarabia, Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Black to put together a Phase 4 contract amendment for an amount not to exceed $32,400 by excluding proposed specific southernmost sections of Acacia removal near Burma Road/Ichibod Trail. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
11.C. REVIEW SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE FEE INCREASE FOR FY 2022-2023 AND CONSIDER SETTING PROPOSITION 218 REQUIRED PROTEST HEARING DATE Presentation by Elaine Jeng, City Manager
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Black, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to have the city absorb the increased fees for FY22/23. Motion carried with the following vote:
AYES: Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: Mirsch, Wilson
ABSENT: None
12. OLD BUSINESS
12.A. RECEIVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON HQE SYSTEMS' PROPOSED OUTDOOR SIREN
SYSTEM AND DIRECT STAFF TO CONDUCT A COMMUNITY SURVEY FOR FEEDBACK ON AN
OUTDOOR SIREN SYSTEM
Presentation by Elaine Jeng, City Manager
Public Comment: Arlene Honbo, Alfred Visco
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Black to not proceed any further. Motion failed for lack of a second.
Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to go forward with HQE Systems allocating a budget not to exceed $3,500 to further investigate potential co-location sites for poles. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Dieringer requested to skip Item 12B to allow presenters and public commenters on other items an opportunity to participate earlier in the evening. Without objection, so ordered.
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS
16 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, March 28, 2022
13.A. APPEAL OF COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS' DECISION ON VIEW PRESERVATION COMPLAINT - 61 EASTFIELD DRIVE (JUGE - COMPLAINANT) AND 59 EASTFIELD DRIVE (TAMAYO/SIERRA - VEGETATION OWNER)
Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director Public Comment: Edgar Coronado, Joseph Juge
Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to continue public hearing to an adjourned regular meeting field trip on April 7, 2022 at 7:00 a.m. and then the April 11th Regular City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
13.B. CONSIDER AND APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1291 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING THE SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE AND A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE SAFETY ELEMENT
Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director Lexi Journey & Camila Bobroff of Rincon Consultants
Victoria Boyd & Meghan Gibson of Chambers Group
Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to Approve Resolution No. 1291 adopting the Safety Element update and a negative declaration for the Safety Element. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Dieringer returned to Item 12B. Without objection, so ordered.
12.B. APPROVE PRIORITIES/GOALS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2022-2023 AND 2023-2024 DEVELOPED AS A PART OF THE 2022 STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP; DISCUSS POTENTIAL BUDGET ITEMS TO SUPPORT THE 2022 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES; AND PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO STAFF
Presentation by Elaine Jeng, City Manager
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Black, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to approve the FY 22/23 and FY 23/24 priorities and goals. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to receive and file potential budget item and increase Wildfire Mitigation/Emergency Preparedness suggested budget allocation by an additional $200,000.00. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
AYES: Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper, Black, Mayor Dieringer
17 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, March 28, 2022
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
14. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
Councilmember Mirsch announced that there would be a special Fire Fuel Committee meeting on March 30th in addition to the regularly scheduled meeting on April 20th.
Mayor Pro Tem Black made further comments about Republic Services customer service issues, as well as noting the cellular service and internet service
15. MATTERS FROM STAFF – NONE
16. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
16.A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 CITY'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: MAYOR BEA DIERINGER
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEE: CITY MANAGER ELAINE JENG
Mayor Dieringer recessed the City Council to Closed Session at 9:55 p.m.
17. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
The City Council reconvened to Open Session at 11:02 p.m. and there was no reportable action.
18. ADJOURNMENT: 11:02 P.M.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m on March 28, 2022. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, April 11, 2022 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. It will also be available via City’s website link at:
https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php All written comments submitted are included in the record and available for public review on the City website.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
Approved,
____________________________________
James Black, M.D., Mayor
18 Agenda Item No.: 8.D
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: PAYMENT OF BILLS
DATE: April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220411_PaymentOfBills.pdf
19 20
Agenda Item No.: 8.E
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: REPUBLIC SERVICES RECYCLING TONNAGE REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 2022 AND FORCE MAJEURE NOTIFICATION RELATED
TO UNAVAILABILITY OF CVT FACILITY DUE TO FIRE.
DATE: April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
Accompanying this month's tonnage report is a letter from Republic services regarding a fire at their CVT facility in Anaheim which processes residential recyclables and organic materials.
The City's collected materials are being diverted to other facilities on a temporary basis while the CVT facility is unavailable.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220328_UnforseenCircumstances_CVTFire.pdf
0222 - Rolling Hills YTD Tonnage Report.pdf
21 22
23 Year 2022
Franchise Y/N Y
Month Commodity Tons Collected Tons Recovered Tons Disposed Diversion % Jan Greenwaste 98.26 98.26 - 100.00%
Trash 156.54 - 156.54 0.00%
Jan Total 254.80 98.26 156.54 38.56%
Feb Greenwaste 93.00 93.00 - 100.00%
Trash 134.41 - 134.41 0.00%
Feb Total 227.41 93.00 134.41 40.90%
Grand Total 482.21 191.26 290.95 39.66%
191.26
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL FRANCHISE
2022
Contract Requires 30% Household -
24 Agenda Item No.: 8.F
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND
AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT
AMENDMENT WITH THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND
CONSERVANCY TO PROVIDE ONE-YEAR FIRE FUEL MAINTENANCE
SERVICE FOR PHASE 4 AREA.
DATE: April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On March 28, 2022, the City Council voted unanimously to direct staff to prepare an amendment with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy for one year maintenance of the Phase 4 area for a not to exceed amount of $32,400.00 by excluding proposed specific southernmost sections of Acacia removal near Burma Road/Ichibod Trail.
DISCUSSION:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
Phase 4 will cost $32,400.00
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220411_CC_PVPLC_PSA_4thAmendment.pdf
CL_AGN_220411_CC_PVPLC_ReducingFuelLoadProject_Phase4.pdf 25 Fire Fuel Abatement
Fourth Amendment to Agreement
- 1 -
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT
THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT is made and entered into as of April 11, 2022 by and between the CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, a municipal corporation ("City") and the PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY, a California public benefit corporation ("Conservancy").
R E C I T A L S
A. City and Conservancy entered into an Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement dated October 21, 2019 whereby Conservancy is obligated to remove the fire fuel on the land under the City’s control as a fire hazard abatement measure for the direct benefit of Rolling Hills residents (the “Agreement”).
B. In 2020, the City paid Conversancy the fixed sum of $34,200 for services rendered under the Agreement.
C. City and Conservancy entered into a First Amendment to Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement dated June 8, 2020 to expand the scope of work and increase the cost to include additional areas of work and work days for acacia and non-native shrub/tree removal and mustard mowing services (the “First Amendment”).
D. In 2020, the City paid Conversancy the fixed sum of $50,000 for services rendered under the First Amendment. In 2020, the City also paid Conservancy $12,000 for annual mowing services. The total amount the City paid to the Conservancy in 2020, for all services was $96,200.
E. City and Conservancy entered into a Second Amendment to Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement dated July 13, 2021 to expand the scope of work and add funds for the expanded scope of work (the “Second Amendment”). In 2021, the City paid Conservancy the fixed sum of $119,800.
F. On February 28, 2022, City and Conservancy entered into a Third Amendment to 26 Fire Fuel Abatement
Fourth Amendment to Agreement
- 2 -
Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement to expand the scope of work for phase III maintenance in 2022 and add funds for the expanded scope of work (the “Third Amendment”).
G. City and Conservancy now desire to enter into this Fourth Amendment to the Agreement for Fire Fuel Abatement to expand the scope of work for phase IV work and add funds for the expanded scope of work (the “Fourth Amendment”).
H. Conservancy has represented to City that it has the expertise, experience, and qualifications to perform or cause the performance of the services.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and agreements set forth below, City and Conservancy agree as follows:
1. City and Conservancy agree to amend and supplement the Scope of Services attached to the Agreement as Exhibit A, the Scope of Services (Supplemental) attached to the Second Amendment as Exhibit A, and the Scope of Services (Second Supplemental) attached to the Third Amendment as Exhibit A with the Scope of Services (Third Supplemental) attached to this Fourth Amendment as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
2. Section 2 “Compensation” of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
A. In 2021, City shall pay Conservancy the fixed sum of $87,000 for the services described in Exhibit A (Supplemental), and $32,800 for mowing services ($12,000 for annual mowing services and $20,800 for follow up mustard mowing services), for a total amount not to exceed $119,800, and representing the total compensation for all work, labor, equipment, materials and expenses incurred by Conservancy in 2021. Conservancy shall submit an invoice to City upon completion of the services and the City will make payment within 10 days of the close of the month in which work was performed.
B. In 2022, City shall pay Conservancy for the services described in Exhibit A (Second Supplemental) and Exhibit A (Third Supplemental) $72,600for mowing services ($37,800 for annual mowing services and $34,800 for follow up mustard mowing services) and $13,200 for acacia cutting and chipping for a total amount not to exceed $85,800, representing the total compensation for all work, labor, equipment, materials and expenses incurred by Conservancy in 2022. Conservancy shall submit an invoice to City upon completion of the services and the City will make payment within 10 days of the close of the month in which work was performed.
C. In 2023, City shall pay Conservancy $20,800 for follow up mustard mowing services.
D. Prevailing Wage. Conservancy or its contractor shall abide be the minimum prevailing rate of wages as determined by the State of California, Department of Industrial Relations for each craft, classification, or type of workman employed to carry out provisions of the Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, Conservancy shall keep on file sufficient 27 Fire Fuel Abatement
Fourth Amendment to Agreement
- 3 -
evidence of its employee compensation to enable verification of compliance of Prevailing Wages as established by State of California, Department of Industrial Relations.
3. All terms and conditions of the Agreement not amended by the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment, and this Fourth Amendment remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants herein contained and have caused this Third Amendment to be executed by setting hereunto their names, titles, hands, and seals this 11th day of April 2022.
CONSERVANCY: ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________
(Title)
CITY:______________________________________________________________________ Elaine Jeng, City Manager of the City of Rolling Hills
Attested:_____________________________________________________________________ Christian Horvath, City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills Date: _________________
28 Fire Fuel Abatement
Fourth Amendment to Agreement
- 4 -
EXHIBIT A
(THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL)
29 1
Proposal to the City of Rolling Hills
Fuel Load Reduction in 2022(Phase 4)
Submitted by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (Conservancy) is continues to be intimately aware of the fire concerns on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and continues to discuss measures to reduce fire risk with the four peninsula cities. Conservancy staff members work with City of Rolling Hills staff to implement fuel modification work as required by County Department of Agriculture Weights and Measures as part of landowner responsibilities for fuel modification near adjacent homes as well as measures above and beyond. Additionally, the Conservancy clears over 90 acres of weeds in restoration sites within the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve and clears 30+ miles of trails annually. This weeding approach is very specialized and must be accomplished while complying with the NCCP/HCP implementation guidelines and respecting the natural resources on the preserve. We understand that the city desires to continue to prioritize efforts to reduce fuel load in Preserve areas, and the Conservancy understands that vegetation exists beyond current fuel mod zones that pose fire threats. Therefore, the Conservancy is offering technical expertise to aid the City and augment city staff in the effort to continue reduce fuel load vegetation by targeting the removal of invasive plants such as Acacia and Mustard and other non-native plants, which in turn improves habitat for local wildlife, including the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher, the cactus wren, a state species of concern and the federally endangered Palos Verdes BlueButterfly.
This proposal outlines the potential areas for this extra 2022 work. The areas identified in Portuguese Bend Reserve include the areas abutting and leading into Rolling Hills in Portuguese Canyon, Ishibashi Canyon and Paintbrush Canyon. In total, an approximate 7 acres are proposed for fuel load reduction in the Preserve. This work can be completed in less than 4 weeks by simultaneously removing Acacia and mowing dry brush in order to complete this work in a timely manner during fire season. For these additional efforts, the Conservancy requests a one-time grant from the city up to $39,000 for the proposed work outlined herein. The Conservancy understands the city’s timing considerations and would be prepared to begin the work as soon as funding is made available.
The Conservancy has identified the priority removal of tall Acacia shrubs due to their combustible nature (Acacia shrub contain an estimated 90% dry plant matter and volatile resins) and their prevalence throughout the Preserve and border areas. The locations for the proposed Acacia removal were chosen due to prior fires occurring in those areas, proximity to homes and risk to the community as well as the ecological benefits of invasive plant removal. Fire agencies agree that Acacia is a highly flammable plant and that it should be removed wherever possible. It was included as a high-hazard plant in the L.A. County Fire Department’s recently published “Ready! Set! Go!” pamphlet. This proposal also includes the removal of other non-native shrubs and trees 30 2
like Chinese Pistache, Myoporum and Ash trees. Mustard when dry, continues to be a high fire risk species. The continued expansion of mowing areas is also included in this proposal.
The Conservancy, as Habitat Managers for the Preserve, has qualified experts on staff with the experience required to oversee the work to be performed and will assure the correct and safe removal of the invasive plants using the best techniques at the most efficient cost. The results of this work will be shared with the City provided at the conclusion of the work performed.
Where possible and with simpler tasks, volunteers will be deployed to augment the work volume and control costs. In ongoing maintenance activities, the Conservancy will create internship and volunteer opportunities for invasive plant management to keep the Acacia from re-invading the areas and to assist in monitoring activities. In this way, additional valuable learning opportunities will be made available to local youth.
As projects are completed and conditions are assessed, restoration in these locations may be appropriate and funding may be pursued, since this proposal does not include replanting in the Acacia removal sites.
Acacia Removal
Approximately 1.5 acres
These Acacia removal sites are situated in the northern portion of Portuguese Bend Reserve along the border with the city of Rolling Hills. A fire occurred at this location in 2009 burning approximately 230 acres. Much of the vegetation was burned, including the non-native Acacia, which has since begun to grow back from stump sprouting and seed germination.
It is recommended that crews enter the area on foot as possible and remove shrubs with chainsaws and lighter equipment. Trees should be chipped in designated areas and treated to prevent regrowth. The site will be monitored for seed germination and removal.
The Acacia throughout this area totals approximately 1.5 acres. This site is known habitat of the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and the cactus wren, a state species of concern as well as other species of concern.
Mowing Area
Approximately 5.5 acres
There is a large stand of invasive mustard in west of Paintbrush Canyon that is dry and can be mowed. This site is adjacent to historical farmland and were disked in subsequent years, so the loose soils have provided a disturbance regime which is particularly favorable to mustard and non-native grasses and weeds. Approximately 5.5 acres of mustard is at this location.
Slopes are very steep and high quality coastal sage scrub habitat is scattered throughout the slope. Careful consideration to not damage native plants and close oversight will be needed.
In response to community concern about the vast expanse of dry mustard growth at Portuguese Bend Reserve, the Conservancy will oversee mowing in this area and conduct bird nesting surveys.
31 10
Acacia Removal Site in Red Polygon, Mowing Sites in Blue Acacia Removal Site in Red Polygon
32 11
Budget
The budget reflects a typical detailed tree and shrub removal project within the preserve with minimal disturbance to native habitat and to the surrounding vegetation, following NCCP/HCP protocols. Careful non-native tree removals proposed in this project, increase the habitat value for the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and cactus wren, a state species of concern, as well as other native species while providing public benefit. These costs reflect the estimated time it would take the contractors to complete the project using hand tools and machinery to either chip tree material or haul plant material offsite and oversight and bird monitoring by Conservancy biologists to assure that best management practices are implemented (ie. minimization and avoidance measures such as nesting bird surveys are required by the NCCP/HCP).
These costs are based on best estimates provided by contractors for the Acacia removal and for mowing as two separate projects. For maximum benefit for fuel load reduction and habitat, both projects are recommended to be completed concurrently.
Project Acres Budget
Acacia Cutting and Chipping ~1.5 $13,200
Mowing of mustard ~5.5 $25,800
One-time Project Total ~7.5 $39,000
33 12
Other Project Considerations
This project is a worthwhile investment into the long-term benefit of the communities adjacent to the open space and wildlife within. While more costly per acre to implement new, laborintensive work than annual fuel modification weed whacking efforts, removing Acacia and other non-native trees is a positive, visible impact to the landscape and a one-time project cost to the City in these target areas. This is unlike areas of mustard which, while needed to reduce fire threat, require annual treatment and ongoing maintenance costs. To help ensure that this investment is successful, the Conservancy recommends annual monitoring of areas to prevent regrowth. This project strategy is supported by the Fire Department, which has identified Acacia removal as a priority effort to reduce fire fuel load in the Preserve. This project is also responding to the nearby community requests to respond to nuisance Acacia and mustard near homes on the Preserveborder.
Community Partnerships
As part of the Conservancy’s collaborative approach, we partner with various organizations to complete projects and provide various benefits to the community. If the timing and logistics are appropriate, we would work with some of our partner organizations to add to the costs savings.
We work with the Los Angeles Zoo and Botanical Gardens which accept fresh Acacia greenery for the enhancement of their animal’s physical and mental health. We will save many of the straight long branches from the Acacia tree for delineation of trails and to provide ground snags for lizards and insects. We also have a partnership with the local schools that offer woodworking classes for instructional teaching. Lastly, if the material does not contain seeds, we will use the chipped wood as a mulch in fuel modification zones to keep weeds down into the future.
The Conservancy will also engage the local colleges with applicable internships which allow students to gain a better understanding of the natural world, resource management and gain experience to prepare to enter the workforce. Thousands of hours of intern assistance with projects have been logged and counting. By engaging these students who span from across the globe, we are creating a lasting experience and leaving a lasting impression of the great natural habitat that exists on thepeninsula.
Currently the Conservancy is hosting an Americorp team and if schedule permits, the team will assist with this project.
Potential for Restoration and Supplemental Work
As these projects are completed, the cleared land can provide opportunity for habitat restoration and enhancement. A species that is potentially applicable to many of the local habitat types of Palos Verdes, is our local cactus. While no plant is fireproof, there are certain characteristics which make some plants more resistive to fire, such as cactus. Where applicable cactus can be 34 13
planted and maintained until establishment, if supplemental funding is available. Mature cactus holds a mutual relationship with the cactus wren, a state species of concern, since the cacti needles protect young nestlings from predators, providing the best habitat.
To make a larger impact, the Conservancy typically plants mature cactus that is appropriate for immediate nesting, giving us more value per dollar spent. The approximate cost for planting and maintaining a 1 acre cactus restoration project over a 5 year span is approximately $30,000, and the Conservancy would be pleased to provide a restoration plan for lands along the Rolling Hills border of the Preserve for the benefit of community and wildlife. 35 Agenda Item No.: 8.G
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:
APPROVE FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH HQE SYSTEMS INC. COVERING SUPPLEMENTAL
SERVICES FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $3500.00.
DATE: April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On March 14, 2022, the City Council unanimously voted to direct staff to go forward with HQE Systems allocating a budget not to exceed $3,500 to further investigate potential co-location sites for poles.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Fiscal impact will not exceed $3500.00.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_AGN_220411_CC_PSA_HQE_Amendment01.pdf
36 65277.00001\34989395.2
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (“First Amendment”) is made and entered into this 11th day of April, 2022, by and between the CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, a California municipal corporation (hereinafter the “CITY”), and HQE Systems, Inc., a California corporation with its principal office at 42075 Remington Avenue, Suite #109, Temecula, California 92590 (hereinafter the “CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are sometimes referred to in this First Amendment individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. CITY and CONSULTANT have entered into that certain Professional Services Agreement for Emergency Communications System services last executed on August 26, 2021 (the “Agreement”).
B. CONSULTANT rendered services under the Agreement, and the CITY paid $3,280.00 for such services.
C. The Parties now desire to amend the Agreement in order to extend the term, provide for additional services to be rendered by CONSULTANT, and provide for additional compensation to CONSULTANT (“First Amendment”).
Now, therefore, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, CITY and CONSULTANT agree the following terms, as set forth in this First Amendment.
1. Section 2 “Scope of Work” of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
CONSULTANT shall provide the services described in the Scope of Services attached to the Agreement as Exhibit A and incorporated therein by reference. CONSULTANT shall also provide the following supplemental services (“Supplemental Services”):
Execute Task 2.1 of the Project Scope set by the City and all of the specified essential tasks outlined by the City as the sub-tasks. Create the tentative plan of action based on information captured from the City.
The term of the Agreement shall be from August 26, 2021 to August 26, 2023 unless terminated sooner pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. Such term may be extended upon written agreement of both CITY and CONSULTANT.
2. Section 3 “Cost” of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
The CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT for the Scope of Services attached to the Agreement as Exhibit A and incorporated therein by reference, a fixed fee of Three 37 65277.00001\34989395.2
Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Dollars ($3,280). The CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT for the Supplemental Services, a fixed fee of Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($3,500). These amounts include the cost for the services and all expenses, travel and mileage, attendance at meetings, and reimbursable expenses.
3. Section 4 “Method of Payment” of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
Upon full execution of the Agreement and this First Amendment, CONSULTANT shall submit an invoice in duplicate and addressed to the CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CITY MANAGER, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274. CITY shall remit payment for the Services within fourteen (14 days) of receiving the invoices.
4. Except as amended by this First Amendment, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date and year first written above.
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS HQE SYSTEMS, INC.
__________________________ __________________________
ELAINE JENG, City Manager HENRY HERNANDEZ, Chief Operating Officer
ATTEST:
__________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
MICHAEL JENKINS
CITY ATTORNEY
38 Agenda Item No.: 10.A
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE 21-29: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A NEW 934-SQUAREFOOT STABLE AND EXISTING 3,500-SQUARE-FOOT CORRAL TO BE
LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND
EXCEED THE LOT COVERAGE FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 29
CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 174-C-2-MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA
(PERRIN).
DATE: April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On March 15, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing field trip at 29 Crest Road West to become familiar with the proposal for a new stable and garden walls at an existing corral. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the evening meeting in which it voted unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 2022-03 approving the project with conditions.
Zoning, Location, and Lot Description
The property located at 29 Crest Road West is zoned RAS-2 and has a net lot area of 59,850 square feet (1.37 acres). The lot is developed with a 5,413-square-foot single family residence and a 1,125-square-foot garage. The project site slopes downward from the residence to the rear of the lot. There is a 14-foot grade difference from the residence and pool area to the proposed stable and corral. The existing residence, garage and pool are located on the first pad (34,000 square feet) which is the upper portion of the lot located closest to Crest Road West; the second pad (13,600 square feet) contains a tennis court; the third pad (9,200 square feet) is located in the rear of the property and is currently developed with two freestanding 12-foot-high wooden chicken coops and a 3,500-square-foot white corral.
DISCUSSION:
Applicant Request
39 The applicant is proposing to build a new 934-square-foot stable and maintain the existing 3,500-square-foot corral fence in the rear portion of the lot. Two new planter walls with a maximum height of four feet are proposed to be installed between the existing tennis court and the stable; this involves 8 cubic yards (cy) of grading (4 cy of cut and 4 cy of fill). In addition, the two existing chicken coops will be demolished. The stable will include 934 square feet of new flatwork. The new stable would allow the applicant to keep two horses on-site and would allow direct access to John’s Canyon Trail and a bridle trail which are located adjacent to the rear and side yard of the project site. No additional landscaping is proposed adjacent to the existing corral.
In the 1960’s, the project site was vacant and was part of a larger subdivision that was developed with a community riding ring for use by residents of the City. In 1973, the property owner sought approval of a new home, tennis court, and a stable to be located in the front yard. The request for the stable was rejected by the Planning Commission due to concerns about lot coverage and the proposed location of the stable in the front; however, the property owner agreed to grant an easement to maintain the rear portion of the lot as a horseback riding ring for the community (See attached Planning Commission Minutes dated May 1, 1973). The current property owner/applicant has obtained a quit claim for the community riding ring easement.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
As per Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.80.050, a Conditional Use Permit is required for a stable greater than 200 square feet and a corral that is greater than 550 square feet in size. The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed 934- square-foot stable and existing 3,500-square-foot corral. The corral was constructed in the 1970s and was used as a community riding ring. The easement for the riding ring has been removed; however, the corral is still intact. The new stable and corral will be situated approximately 8-feet below the existing tennis court on gradually sloping area in the rear portion of the property.
Variances for reduced setbacks and exceedance of lot coverage The applicant is requesting approval of a variance for a new 934-square-foot stable and an existing 3,500-square-foot corral that will encroach into the required side and rear yard setbacks and exceed the maximum 35% lot coverage.
Variance request to allow a new stable to encroach into the required setbacks:
The RAS-2 Zoning district requires a stable to maintain a minimum 35-foot side yard setback and a 50-foot rear yard setback from other structures. The proposed stable would be setback 32 feet from the east side yard and 30 feet from the west side yard; this would result in an encroachment of 3 feet and a 5 feet, respectively. The stable would be setback 85 feet from the eastern rear property line and 80 feet from the western rear property line; this exceeds the minimum required 50-foot rear yard setback. The setbacks for the proposed stable are shown in the Table 1 below.
Table 1. Setbacks for the New Stable
40 Setbacks for Stable
RMHC Section 17.18.060.A.2
Required Required Meets Code Requirements
East interior side yard 35’ 32’
No. A Variance is required for a 3’
encroachment into the required
35’ interior side yard setback
West interior side yard 35’ 30’
No. A Variance is required for a 5’
encroachment into the required
35’ interior side yard setback
Rear yard 50’
85’ on the east
80’ on the west
Yes. The stable exceeds the
minimum required rear yard
setback
Setback from the off-site structures
on adjacent properties
35’ 80’ to 140’
Yes. The stable exceeds the
required 35’ setback from
neighboring structures.
Variance request to allow an existing corral to encroach into the required setbacks:
The RAS-2 Zoning district requires a corral to maintain a minimum 25-foot side yard setback and a 25-foot rear yard setback. The existing corral was a constructed in the 1970s and was used as a community riding ring; the easement for the riding ring has been removed, however the corral is still intact. The corral has an existing setback of 6 feet from the east side yard and
12.5 feet from the west side yard; this results in an encroachment of 19 feet and 12.5 feet into the required 25-foot side yard setbacks, respectively. The corral has an existing setback of 20 feet from the east rear yard and 10 feet from the west rear yard; this would result in an encroachment of 5 feet and 15 feet into the 25-foot required rear yard setback, respectively.
The setbacks for the proposed stable are shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Setbacks for the Existing Corral
Setbacks for Corral
RHMC Section 17.18.090.3
Required Proposed Meets Code Requirements
East interior side yard 25’ 6’
No. A Variance is required for a 19’
encroachment into the required 25’
interior side yard setback
West interior side yard 25’ 12’-6”
No. A Variance is required for a
12’-6’’ encroachment into the
required 25’’ interior side yard
setback
Rear yard 25’
20’ on the east
10’ on the west
No. A Variance is required for a 5’
and 15’ encroachment into the
required 25’ rear yard setback
Setback from a residential structure 35’ 57’
Yes. The stable exceeds the
required 35’ yard setback from the
on-site structure.
Setback from residential structures
on adjacent properties
35’ Approx. 50’ to 100’
Yes. The stable exceeds the
required 35’ setback from
neighboring structures.
41 Variance request to allow a new stable to exceed the maximum lot coverage.
The minimum lot size for property within the RAS-2 zone is 87,120 square feet. The project site is 59,850 square feet (1.37 acres) in area which is 27,270 square feet smaller than the minimum lot size for the RAS-2 zoning district. However, since the property was legally subdivided the lot size is considered legal nonconforming. The lot consists of an unusual lot configuration; it is wider in the front and narrows in width as it slopes downward toward the rear of the site.
The proposed structural coverage on the lot is 17,108 square feet (29%) which exceeds the lot coverage limitations (20% maximum permitted); the proposed 934-square-foot stable further increases the existing 38% lot coverage by 2%. The proposed total coverage for structures and flatwork will be 23,933 square feet or 40% which also exceeds the lot coverage limitation of 35% maximum. Therefore, a Variance is required to allow the increase in structural and lot coverage for the proposed stable.
Upon subdivision, this property was burdened with an easement in favor of the adjacent property for a community riding ring. The current property owners were successful in removing the easement; however, the existence of the easement impacted the nature of the development of the project. Additionally, the property occupies the northeast corner of the intersection John’s Canyon and Crest Road West. The property was originally developed with a driveway off John’s Canyon. To facilitate mail delivery to the corresponding Crest Road East street address, the driveway was relocated from John’s Canyon to provide access from Crest Road East. As a result, a large circular motor court was constructed on Crest Road East which accounts for the majority of the excess lot coverage.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
Area of Disturbance for the Stable and Corral
The project site has been previously disturbed due to development of two freestanding 12-foot tall wood chicken coops and the existing 3,500-square-foot corral which was formerly used as a riding ring. The two chicken coops would be demolished and replaced by a new 934-squarefoot stable and the existing corral will remain intact. The new 934-square-foot stable will occupy 2% of the lot; the area of disturbance will increase from 38% to 40%.
Access to Stable
The stable and corral will be accessed via a 6-foot-wide service driveway that on the eastern property line consisting of decomposed granite.
Height of stable and corral fencing
The ridgeline of the new stable would be 14’-6” in height. The existing 3,500-square-foot corral consists of a white three-rail fence. The new stable and the existing corral would be situated approximately 8 feet below the existing tennis court on a gradually sloping area in the rear portion of the property.
Lot Coverage
The proposed structural coverage on the lot will be 17,108 square feet, or 29% of the lot, 42 which exceeds the lot coverage limitations of 20% maximum. The proposed 934-square-foot stable increases the lot coverage by 2%. The proposed total coverage including structures and flatwork will be 23,933 square feet or 40% of the lot area which also exceeds the lot coverage limitation of 35% maximum. Therefore, a Variance is required to allow the minor increase in lot coverage.
Lot Disturbance
The disturbed area may be up to 60% of the net lot area provided that at no point the slopes resulting from grading are greater (steeper) than 3:1, or three units horizontal (run) to one unit vertical (rise). The proposed project does not include grading as the corral area has been disturbed and has a slope of less than 3:1. Construction of the stable will not increase lot disturbance.
Environmental Review
The proposed project has been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment and is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts accessory structures including stables, corrals, and fences.
Public Participation
A resident inquired about the number of horses that will be permitted to occupy the stable; however, the Municipal Code does not regulate the number of horses. According to the applicant, there will be no more than two horses in the stable. Secondly, there was a comment about adding more landscaping along the rear property line where the corral is located; there is some vegetation along the rear property line but no additional landscaping is proposed as part of the project.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of Conditional Use Permit.
The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards:
1. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan;
2. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures;
3. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed;
4. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district;
5. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities;
6. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title. 43 CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
17.38.050 Required Variance findings.
In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings:
1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone;
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question;
3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
4. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
5. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
6. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and
7. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 2022-03 and Zoning Case No. 21-29 for a new stable and planter walls at an existing corral located at 29 Crest Road West.
ATTACHMENTS:
01 Development Table (ZC 21-29).pdf
02 Project Plans 29 Crest Road West (ZC 21-29).pdf
03 PC Minutes and Riding Ring Easement 1973.pdf
04 Vicinity Map - 29 Crest Road West (ZC 21-29).pdf
2022-03_PC_Resolution_CUP_29CrestRdW_E.pdf
44 Development Table Zoning Case No. 21-29
(29 CREST ROAD WEST)
Site Plan Review, Conditional Use
Permit and Variance
EXISTING
PAD 1
EXISTING
PAD 2
PROPOSED
PAD 3
TOTAL
RAS- 2 Zone Setbacks
Front: 50 ft. from front easement line
Side: 35 ft. from side property line
Rear: 50 ft. from rear easement line
Single family
residence,
garage, spa,
equipment,
entryways (SF)
Recreation
court (SF)
New Stable
and corral
(SF)
Net Lot Area (59,850 s.f.) 37,050 13,600 9,200 59,850
Residence 5,413 5,413
Garage 1,125 1,125
Swimming Pool/Spa 720 720
Pool Equipment 40 40
Guest House
Stable (min. 450 SF) 934 934
Corral (existing; min. 550 SF) 3,500 3,500
Recreation Court 7,200
Entryway, Breezeway
Sheds, Trellises, Gazebo
Raised Deck
Barbecue, Outdoor Kitchen
Water Features, Etc.
Service Yard 100 100
Total Structure Area 8,974 7,200 934 17,108
Structural Coverage (20% maximum) 15.0% 12.0% 2% 29%
Grading (balanced on site) 4 cy cut
and 4 cy fill
for planter
walls
8 cy
Total Flatwork 6,825 6,825
Total Structural and Flatwork 15,799 7,200 934 23,933
Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) 26% 12.0 % 2% 40%
Grading (balanced on site)
Building Pad Coverage
(Policy: 30% maximum)
24% 52% 10%
Disturbed Area (40% maximum; up to
60% with slopes less than 3:1)
No Change No Change No Change No Change
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 City of Rolling Hills 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 TITLE VICINITY MAP CASE NO. Zoning Case No. 21-29
Site Plan Review
OWNER Perrin
ADDRESS 29 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills 90274 SITE
1,000’
60 61
62 63
64 65
66 67
68 Agenda Item No.: 11.A
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONTINUATION OF APPEAL OF COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS' DECISION ON VIEW PRESERVATION COMPLAINT - 61 EASTFIELD
DRIVE (JUGE - COMPLAINANT) AND 59 EASTFIELD DRIVE
(TAMAYO/SIERRA - VEGETATION OWNER)
DATE: April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On March 28, 2022, the City Council opened the public hearing, took public testimony, discussed the item, and continued it to April 7, 2022, at 7 a.m. to a field trip at the subject properties. On April 7, 2022, the City Council conducted the field trip at the subject properties to better understand the view impairment complaint. The City Council visited the property located at 61 Eastfield Drive (Juge, Complainant) to observe the alleged view impairment from the viewing point caused by vegetation located at 59 Eastfield Drive (Sierra and Tamayo, Vegetation Owners). The City Council also visited 59 Eastfield Drive to better understand the location and type of the vegetation. The City Council continued the public hearing to April 11, 2022.
History
On September 4, 2019, the City received a View Preservation Application from Mr. Joseph Juge at 61 Eastfield Drive (Complainant) regarding vegetation located on Mr. Julio Sierra and Dr. Beatriz Tamayo's property at 59 Eastfield Drive (Vegetation Owners). The application was found to be insufficient because the parties had not gone through initial reconciliation and mediation as described in Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) Section 17.26.040.
On October 28, 2020, Mr. Juge filed another application requesting review by the Committee on Trees and Views (CTV). The application included correspondences showing initial reconciliation and meditation were attempted, which continued until October 9, 2020, when the Vegetation owners asked about the responsibility for the mediator's fee. Records show that the Complainant never responded to the question, thus ending all communication between the two parties. Complainant claimed that he met the requirements of the Municipal Code because the mediation phase exceeded the 60-day period. Per the Municipal Code, the Complainant may proceed to an advisory hearing before the CTV if the Vegetation Owners fail to respond 69 within 60 days. In this case, the Vegetation Owners responded to the request for mediation, however, the Complainant stopped communicating. Based on this action, the mediation phase was not completed.
On June 1, 2021, staff informed the CTV on the actions that had taken place. The parties were advised to continue and complete the mediation phase with the caveat for an end date.
On August 17, 2021, staff reported to the CTV that both parties had not settled on a mediator and a new deadline was set for October 5, 2021.
On September 1, 2021, the Vegetation Owners emailed the Complainant and copied staff that they have decided to withdraw their intention to mediate.
On October 5, 2021, November 2, 2021, November 3, 2021 (site visit), November 9, 2021, and November 16, 2021, the CTV held meetings to discuss the application. Ultimately, it was decided that an arborist be selected to provide an evaluation of the vegetation.
On November 17, 2021, the Complainant sent the City a list of four arborists. The City contacted all four, but only one responded, Mr. Gregory MacDonald. Mr. MacDonald was ultimately retained after both parties agreed to his services.
On November 30, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., the arborist conducted a site inspection at both properties and prepared a written report for tree maintenance and restoration that was presented to the CTV at its evening meeting on November 30, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. At the evening meeting, the CTV adopted Resolution No. 2021-21-CTV advising on the view preservation dispute. The Committee made several recommendations for restorative actions and preventative measures, which are described in Resolution No. 2021-21-CTV.
On January 27, 2022, the City received an appeal of Resolution No. 2021-21-CTV from the Vegetation Owners' attorney, Mr. Edgar Coronado.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of the field trip was to familiarize the Councilmembers on the properties and the view preservation being sought. A viewing point needs to be established and a determination needs to be made on if there is a view impairment. Per Section 17.26.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the following terms are defined as follows:
"View impairment" means any obstruction of a pre-existing view by vegetation on another property within the City that significantly diminishes that pre-existing view. "Pre-existing view" means the view that existed at any time since the complainant's property was most recently purchased for fair market value through an arm's length purchase or sale, as evidenced by a deed. The pre-existing view cannot be the result of a natural disaster or illegal activities.
"View" means a visually impressive scene or vista, such as the Pacific Ocean, off-shore islands, mountains, lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills and canyons, the Los Angeles Harbor and/or Long Beach Harbor, and similar, as observed from a viewing point. A view may include structures or vegetation in the foreground or background of the view seeker's property. A "view" may be observed from one or more viewing point, and may be panoramic.
"Viewing point" means any view from the primary living area or active use area of a 70 primary residence, excluding views from minor rooms, such as garages or closets, and also includes views from accessory buildings or structures, including pool decks and gazebos, but excluding animal pens, aviaries, corrals, greenhouses, porte cocheres, riding rings, run-in sheds, sheds, stable/barns, free-standing storage rooms, and tack rooms.
Pursuant to RHMC Section 17.25.040.D, if either party is not satisfied by the recommendations of the CTV, said party may request a public hearing before the City Council to review the decision of the CTV. The City Council shall be guided by the evaluation criteria set forth in Section 17.26.050, and the heirarchy of restorative actions set forth in Section
17.26.060.
17.26.050 - Considerations for applying the view preservation ordinance.
A. The following nonexclusive factors, for which the parties can prove by a preponderance of the evidence, are to be considered in determining whether a pre-existing view has been obstructed:
1. The viewing point(s) from which the view is observed;
2. The extent of the view obstruction, both currently and at the maximum height the tree/vegetation is likely to reach (as described by the most current edition of the New Sunset Western Garden Book);
3. The quality of the view, including the existence of landmarks, vistas, or other unique view features;
4. The extent to which trees and/or vegetation have grown to obscure the enjoyment of the view from the claimant's property since the claimant acquired his/her property;
5. The extent to which the vegetation on the property preserves privacy (visual and auditory), wind screening, energy conservation, and/or climate control;
6. The extent to which the vegetation owner can establish the earliest known date when the complained of vegetation was planted or existed on the vegetation owner's real property; and
7. The degree to which the complainant diligently tried to protect and maintain their view through informal agreements with the vegetation owner or prior vegetation owner(s) and to initiate initial discussions with the current vegetation owner; and the degree to which the current vegetation owner has reasonably participated in initial discussions.
B. The following applicable, nonexclusive factors, for which the parties can prove by a preponderance of the evidence, may be considered in determining the appropriate restorative action, if any is necessary:
1. The variety of tree, its projected rate of growth (as described by the most current edition of the New Sunset Western Garden Book) and maintenance requirements;
2. The aesthetic quality of the tree(s), including but not limited to species characteristics, size, growth, form and vigor;
3. Location with respect to overall appearance, design or use of the tree on the vegetation owner's property, including, but not limited to blending, buffering, or reduction in the scale or mass of a structure;
4. Soil stability provided by the tree(s), considering soil structure, degree of slope and extent of the tree's root system;
5. The extent to which the vegetation owner can establish the earliest known date when the complained of vegetation was planted or existed on the vegetation owner's real property;
6. Privacy (visual and auditory) and wind screening provided by the tree(s) to the tree 71 owner and to neighbors;
7. Energy conservation, shade and/or climate control provided by the trees;
8. Wildlife habitat provided by the trees.
17.26.060 - Restorative action.
A. Restorative actions may include, but are not limited to, the following, in order of preference, assuming no countervailing health or safety interest(s) exist:
1. Lacing. Lacing is the most preferable pruning technique that removes excess foliage and can improve the structure of the tree.
2. Crown Raising.
3. Crown Reduction. Crown reduction is preferable to tree removal, if it is determined that the impact of crown reduction does not destroy the visual proportions of the tree, adversely affect the tree's growth pattern or health, or otherwise constitute a detriment to the tree(s) in question.
4. Heading Back. Heading back is only to be permitted for trees specifically planted and maintained as a hedge, espalier, bonsai, or in pollard form and if restoration actions in subsections (A) through (C) of this section will not accomplish the determined preservation action and the subsequent growth characteristics will not create a future obstruction of greater proportions.
5. Topping. Topping is only to be permitted for trees/vegetation species for which it is appropriate.
6. Removal. Removal may be considered when the above-mentioned restoration actions are judged to be ineffective and may be accompanied by replacement plantings or appropriate plant materials to restore the maximum benefits lost due to vegetation removal.
B. Restorative action shall include written conditions (including ongoing maintenance), directions, and a schedule by which the mandates must be completed, and may be made to run with the land and apply to successors in interest. The complainant may bear the cost of the initial restorative action, unless the parties agree to share the costs in some other manner.
Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question may be performed at the cost and expense of the owner of the property on which the vegetation is growing, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties or required pursuant to any final arbitration agreement or court order.
The vegetation shall be maintained so as not to allow for future view impairments.
C. In cases where restorative action may affect the health of a tree, such actions should be carried out in accordance with standards established by the International Society of Arboriculture for use in the State of California. Severe pruning (heading back and/or topping) should be avoided due to the damage such practice causes to the vegetation's form and health. Where removal is required, replacement by appropriate species should be considered.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider the appeal and provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
City Council Staff Report - Field Trip 040722.pdf
72 CL_AGN_220328_StaffReport_TVCMeeting_11.30.21.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_ArboristReport_59-61EastfieldDr.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_ResolutionNo2021-21-CTV.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_13A_Association.Withdrawal.Complaint.pdf
CL_AGN_220328_RequestForAppeal.01.27.22_PhotosRemoved.pdf CL_AGN_220328_13A_2007 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER INSPECTION REPORT.pdf CL_AGN_220411_BlueFolderItem_11A_Pictures.04.11.22.pdf
73 Agenda Item No.: 4.A
Mtg. Date: 04/07/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: FIELD TRIP ON APPEAL OF COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS' DECISION ON VIEW PRESERVATION COMPLAINT - 61 EASTFIELD
DRIVE (JUGE - COMPLAINANT) AND 59 EASTFIELD DRIVE
(TAMAYO/SIERRA - VEGETATION OWNER)
DATE: April 07, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On March 14, 2022, the City Council opened the public hearing, took public testimony, and continued the item to a field trip at the properties on April 7, 2022, at 7:00 a.m.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of the field trip is so the Councilmembers can become familiar with the properties and the view preservation being sought. A viewing point needs to be established and a determination needs to be made on if there is a view impairment. Per Section 17.26.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the following terms are defined as follows:
"View" means a visually impressive scene or vista, such as the Pacific Ocean, off-shore islands, mountains, lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills and canyons, the Los Angeles Harbor and/or Long Beach Harbor, and similar, as observed from a viewing point. A view may include structures or vegetation in the foreground or background of the view seeker's property. A "view" may be observed from one or more viewing point, and may be panoramic.
"View impairment" means any obstruction of a pre-existing view by vegetation on another property within the City that significantly diminishes that pre-existing view. "Viewing point" means any view from the primary living area or active use area of a primary residence, excluding views from minor rooms, such as garages or closets, and also includes views from accessory buildings or structures, including pool decks and gazebos, but excluding animal pens, aviaries, corrals, greenhouses, porte cocheres, riding rings, run-in sheds, sheds, stable/barns, free-standing storage rooms, and tack rooms.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
741
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a field trip at the properties involved and continue the public hearing to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on April 11, 2022.
ATTACHMENTS:
Photos from Mr. Juge residence 10.5.21 - CC Attachment.pdf Photo Key - CC Attachment.pdf
Juge _ Tamayo.Sierra View Case Agenda Packet 10.05.21 CTV Meeting - pgs 174-191 - CC Attachment.pdf
Juge _ Tamayo.Sierra View Case Agenda Packet 10.05.21 CTV Meeting - pgs 63-66 - CC Attachment.pdf
752
The photos taken by Staff from Mr. Joe Juge’s residence located at 61 Eastfield Drive on 10.05.21 The photos were taken by Staff from Mr. Juge’s residence (61 Eastfield Drive) at the Field Trip Meeting on October 5, 2021.
763
The photos taken by Staff from Mr. Joe Juge’s residence located at 61 Eastfield Drive on 10.05.21 774
The photos taken by Staff from Mr. Joe Juge’s residence located at 61 Eastfield Drive on 10.05.21 785
The photos taken by Staff from Mr. Joe Juge’s residence located at 61 Eastfield Drive on 10.05.21 796
The photos taken by Staff from Mr. Joe Juge’s residence located at 61 Eastfield Drive on 10.05.21 807
The photos taken by Staff from Mr. Joe Juge’s residence located at 61 Eastfield Drive on 10.05.21 818
The photos taken by Staff from Mr. Joe Juge’s residence located at 61 Eastfield Drive on 10.05.21 829
The photos taken by Staff from Mr. Joe Juge’s residence located at 61 Eastfield Drive on 10.05.21 1083
8411
174128528
175138629
176148730
177158831
178168932
179179033
180189134
181199235
182209336
183219437
184229538
185239639
186249740
187259841
188269942
100 1892743
101 1902844
102 1912945
63 10330
64 10431
65 10532
66 10633
Agenda Item No.: 6.A
Mtg. Date: 11/30/2021
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEPHANIE GRANT ,
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: VIEW PRESERVATION COMPLAINT - 61 EASTFIELD DRIVE (JUGE - COMPLAINANT) AND 59 EASTFIELD DRIVE (TAMAYO/SIERRA -
VEGETATION OWNER)
DATE: November 30, 2021
BACKGROUND:
At the Committee on Trees and Views teleconference meeting on November 16, 2021, The Committee continued the meeting until November 30, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. This would give the City more time to select an arborist that was affordable for the Complainant, meet the City's requirements and certifications, and Vegetation Owners' approval.
On November 17, 2021, Joe Juge (Complainant) sent the City a list of 4 arborists. The City contacted all four arborists, and only one arborist responded, Mr. Gregory MacDonald.
On November 22, 2021, Gregory MacDonald (Arborist) provided the City with his qualifications and proposal.
On November 22, 2021, City Staff reviewed Gregory MacDonald's certifications and qualifications.
Staff determined he met all of the City's requirements and certifications.
On November 22, 2021, Joe Juge (Complainant) agreed to the Arborist rate of $120 per hour for services and 12% required City Administrative fee of the total cost of arborist services.
On November 24, 2021, Dr. Tamayo and Mr. Sierra (Vegetation Owners) reviewed all of the Arborist information and approved Gregory MacDonald to serve as the arborist. They also agreed to grant the arborist access to their property, with the request that a 48 notice is provided before he enters onto their property. The Vegetation Owner's requested the inspection be scheduled on either Tuesdays or Thursdays. It was also requested that the arborist understand the view preservation standards provided by the RHMC before any recommendations are made.
On November 24, 2021, Mr. Joe Juge came into the City to pay the arborist fees a total of $480 ($120 per hour) and $57 (12% required City Administrative fee). 1071
On November 29, 2021, the City will enter into a contract agreement with Gregory MacDonald to provide arborist services. The arborist and Complainant will enter into a contract agreement for services.
On November 30, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., the arborist will conduct site inspections at 61 Eastfield Drive (Complainant) and 59 Eastfield Drive (Vegetation Owners) and prepare a written report for tree maintenance and restoration that will be presented at the Committee on Trees and Views evening meeting on November 30, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. The arborist's recommendations, along with the Committees' recommendations will be included into the resolution that will be drafted by Staff.
DISCUSSION:
This meeting is a continuation of the Committee on Trees and Views virtual meeting held on November 16, 2021 at 5:30 p.m.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct Staff to prepare a resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
SUPPLEMENTAL_ARBORIST REPORT 59 - 61 Eastfield Dr 11-30-2021.docx SUPPLEMENTAL_2021-01.CTV_RESOLUTION_61_Eastfield Drive__Juge v. Tamayoc1.DOCX 2 [Link to draft resolution removed]
108
ARBORIST REPORT for
61 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA - View restoration On November 30, 2021, I, Gregory MacDonald, Certified Arborist #WE 6469A did a site visit to assess recommendations for view restoration. There are a number of trees and some shrubs involved. Starting from the far left of the view issue, there is a Toyon shrub that should be fine with some reduction trimming up to 25% of foliage. It could possibly be trimmed lower at the next years trimming if it responds well to the first trim.
Much lower on the slope, there is an apparently fully dead Eucalyptus that should be removed down to near ground level. It may or may not be a view issue but as a course of regular maintenance and safety needs to be addressed. The entire root system should probably be left in place to not disturb the slope.
The large ash tree appears to be 60 + years old and in less than great health. It has dieback typical of drought stress but should not be adversely affected by the recommended reduction and lacing. As a deciduous tree, it has systems in place to deal with foliage loss. I would add the need for crown cleaning to remove all completely dead branches.
The two relatively young Canary Island Pine Trees should do fine with crown reduction trimming to an appropriate side branch/whorl. I would advise not removing more than 30% of the foliage at this time. If possible, the side branches should not be cut at this time but could possible be reduced in following years. This action will completely change the natural form of these two trees, but if follow-up trimming is done with care, they can be good shade and slope stabilizing trees.
The Avocado appears to be in decline and needs no trimming.
The large Pepper tree was recommended to be reduced to the roofline of the adjacent structure. This tree has well developed branching, so this should be fine if reduction cuts are used and no topping cuts are done. The request to remove the large trunk growing over the pathway down towards the pool house is not recommended. I feel it would be far better reduced both vertically at the end as well as laterally. This would reduce the weight out to the side. The tree has survived being cut significantly at the base (many years ago) and I would not suggest adding to that by removing a trunk of the tree. I would advise against cuts larger than 4” diameter as Schinus molle are not known to compartmentalize decay very well.
The Loquat tree close to the structure should be fine with crown reduction trimming. It too, has well developed branching that allows for smaller cuts.
The pomegranate tree will do fine with reduction trimming. As a deciduous tree, it has systems in place to deal with foliage loss.
1093
The Oleander hedge is suffering from “Oleander Leaf Scorch” also called “Bacterial Leaf Scorch” (BLS) and there is no known cure. It is possible to prolong the life of these shrubs with additional watering, and I strongly recommend adding a drip irrigation system. If screening and sound reduction are the goal, I would suggest interplanting with True Bay, Wax leaf Privet, or Australian Brush Cherry. They can be planted in between the existing Oleanders and as the Oleander continue to die, the new shrubs can take over the role of a hedge. The insect that carries the bacterial disease (Xylella fastidiosa), gets the bacteria by feeding on diseased shrubs and trees, so removal of these diseased shrubs may be a consideration. Once infected, the shrubs slowly lose the ability to transport water through their Xylem to other parts of the shrub. Trimming this hedge at the roof line should be fine.
The Schefflera shrub can be reduced in height one branch at a time with a lower risk of damage to it.
An inspection and Arborist Report with recommendations do not in any way give or imply any warrantee against tree or limb failures. Trees and their limbs can and do fail. No inspection can prevent that, and recommendations given here are simply given as options to consider. Every tree can react differently to trimming, climate, soil conditions, and watering. Any action taken are the responsibility of the property owner and the company doing the physical work.
I thank you for the opportunity to be of help with these trees, Gregory MacDonald
ISA Certified Arborist #We 6469A
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 941-2174
1104
ARBORIST REPORT for
61 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA - View restoration On November 30, 2021, I, Gregory MacDonald, Certified Arborist #WE 6469A did a site visit to assess recommendations for view restoration. There are a number of trees and some shrubs involved. Starting from the far left of the view issue, there is a Toyon shrub that should be fine with some reduction trimming up to 25% of foliage. It could possibly be trimmed lower at the next years trimming if it responds well to the first trim.
Much lower on the slope, there is an apparently fully dead Eucalyptus that should be removed down to near ground level. It may or may not be a view issue but as a course of regular maintenance and safety needs to be addressed. The entire root system should probably be left in place to not disturb the slope.
The large ash tree appears to be 60 + years old and in less than great health. It has dieback typical of drought stress but should not be adversely affected by the recommended reduction and lacing. As a deciduous tree, it has systems in place to deal with foliage loss. I would add the need for crown cleaning to remove all completely dead branches.
The two relatively young Canary Island Pine Trees should do fine with crown reduction trimming to an appropriate side branch/whorl. I would advise not removing more than 30% of the foliage at this time. If possible, the side branches should not be cut at this time but could possible be reduced in following years. This action will completely change the natural form of these two trees, but if follow-up trimming is done with care, they can be good shade and slope stabilizing trees.
The Avocado appears to be in decline and needs no trimming.
The large Pepper tree was recommended to be reduced to the roofline of the adjacent structure. This tree has well developed branching, so this should be fine if reduction cuts are used and no topping cuts are done. The request to remove the large trunk growing over the pathway down towards the pool house is not recommended. I feel it would be far better reduced both vertically at the end as well as laterally. This would reduce the weight out to the side. The tree has survived being cut significantly at the base (many years ago) and I would not suggest adding to that by removing a trunk of the tree. I would advise against cuts larger than 4” diameter as Schinus molle are not known to compartmentalize decay very well.
The Loquat tree close to the structure should be fine with crown reduction trimming. It too, has well developed branching that allows for smaller cuts.
The pomegranate tree will do fine with reduction trimming. As a deciduous tree, it has systems in place to deal with foliage loss.
111
The Oleander hedge is suffering from “Oleander Leaf Scorch” also called “Bacterial Leaf Scorch” (BLS) and there is no known cure. It is possible to prolong the life of these shrubs with additional watering, and I strongly recommend adding a drip irrigation system. If screening and sound reduction are the goal, I would suggest interplanting with True Bay, Wax leaf Privet, or Australian Brush Cherry. They can be planted in between the existing Oleanders and as the Oleander continue to die, the new shrubs can take over the role of a hedge. The insect that carries the bacterial disease (Xylella fastidiosa), gets the bacteria by feeding on diseased shrubs and trees, so removal of these diseased shrubs may be a consideration. Once infected, the shrubs slowly lose the ability to transport water through their Xylem to other parts of the shrub. Trimming this hedge at the roof line should be fine.
The Schefflera shrub can be reduced in height one branch at a time with a lower risk of damage to it.
An inspection and Arborist Report with recommendations do not in any way give or imply any warrantee against tree or limb failures. Trees and their limbs can and do fail. No inspection can prevent that, and recommendations given here are simply given as options to consider. Every tree can react differently to trimming, climate, soil conditions, and watering. Any action taken are the responsibility of the property owner and the company doing the physical work.
I thank you for the opportunity to be of help with these trees, Gregory MacDonald
ISA Certified Arborist #We 6469A
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 941-2174
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
Agenda Item No.: 13.A
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDER REQUEST FROM THE ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION NEEDS OF SENIORS COMMITTEE TO IMPROVE CITY
HALL CAMPUS AND APPROVE SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS.
DATE: April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On March 15, 2022, staff received a letter from the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) with a request from the Needs of Senior Committee (NSC) to improve the City Hall campus. The COVID-19 pandemic changed the practice of using residential homes to hold social and community events indoor. The NSC noted that there is a need for outdoor community space to meet in a safe, and well-ventilated environment. The NCS suggested the following:
Flatten lawn area between City Hall and RHCA to make it more useful for outdoor seating (tables and chairs or law chairs for movie, music, etc.) But keep this area open for snow use during children's holiday party.
A gazebo or other structure with a floor and shade for events in the area between the two buildings where the long "no mow" fescue grass is located.
Remove jasmine and agapanthas from the flower beds around RHCA to create more usable space.
Improve lighting in City Hall parking lot.
Mark city hall parking with mile fraction markers so people may walk the parking lot around buildings for exercise.
On Monday, March 21, 2022, staff met with Co-Chair of the NSC and RHCA Manager Kristen Raig to discuss the suggested improvements.
DISCUSSION:
Staff invited Co-Chair of the NSC and RHCA Manager to the April 11, 2022 City Council meeting to be a part of the presentation to the City Council. Additionally, staff was provided with a sketch from a landscape architect showing elements of improvements for the City Hall campus as reference.
174
The City Council recently engage the services of Evan Smith Landscape Architect (Evan Smith) to inventory the existing irrigation system at the City Hall campus. On Thursday, March 31, 2022, staff held a kick-off meeting with Evan Smith and discussed potential improvements suggested by the NSC.
Should the City Council approve the suggested improvements by the NSC, staff will explore funding opportunities, develop a high level cost estimate for design and construction, and can incorporate a budget in the FY 22-23 proposed budget for adoption in late May or early June 2022.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 bicycle and pedestrian funds are available to local agencies in Los Angeles County. These funds may be used for design and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities (including wheelchair ramps).
TDA Article 3 local returns are allocated to local agencies on a per-capita basis. The City of Rolling Hills is allocated $5000.00 annually and currently has an accrued balance of $25,000.00. The 2018 allocation is due to expire on June 30, 2022. Should the City Council approve the suggested improvements by the NSC, staff can explore the eligibility of the TDA Article 3 available funding to be applied to the approved scope of improvements.
TDA Article 3 funds may be used for the following activities to pedestrian and bicycle facilities:
Engineering expenses leading to construction.
Right-of-way acquisition.
Construction and reconstruction.
Retrofitting existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including installation of signage, to comply with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Route improvements such as signal control for cyclists, bicycle loop detectors, rubberized rail crossings and bicycle-friendly drainage grates.
Purchase and installation of bicycle facilities such as secure bicycle parking, benches, drinking fountains, changing rooms, rest rooms and showers which are adjacent to bicycle trails, employment centers, park-and-ride lots, and/or transit terminals and are accessible to the general-public.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
2022-03-15LtrNeedsOfSeniorCommittee.pdf
175
176
177
Agenda Item No.: 14.A
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON ROLLING HILLS TENNIS COURTS IMPROVEMENTS TO ADD PICKLEBALL COURTS. (PIEPER)
DATE: April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
At the March 14, 2022 City Council Meeting, the City Council took no further action until Councilmember Jeff Pieper reported back on discussions with the Rolling Hills Community Association.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive a presentation from Councilmember Jeff Pieper and provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
178
Agenda Item No.: 14.B
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: DISCUSS HOLDING AN ANNUAL STATE OF THE CITY EVENT. (MIRSCH)
DATE: April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
At the February 14, 2022 City Council meeting, Councilmember Leah Mirsch expanded on the Council's direction for staff to inform the community on the city's accomplishments and activities in the last two years to support the 2020 strategic plan and inquired if the City Council would consider holding a State of the City event annually.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider and provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
179
Agenda Item No.: 16.A
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(d)(2)
DATE: April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council on the advice of its legal counsel, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City.
Number of Potential Cases: 1
Letter from Californians for Homeownership dated March 3, 2022 DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
180
Agenda Item No.: 16.B
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6
CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: CITY MANAGER
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEE: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
CANDIDATE
DATE: April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
181
Agenda Item No.: 16.C
Mtg. Date: 04/11/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH,
THRU: ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6
CITY'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: MAYOR BEA DIERINGER
UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEE: CITY MANAGER ELAINE JENG
DATE: April 11, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None
DISCUSSION:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATION:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
182