Agenda packet — Rolling Hills City Council, October 14, 2024

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS

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

MEETING
RECOMMENDATION: Approved.

7. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding 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 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
AGENDA
Regular City Council Meeting

CITY COUNCIL
Monday, October 14, 2024

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. 1382 Next Ordinance No. 385
1 not been pulled by Councilmembers for discussion.

8.A. APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2024
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: SEPTEMBER 23, 2024

REGULAR MEETING
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.

8.D. PAYMENT OF BILLS
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.

8.E. APPROVE A LIGHT POLE IN FRONT OF THE MAIN GATEHOUSE ON

PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND IN FRONT OF THE GATEHOUSE ON CREST

ROAD WEST ON THE RANCHO DEL MAR SCHOOL PROPERTY
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.

8.F. ZONING CASE NO. 24-073: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ENLARGE AND MOVE A DRIVEWAY APRON APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 2-CH), ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (FRYKMAN), AND DETERMINING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the recommendation of the Traffic Commission to approve the widening and moving of a driveway apron.

9. EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS

10. COMMISSION ITEMS

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS

11.A. ZONING CASE NO. 23-070: SITE PLAN REVIEW TO DEVELOP A VACANT LOT

INCLUDING NON-EXEMPT GRADING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 CREST ROAD EAST, AND FINDING THE CL_AGN_241014_CC_AffidavitofPosting.pdf
CL_MIN_240923_CC_F.pdf
CL_AGN_241014_CC_PaymentOfBills_E.pdf
Attachment 1: Letter from RHCA - Proposed Lighting at Gatehouses 2024-10-08.pdf Attachment 1: Memo from City Traffic Engineer - 10 Crest West Dwy 09.18.pdf Attachment 2: CO_TRC_240926_10CrestRdW_Driveway_Pics.pdf Attachment 3: PL_ADR_240906_10CrestRdW_ZC24-
073_LotCoverageCalcs_240909_Ext.Dwy.pdf
Attachment 4: PL_ADR_240906_10CrestRdW_ZC24-073_Driveway_Closeup.pdf Attachment 5: PL_ADR_240906_10CrestRdW_ZC24-073_RevisedSitePlan.pdf 2 PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (LOT 132A-MS) (OGASAWARA)
RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing, take public testimony, and adopt Resolution No. 1376 approving the Project (Attachment 3A).

12. OLD BUSINESS

12.A. UPDATE ON THE CITY HALL ADA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING'S INC. (PAE) REQUEST FOR

ADDITIONAL BUDGET TO COMPLETE RESPONSES TO PLAN REVIEW
COMMENTS; ADOPT BY RESOLUTION NO. 1379 AUTHORIZING A FISCAL Attachment 1A: PL_ADR_23CrestRdE_ZC23-
070_StaffReports_CC240812_CCStaffReport.pdf
Attachment 1B: PL_ADR_240711_23CRE_RadiusMap_VicinityMap_Google.pdf Attachment 1C: PL_ADR_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_ProximityMap.pdf Attachment 2A: PL_ADR_240607_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_DevelopmentTable.pdf Attachment 2B: 240605_Comparison_Table_23_Crest_Road_East_CCMeeting_8.12.pdf Attachment 2C: 22324_Application Takeoffs-grading page 10.03.24.pdf Attachment 2D: PL_ADR_23CrestRdE_ZC23-
070_StaffReports_CC241014_ChangeLog.pdf
Attachment 3A: ResolutionNo1376_23CrestRoadE_ZC23-070_241014_F.pdf Attachment 3B: 2024-06_PC_Resolution_23CrestRoadE_ZC23-070_F_E.pdf Attachment 4: 240613_23 Crest Road East_ZC23-070_PhotosForCCAgenda.pdf Attachment 5A: PL_ADR_240118_23CrestRdE_ZC23-
070_CopyofEmailfromResidents17CRE_01.17.24.pdf
Attachment 5B: PL_ADR_240521_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_EmailfromPaulHuh.pdf Attachment 5C: CL_AGN_241014_CC_Item11A_PublicComment01_Redacted.pdf Attachment 6: Attachment06_LandscapeReviewComments_23CrestRoadEast (ZC23-070) Attachment 7A: CL_AGN_240812_CC_Item11A_GMED_Referral.pdf Attachment 7B: CL_AGN_240812_CC_Item11A_LomitaAgencyRef_Rev_5-2024.pdf Attachment 7C: CL_AGN_240812_CC_Item11A_PagesFromGradingReviewSheet_02-

23.pdf
Attachment 8: PL_ADR_240612_23CrestRdE_ZC23-
070_TechRep_GeotechnicalReport.pdf
Attachment 9: PL_ADR_241002_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_TechRep_HydrologyReport.pdf Attachment 10A: CL_PBN_241014_PH_CC_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_Proof_Affidavit.pdf Attachment 10B: CL_PBN_240812_PH_CC_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_Affidavit.pdf Attachment 11: 22324_CIVIL PLANNING SET_10.02.24.pdf
Attachment 12: Drawing_SitePlanComparison_2024-10-02.pdf Attachment 13A: PL_ADR_23CRE_ZC23-070_Plans_Architecture_CityCouncil_2024-10- 14_P1p.pdf
Attachment 13B: PL_ADR_23CRE_ZC23-070_Plans_Architecture_CityCouncil_2024-10- 14_P2p.pdf
Attachment 13C: PL_ADR_23CRE_ZC23-070_Plans_Architecture_CityCouncil_2024-10- 14_P3.pdf
Attachment 13D: PL_ADR_23CRE_ZC23-070_Plans_Architecture_CityCouncil_2024-10- 14_P4.pdf
Attachment 14: PL_ADR_23CRE_ZC23-070_Plans_Civil_CityCouncil_10.14.24.pdf Attachment 15: PL_ADR_23CRE_ZC23-070_Plans_Landscape_CityCouncil_2024-10-

14.pdf
CL_AGN_241014_CC Item11A_PublicComment02_Redacted.pdf
CL_AGN_241014_CC Item11A_PublicComment03.pdf
3 YEAR 2024-2025 BUDGET MODIFICATION TO APPROPRIATE $4,000.00 IN

THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND FUNDED FROM A TRANSFER FROM

GENERAL FUND RESERVES AND APPROVE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PAE COVERING ADDITIONAL

SERVICES FOR THE CITY HALL ADA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Approve as presented.

13. NEW BUSINESS

13.A. RECEIVE AND FILE PRELIMINARY YEAR END RESULTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.

14. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL

15. MATTERS FROM STAFF

15.A. REVIEW AND APPROVE THE 2024 HOLIDAY OPEN HOUSE FINAL GUEST LIST
RECOMMENDATION: Approve list as presented; provide direction to staff.

16. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION

16.A. EXISTING LITIGATION - GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(D)(1)THE

CITY FINDS, BASED ON ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL, THAT DISCUSSION

IN OPEN SESSION WILL PREJUDICE THE POSITION OF THE CITY IN THE LITIGATION. (1 CASE) a. NAME OF CASE: CONNIE ANDERSEN, ET AL. V.

CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY, ET AL. (SEAVIEW CASE) CASE NO.:
24STCV20953
RECOMMENDATION: None.

16.B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (2 Cases) CPUC Complaints against Sothern California Edison and SoCal Gas
RECOMMENDATION: None.

17. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
ResolutionNo1379_CityHallADA_PAE_BudgetAmendment_F.pdf
CA_AGR_240909_PAE_5thAmendment_F.pdf
CA_AGR_240827_PAE_5A_ScopeChange_Proposal.pdf
CL_AGN_240909_CC_Item12A_PublicComment01.pdf
Attachment 01 - CL_AGN_241014_CC_FY23-24_YearEnd_NarrativeAnalysis.pdf Attachment 02 - CL_AGN_241014_CC_FY23-24_YearEnd_BudgetSummary.pdf Attachment 03 - CL_AGN_241014_CC_FY23-24_YearEnd_GeneralFund_Revenues.pdf Attachment 04- CL_AGN_241014_CC_FY23-24_YearEnd_GF_ExpendituresByDept.pdf Attachment 05 - CL_AGN_241014_CC_FY23-24_YearEnd_GF_Expenditures_Details.pdf Attachment 06 - CL_AGN_241014_CC_FY23-
24_YearEnd_GF_BudgetAmendments_ReserveStatus.pdf
Attachment 07 - CL_AGN_241014_CC_FY23-24_YearEnd_OtherCityFunds.pdf CL_AGN_240923_CC_HolidayOpenHouse_ProposedInviteList.pdf 4 18. ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Monday, October 28, 2024, 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. 5 Agenda Item No.: 6.A
Mtg. Date: 10/14/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO

CITY MANAGER
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: FOR BLUE FOLDER DOCUMENTS APPROVED AT THE CITY COUNCIL

MEETING
DATE: October 14, 2024
BACKGROUND:

None.

DISCUSSION:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approved.

ATTACHMENTS:
6 Agenda Item No.: 8.A
Mtg. Date: 10/14/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO

CITY MANAGER
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2024
DATE: October 14, 2024
BACKGROUND:

None.

DISCUSSION:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve.

ATTACHMENTS:

CL_AGN_241014_CC_AffidavitofPosting.pdf
7 Administrative Report

8.A., File # 2491 Meeting Date: 10/14/2024
To: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
From: Christian Horvath, City Clerk
TITLE

APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2024

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 Adjourned Regular Meeting Agenda
Posting Location 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 City Hall Window
City Website: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/city_council/city_council_archive_agendas/index.php Meeting Date & Time OCTOBER 14, 2024 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: October 11, 2024
8 Agenda Item No.: 8.B
Mtg. Date: 10/14/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO

CITY MANAGER
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVE MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER

READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS LISTED ON THE AGENDA
DATE: October 14, 2024
BACKGROUND:

None.

DISCUSSION:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve.

ATTACHMENTS:
9 Agenda Item No.: 8.C
Mtg. Date: 10/14/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO

CITY MANAGER
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 23, 2024 REGULAR MEETING
DATE: October 14, 2024
BACKGROUND:

None.

DISCUSSION:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve as presented.

ATTACHMENTS:

CL_MIN_240923_CC_F.pdf
10 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 23, 2024

Page 1 ends

Minutes
Rolling Hills City Council
Monday, September 23, 2024
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 Mirsch presiding.

2. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Dieringer, Pieper, Mayor Mirsch Councilmembers Absent: Wilson, Black,
Staff Present: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Christian Horvath, City Clerk / Executive Assistant to the City Manager John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director
Samantha Crew, Management Analyst
Pat Donegan, City Attorney

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Councilmember Dieringer
Mayor Mirsch moved to Item 5.

5. APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
Motion by Councilmember Dieringer, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Pieper to move Item 11A to a date uncertain. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mayor Mirsch
NOES: None
ABSENT: Wilson, Black

6. BLUE FOLDER ITEMS (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Dieringer to receive and file Blue Folder Item 13A. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mayor Mirsch
NOES: None
ABSENT: Wilson, Black
Mayor Mirsch moved to Item 4.

4. PRESENTATIONS / PROCLAMATIONS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

4.A. VERBAL UPDATE ON NATURAL GAS UTILITY, ELECTRIC UTILITY, AND

TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE DISCONNECTIONS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS City Manager Bañales introduced the item. City Clerk / Executive Assistant to the City Manager Horvath provided an explanation of the process by which the meeting would be conducted to ensure public 11 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 23, 2024

Page 2 ends

participation from as many individuals as possible, and the overflow capabilities created to accommodate a larger assembly.

Presentation by Southern California Gas Company:

Gina Orozco, Vice President of Gas Engineering and Systems Integration Maria Martinez, Director of Gas Engineering
Travis Sera, Director of Integrity Management
Presentation by Southern California Edison:

Larry Chung, Vice President, Customer Engagement Division George Mundorf, Vice President, Distribution Ops.

Presentation by COX Communications:

Jennifer Bullard, Director, Government Affairs
Colleen Dillaway, Market Vice President, Orange County/Palos Verdes The City Council asked questions and stated concerns separately for each presentation group.

Public Comment: Amy Zimmerman, Karl Frykman, Charlie Raine, Melissa McNabb, Aryan papoli, Milad Goodarzi, Fred Lorig, James Bellis, Alfred Visco, Marian Visco, Hannah Carlson, Dimitri Bizoumis, James Wald, Diane Montaldo
Public Comment as read by the Clerk into the record: Gretchen Goldsmith, John Loizeaux-Witte Each group of presenters returned separately for follow-up questions from the City Council.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Dieringer to receive and file. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mayor Mirsch
NOES: None
ABSENT: Wilson, Black

7. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Public Comment: Alfred Visco, Charlie Raine

8. CONSENT CALENDAR

8.A. APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2024

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: SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 REGULAR

MEETING

8.D. PAYMENT OF BILLS

8.E. REPUBLIC SERVICES RECYCLING TONNAGE AND COMPLAINT REPORTS FOR AUGUST 2024
12 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 23, 2024

Page 3 ends

8.F. RECEIVE AND FILE THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A SIGN AT PORTUGUESE

BEND ROAD AND RANCHERO ROAD
Motion by Councilmember Dieringer, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Pieper to approve the Consent Calendar.

Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mayor Mirsch
NOES: None
ABSENT: Wilson, Black

9. EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS – NONE

10. COMMISSION ITEMS – NONE

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS

11.A. A HEARING REGARDING A NUISANCE ABATEMENT AT 20 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 58-A-RH), AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF ROLLING HILLS DECLARING THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC

NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE ABATEMENT THEREOF
Per the motion in Item 5, this item was continued to a date uncertain.

12. OLD BUSINESS – NONE

13. NEW BUSINESS

13.B. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

PROCURE ADDITIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES IN RESPONSE TO UTILITY SHUTOFFS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS; TO RETURN WITH A BUDGET AMENDMENT RESOLUTION; AND TO SEND A LETTER TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERVISOR JANICE

HAHN REQUESTING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED LAW

ENFORCEMENT SERVICES AND ADDITIONAL COUNTY SERVICES
Presentation by City Manager Karina Bañales
Los Angeles Sherriff’s Department, Lomita Station Captain Kimberly Guerrero Public Comment: Dustin McNabb, Melissa McNabb
Motion by Mayor Mirsch, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Pieper directing the City Manager to seek any and all outside funding sources for increased potential law enforcement purposes and report back to the City Council. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mayor Mirsch
NOES: None
ABSENT: Wilson, Black

13.C. REVIEW AND CONSIDER THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (CAL CITIES) PROPOSED 2024 RESOLUTION PACKET AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE CITY'S VOTING DELEGATE FOR ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON OCTOBER 18, 2024 AT THE 2024 GENERAL ASSEMBLY

DURING THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND EXPO
Presentation by City Clerk / Executive Assistant to the City Manager Christian Horvath 13 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 23, 2024

Page 4 ends

Councilmember Dieringer noted that certain aspects of the Cal Cities proposed Resolution had been modified slightly from what is presented in the Agenda Packet.

Motion by Mayor Mirsch, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Pieper directing Councilmember Dieringer or Councilmember Wilson, as the delegates to the 2024 League of California Cities General Assembly, to vote yes on the proposed Resolution. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

AYES: Dieringer, Pieper, Mayor Mirsch
NOES: None
ABSENT: Wilson, Black

13.A. (1) CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1381 A LOCAL

PROCLAMATION OF EMERGENCY RELATED TO LAND MOVEMENT AND UTILITY SHUTOFFS; AND (2) DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO SEND LETTER TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY

SUPERVISOR JANICE HAHN REQUESTING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR IMMEDIATE

NEEDS RELATED TO COUNTY FEES
Presentation by Management Analyst Samantha Crew
Area G Disaster Management Area Coordinator Brandy Villanueva Councilmember Black arrived at 11:10 p.m.

Public Comment: James Wald
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Black to not pass a proclamation of emergency and direct the City Manager to reach out to any pertinent party regarding waivers or reduction of any fees, permitting or otherwise, that would impact residents in the affected areas. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

AYES: Black, Dieringer, Pieper, Mayor Mirsch
NOES: None
ABSENT: Wilson

14. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
Councilmember Pieper requested staff return with information on the potential dangers of individually owned propane systems in the community.

15. MATTERS FROM STAFF – NONE

16. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION – 11:29 P.M.

16.A. EXISTING LITIGATION - GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(D)(1) THE CITY FINDS,

BASED ON ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL, THAT DISCUSSION IN OPEN SESSION WILL PREJUDICE THE POSITION OF THE CITY IN THE LITIGATION. (1 CASE) a. NAME OF CASE:

CONNIE ANDERSEN, ET AL. V. CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY, ET AL. CASE NO.:
24STCV20953

16.B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - INITIATION OF LITIGATION GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(D)(1) THE CITY FINDS, BASED ON ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL, THAT

DISCUSSION IN OPEN SESSION WILL PREJUDICE THE POSITION OF THE CITY IN THE LITIGATION. (2 CASES)
14 MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 23, 2024

Page 5 ends

Mayor Mirsch recused herself for this item.

17. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION – 12:14 A.M. SEPTEMBER 24, 2024 City Attorney Donegan reported that by a unanimous vote on closed session Item 16B (with Councilmember Wilson absent and Mayor Mirsch recusing due to a financial conflict of interest because her home is in the impacted area), the City Council directed the City Attorney to file complaints with the CPUC against both SoCalGas and SCE. These complaints with the CPUC are prerequisites to the filing of any lawsuit.

18. ADJOURNMENT: 12:15 A.M.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m. on September 24, 2024. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, October 14, 2024 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,
____________________________________
Leah Mirsch, Mayor
15 Agenda Item No.: 8.D
Mtg. Date: 10/14/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO

CITY MANAGER
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: PAYMENT OF BILLS
DATE: October 14, 2024
BACKGROUND:

None.

DISCUSSION:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve as presented.

ATTACHMENTS:

CL_AGN_241014_CC_PaymentOfBills_E.pdf
16 17
18 Agenda Item No.: 8.E
Mtg. Date: 10/14/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOHN F. SIGNO, AICP,
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVE A LIGHT POLE IN FRONT OF THE MAIN GATEHOUSE ON

PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND IN FRONT OF THE GATEHOUSE ON

CREST ROAD WEST ON THE RANCHO DEL MAR SCHOOL

PROPERTY
DATE: October 14, 2024
BACKGROUND:

The Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) is requesting a light pole in front of the main gatehouse on Portuguese Bend Road and in front of the gatehouse at Crest Road West. It will be on the City's property within the RHCA roadway easement. The light poles will be approximately 12 feet high. The pole at Crest Road West will be approximately 64 feet in front of the gatehouse near the driveway entrance to Rancho Del Mar High School. The light pole will be located on the Rancho Del Mar High School property and, according to RHCA, will not be in the street easement. The light pole in front of the main gatehouse will be on the western side of the road next to the tennis court approximately 80 feet from the gatehouse on City property. The poles will be supplied by an underground electrical wire connected to the gatehouses.

DISCUSSION:

According to RHCA, the lights are for security purposes in response to recommendations made in three separate security reports provided to RHCA over the years. Additional lighting will improve safety for pedestrians and vehicles exiting and entering the school district driveway. The School District has been informed and is in support of the lighting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve as presented.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: Letter from RHCA - Proposed Lighting at Gatehouses 2024-10-08.pdf 19 20
21 Crest Gate
30’ Area
22 Main Gate
30’ Area
23 Customer Name:

Project Name:

Note: Type:
• Voltage: 100-277V AC 50/60Hz
• Wattage: 50W/ 80W/ 100W/ 150W
• Power Factor: >0.9
• Output Current: 0.25A
• Efficacy: 125 LPW
• THD: <20%
• Housing: Die-cast Aluminum Housing with Powder Coat
Finish (Dark Bronze)
• 10KV Lightning Surge Protection
• Operating Temperature: -40°F to 104°F
• IP Rating: IP65
• Suitable for Wet Locations
• Effective projected areas (EPA’s) are:

Front = 0.38 square feet
Side = 0.30 square feet
Face = 1.05 square feet
• Ideal for general site lighting, alleys, loading docks, doorway, pathway and parking areas.
• Replace existing HID flood lights/ wall packs
• Dimmable: 0~10V
• Solid State Lighting technology for long life, no
Maintenance needed and High-Efficiency
• Lens Type: Optical TYPE III Lens, High Light
Transmittance PC, Anti-UV and Flame Resistant
• Cord Type: 3.2’ SJTW 18/3 AWG cable
• Total lumens: 19200LM Max.
• Color temperature: 3000K/ 4000K/ 5000K/ 5700K
• Color rendering index: CRI ≥ 70
• Beam Angle:90°x120°
Technical Specifications
Features
14 7/8”(L) x 12 5/8”(W) x 3 3/8”(H)
LFXPRO-LG-50-150W-MCTP
Electrical:

Mechanical:

Lighting:

Applications:

Other Models:

LFXPRO SERIES Outdoor Lighting
Ideal for general site lighting, alleys, loading docks, doorway, pathway, and parking areas.
• LED FLood Light
• With snap-on & bolt mounting options for one-person
Installations.
• Select a mounting option (Sold separately)
12 5/8” 3 3/8”
14 7/8”
• 300W | 38000LM | LFXPRO-XL-150-300W-MCTP
• 70,000 Hours Rated Life
• 7-Year Warranty
• Optic Lens Type: III
• Multi-CCT & Multi-Power - The Switches are on the
Bottom of the Fixture

POWER & CCT ADJUSTABLE FLOOD/AREA LIGHT
WG-20230320
Phone: (877) 805-2252 | Fax: (877) 805-2252
www.westgatemfg.com |
AVAIL. FINISHES
Multi Color Temperature & Multi Power/Wattage (Selectable) 24 Photometrics: LFXPRO-LG-50-150W-MCTP
Performance Table: LFXPRO-LG-50-150W-MCTP
Side View Front View Back View
Other Views:

TYPE III
Phone: (877) 805-2252 | Fax: (877) 805-2252
www.westgatemfg.com |
BUG Rating: B4-U0-G1 Area 65’x 75’ Mounting Height: 20’ 2 MODEL NO. Wattage Voltage Lumens Color Temp. BUG Rating LPW LFXPRO-LG-50-150W-MCTP
50W
120~277V
6800LM
3000K
4000K
5000K
5700K
B4-U0-G1 125
6950LM
7510LM
7510LM
80W
11000LM
11200LM
11500LM
11500LM
100W
13200LM
13500LM
14000LM
14000LM
150W
18700LM
18900LM
19200LM
19200LM
25 Example:

1.LFXPRO-LG-50-150W-MCTP (For LFXPRO 150W MCTP fixture 120-277V)

2.LFXPRO-LG-50-150W-MCTP (For LFXPRO 150W MCTP fixture 120-277V) WEC-8RC (Remote Control)
LFXPRO - LG - 50 150W MCTP
Model Size Min. Wattage Max. Wattage Color Temp.

Sample Ordering
- -
Phone: (877) 805-2252 | Fax: (877) 805-2252
www.westgatemfg.com |
Accessories Options
Blank = No Option For Accessories
WEC-8RC =Optional Motion Sensor Remote Control
Factory-Installed Options
Blank = No Option For Accessories
OPT-EM-OD2EXT = Emergency Battery Backup
OPT-3MPC = Microwave Photocell with a 1/2” threaded
OPT-SEN-3MR-3 = Programmable Microwave Bi-Level Sensor
Mounting Options:

LFX-TR-A
U Bracket
13 3/8” x 10 1/8”
13 3/8”
10 1/8”

LFX-EXT
Straight Arm
3 1/3” x 6 3/4” x 4 3/8”
3 1/2” 4 3/8”
6 3/4”
LFX-SF
Slip Fitter
3 1/3” x 7 7/8”
Inside Diameter: 2-3/4”
3 1/2”
9 7/8”
LFX-SF + LFX-PASF
Pole Adapter for Slip Fitter
6 1/8” x 3 1/4” x 3”
3 1/4” 3” 6 1/8”
LFX-YK
Yoke
5 3/4” x 6” x 2”
6” 2”
5 3/4”

LFX-ASA
Adjustable Straight Arm
3 1/3” x 7 7/8”
5 3/4”
3 1/2”
8 1/8”
ACCESSORIES:

WEC-8RC
Factory-Installed Opetions:

OPT-SEN-3MR-3 OPT-3MPC OPT-EM-OD2EXT

LFX-AWB
Adjustable Wall Junction Box
7 1/8” x 6 5/8” x 5 3/4”
7 1/8” 6 5/8”
5 3/4”
26 LF-SHROUD-D
Full-Glare Shroud
6 1/4” x 10 5/8” x 4 3/4”
Can be painted
10 5/8”
6 1/4”
4 3/4”
Shroud & Wire Guard: LFXPRO-LG-50-150W-MCTP

LF-SHROUD-A
Shroud
6 1/8” x 10 5/8” x 4 3/4”
Can be painted
10 5/8”
6 1/8”
4 3/4”

LFXPRO-WG-A
Wire Guard
Can be painted
Color Options: LFXPRO-LG-50-150W-MCTP
Black Silver White Dark Bronze Green Red Yellow
Default color
Custom Color Available
Phone: (877) 805-2252 | Fax: (877) 805-2252
www.westgatemfg.com |
4 27
Phone: (877) 805-2252 | Fax: (877) 805-2252
www.westgatemfg.com |
5 DARK RED 90
GLOSS
P009-RD02

GREY HAMMER
C013-GR08

GREEN HAMMER
T013-GN220

BLUE HAMMER
T013-BL468

BEIGE HAMMER
T013-BG38
YELLOW 90
GLOSS
T009-YL14

BRONZE HAMMER
T012-BR161
BLUE 90 GLOSS
T009-BL01
YELLOW 90
GLOSS
T009-YL01

BLACK HAMMER
T013-BK62

TRAFFIC GREEN
70 GLOSS
T007-GN16

WHITE HAMMER
T013-WH09

OIL RUBBED

BRONZE TEXTURE
T291-BR251

RED TEXTURE
T241-RD129

FLINT GRAY

TEXTURE
T243-GR522

BLACK TEXTURE
C241-BK109

WHITE TEXTURE
C031-WH120
GREEN 70 GLOSS
T007-GN13
DARK BLUE 80
GLOSS
T008-BL20
SILVER

HAMMERTONE
T064-GR05

INTERNATIONAL
ORANGE 90
GLOSS
T009-OG26

SILVER METALLIC
70 GLOSS
T357-GR105
RAL 8028 TERRA
BROWN 90 GLOSS
C209-BR358

BLUE TEXTURE
C241-BL544
GREEN 60 GLOSS
C006-GN03

SAFETY ORANGE
90 GLOSS
T009-OG01

RED HAMMER
T013-RD15
COLOR CHART: * Choose from one of our Premium Colors with no set-up fee.

Gloss:

Hammer:

Texture:

SILVER METALLIC
30 GLOSS
T353-GR06

COPPER VEIN

EXTERIOR
T075-BK211

BLACK/WHITE
VEIN
T075-WH34

GOLD VEIN
T375-BK10

COPPER VEIN
T375-BK07

SILVER VEIN
T375-BK26
Vein:
28 Agenda Item No.: 8.F
Mtg. Date: 10/14/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOHN F. SIGNO, AICP,
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:

ZONING CASE NO. 24-073: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ENLARGE AND MOVE A DRIVEWAY APRON APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET ON A
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 2-CH),
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (FRYKMAN), AND DETERMINING THE

PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
DATE: October 14, 2024
BACKGROUND:

On September 26, 2024, the Traffic Commission voted unanimously, 3-0 (Wilson and Raine absent), to recommend approval to the City Council of widening and moving a driveway apron at 10 Crest Road East. Per Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) Section 10.08.020.A, the Traffic Commission is an advisory body that makes recommendations to the City Council on driveway curb cuts (aprons).

Zoning, Location, and Lot Description
The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 49,658 square feet (SF) (1.14 acres).

For development purposes, the net lot area is 40,914 SF (0.94 acres), which excludes the roadway easement and 10 feet around the property. The lot is developed with a 4,385 SF main residence, 750 SF attached garage, 1,104 SF swimming pool, 100 SF pool equipment area, 735 SF stable, 234 SF attached covered porches, 450 SF attached trellises, and other improvements. The total structural coverage, excluding exempt structures, is 7,848 SF or

19.18% of the lot (Attachment 3).

The existing driveway is 3,340 SF with an additional 480 SF for a motor court and parking.

The area of the driveway in the front setback area is 11%. The area of the driveway in the side setback area is 38.4% and the area of the motor court in the side setback is 9.4%, for a total of 48%.
29 Applicant Request
On September 3, 2024, the applicant, Dan Bolton, on behalf of the property owner, Karl Frykman, submitted an application to repave and move the driveway approximately 10 feet east (8'-7" according to site measurement; see Attachment 2). The maximum width of the driveway will be 20 feet. According to site measurements, the driveway apron will be approximately 29'-5"; the existing driveway is approximately 24' wide based on aerial photo measurements. The existing asphalt will be removed and replaced with permeable pavers. An increase of 30 SF will be added to the driveway bringing the total to 3,370 SF (Attachment 4 and 5).

Pursuant to Section 17.16.150 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC), the driveway may not cover more than 20% of the setback area in which it is located and uncovered parking areas and motor courts may not cover more than 10%. The project will increase the front yard setback coverage from 11.0% to 11.3%, which is under the 20% maximum. No change will be made to the side yard setback coverage for the driveway and motor court, which are legal nonconforming at 38.4% and 9.4%, respectively. The project will eliminate 3,820 SF of impervious area and replace it with 4,113 SF of pervious surface.

Approximately 4 cubic yards (CY) of balanced grading is required to level the site. No dirt will be exported or imported to the site and no retaining walls are proposed. The maximum drainage allowed for a driveway is 12%, and the first 20 feet of the driveway cannot exceed 7%. The existing driveway is steeper than 12%, however, the project will improve this condition by being slightly less steep.

DISCUSSION:

Traffic Commission Review
Pursuant to Section 10.08.020(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC), the Traffic Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council regarding driveway curb cuts (aprons). Section 15.04.100 of the RHMC states "all new and relocated driveways require approval of the City of Rolling Hills Traffic Commission prior to construction." The driveway is existing, but the applicant is requesting moving it approximately 10 feet east to improve access as the existing driveway is slightly angled. The existing driveway already encroaches into the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) easement and the proposed project has been forwarded to RHCA for review.

The City's traffic engineer has reviewed the proposal and visited the site and finds the proposal acceptable (Attachment 1).

At the September 26, 2024 Traffic Commission meeting, staff gave a presentation, the City traffic engineer provided a recommendation of approval, and commissioners discussed the project. There were no speakers from the public. Traffic Commission unanimously voted, 3-0 (Wilson and Raine absent) to recommend approval of the project to the City Council.

Other Approvals
The project is subject to Traffic Commission review because it moves and widens the driveway apron. Typically, driveway improvements are approved administratively provided 30 code requirements are met. Approval by RHCA is still required.

Environmental Review
The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 3, Section 15303. The project is for new construction for accessory structures to a single-family residence.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the recommendation of the Traffic Commission to approve the widening and moving of a driveway apron.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: Memo from City Traffic Engineer - 10 Crest West Dwy 09.18.pdf Attachment 2: CO_TRC_240926_10CrestRdW_Driveway_Pics.pdf Attachment 3: PL_ADR_240906_10CrestRdW_ZC24-
073_LotCoverageCalcs_240909_Ext.Dwy.pdf
Attachment 4: PL_ADR_240906_10CrestRdW_ZC24-073_Driveway_Closeup.pdf Attachment 5: PL_ADR_240906_10CrestRdW_ZC24-073_RevisedSitePlan.pdf 31 Memorandum
TO: John Signo, AICP Director of Planning and Community Services FROM: Vanessa Munoz PE, TE, City Traffic Engineer
DATE: September 18, 2024
SUBJECT: 10 Crest Road West Driveway
This memorandum is in response to the request by the city to review and provide input on the proposed driveway improvements submitted by the residents of 10 Crest Road West.

The project is realigning the existing driveway and shifting it to the east approximately 10 feet, the proposed driveway aisle width is 20-feet and permeable pavers will be used for the surface.

A field review of the existing conditions was performed, and the proposed driveway was staked for visual inspection. Based on review of the plans, visual field observations and engineering judgement, the proposed driveway location and width is acceptable. 32 10 CREST ROAD WEST – DRIVEWAY RELOCATION
TOP: Driveway at 10 Crest Road West viewed from across street BOTTOM LEFT: Width of driveway apron (approx. 29’‐5”)
BOTTOM RIGHT: Movement of eastern edge (approx. 8’7”)

33 10 CREST ROAD WEST – DRIVEWAY RELOCATION
TOP: View looking eastward.

BOTTOM: View looking westward.
34 DATE: 8/30/2024 0
TOTAL
NET LOT AREA 40,914 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 40,914
RESIDENCE 4,385 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 4,385 sq.ft
GARAGE 750 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 750 sq.ft
SWIMMING POOL/SPA 1,104 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 1,104 sq.ft
POOL EQUIPMENT 100 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 100 sq.ft
GUEST HOUSE 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
CABANA 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
735 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 735 sq.ft
RECREATION COURT 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES 234 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 234 sq.ft
0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
ATTACHED TRELLISES 450 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 450 sq.ft
*DETACHED STRUCTURES:
(circle all that applies)
32 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 32 sq.ft
227 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 227 sq.ft
0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
72 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 72 sq.ft
SERVICE YARD 90 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 90 sq.ft
OTHER: 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
BASEMENT AREA: 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
(Volume to be included in grading quantities)
DEPTH OF BASEMENT 0 sq.ft 0 ft 0 ft
TOTAL STRUCTURE 8,179 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 8,179 sq.ft
%STRUCTURAL COVERAGE 19.99% sq.ft 0.00% sq.ft 19.99% sq.ft

TOTAL STRUCTURES
7,848 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 7,848 sq.ft
% STRUCTURAL COVERAGE 19.18% sq.ft 0.00% sq.ft 19.18% sq.ft 10 Crest Road West
EXCLUDING UP TO 5 AND UP TO 800 sq.ft.
detached structures that are not higher than 12 ft.

ENTRYWAY/PORTE COCHERE,

BREEZEWAYS

SHEDS, TRELLISES, GAZEBO, BARBEQUE,
OUTDOOR KITCHEN,ROOFED PLAY EQUP.-
over 15 ft. high and over 120 sq.ft. in area,
WATER FEATURES, ETC.

AREA AND

STRUCTURES
STABLE (dirt volume to be
included in grading quantities

EXISTING PROPOSED
ZONING CASE NO.: ADDRESS:

ALL STRUCTURES MUST BE SHOWN ON THE PLAN

CALCULATION OF LOT COVERAGE
16 35
DATE: 8/30/2024 0
TOTAL
PRIMARY DRIVEWAY 3,340 sq.ft 30 sq.ft 3,370
2,231 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 2,231 sq.ft
POOL DECKING 230 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 230 sq.ft
480 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 480 sq.ft
TOTAL FLATWORK 6,281 sq.ft 30 sq.ft 6,311 sq.ft

15.35% 0.07% 15.43%
14,460 sq.ft 30 sq.ft 14,490 sq.ft

35.34% 0.07% 35.42%
14,129 sq.ft 30 sq.ft 14,159 sq.ft

34.53% 0.07% 34.61%
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 27,046 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 27,046 sq.ft
% DISTURBED AREA 66.10% 0.00% 66.10%
GRADING QUANTITY 4 C.Y.

EXISTING PROPOSED
ZONING CASE NO.: ADDRESS: 10 Crest Road West

ALL FLATWORK MUST BE SHOWN ON THE PLAN

PAVED WALKS, PATIO AREAS,

COURTYARDS

OTHER PAVED DRIVEWAYS, ROAD

EASEMENTS, PARKING PADS
%TOTAL FLATWORK

COVERAGE

TOTAL STRUCTURAL &

FLATWORK COVERAGE
All structures (attached and detached) must be listed.
(include future stable, corral, and access way;
basement and all other areas to be graded)
*Free standing accessory structures such as sheds, trellises, covered patios, gazebo, fountains, barbecue, outdoor fireplace, etc. are not counted towards coverage and disturbed area unless their combined area exceeds 800 sq.ft., or if there are more than 5 such structures on the property.
%TOTAL COVERAGE

TOTAL STRUCTURAL &

FLATWORK COVERAGE
Excl. the allowance of up to 5- 800 sq.ft.
structures from previous page.
% TOTAL COVERAGE
17 36
DATE: 8/30/2024 0
TOTAL
BUILDING PAD 11,050 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 11,050
RESIDENCE 4,385 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 4,385 sq.ft
GARAGE 750 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 750 sq.ft
SWIMMING POOL/SPA 1,104 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 1,104 sq.ft
POOL EQUIPMENT 100 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 100 sq.ft
GUEST HOUSE 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft - sq.ft
CABANA 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
- sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
SPORTS COURT 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
SERVICE YARD 90 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 90 sq.ft

ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES
Primary Residence 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
Accessory Structures 0 sq.ft - sq.ft 0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft sq.ft 0 sq.ft
0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
ATTACHED TRELLISES 450 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 450 sq.ft
*DETACHED STRUCTURES: 331 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 331 sq.ft
(From 1st page)
72 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 72 sq.ft
OTHER: 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 1 7,210 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 7,210 sq.ft %BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 65.25% sq.ft 0.00% sq.ft 65.25% sq.ft TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 1
6,501 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 6,501 sq.ft
% BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 58.83% sq.ft 0.00% sq.ft 58.83% sq.ft Not incl. attached trellises,
Not incl. allowed deductions,
and incl. the area of covered porches that exceed 10% of the size of the residence / accs structures
ZONING CASE NO.: ADDRESS: 10 Crest Road West
STABLE

AREA OF ATTACHED COVERED

EXISTING PROPOSED

CALCULATION OF BUILDING PAD COVERAGE

BUILDABLE PAD AREA AND

STRUCTURES
PAD NO. 1- MAIN RESIDENCE
PORCHES THAT EXCEED 10% OF THE SIZE OF
RESIDENCE/ACCS. STRUCTURES
(From 1st page not including allowed deductions)

ENTRYWAY/PORTE COCHERE,

BREEZEWAYS

ALL DETACHED STRUCTURES
18 37
DATE: 8/30/2024 0
TOTAL
BUILDING PAD 1,371 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 1,371
RESIDENCE 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
GARAGE 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
SWIMMING POOL/SPA 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
POOL EQUIPMENT 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
GUEST HOUSE - sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
CABANA 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
735 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 735 sq.ft
SPORTS COURT 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
SERVICE YARD 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft

ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES
Primary Residence 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
Accessory Structures 234 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 234 sq.ft
161 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 161 sq.ft
0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
ATTACHED TRELLISES 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
*DETACHED STRUCTURES: 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
(From 1st page)
0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft
OTHER: - sq.ft - sq.ft 0 sq.ft
TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 2 969 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 969 sq.ft %BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 70.68% sq.ft 0.00% sq.ft 70.68% sq.ft TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 2
896 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 896 sq.ft
% BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 65.32% sq.ft 0.00% sq.ft 65.32% sq.ft

ALL DETACHED STRUCTURES

CALCULATION OF BUILDING PAD COVERAGE

BUILDABLE PAD AREA AND

STRUCTURES

EXISTING PROPOSED
ZONING CASE NO.: ADDRESS: 10 Crest Road West
STABLE

AREA OF ATTACHED COVERED
PORCHES THAT EXCEED 10% OF THE SIZE OF
RESIDENCE/ACCS. STRUCTURES

ENTRYWAY/PORTE COCHERE,

BREEZEWAYS
PAD NO. 2-- STABLE PAD
(From 1st page not including allowed deductions)
Not incl. attached trellises,
Not incl. allowed deductions,
and incl. the area of covered porches that exceed 10% of the size of the residence / accs structures
19 38
DATE: 8/30/2024 ZONING CASE NO.: ADDRESS:

Grading Quantities: Cubic Yds. Max Depth
0 N/A
For other structures (i.e. walls)
List 0 N/A
For driveway(s) 2 N/A
For yard areas 0 N/A
For basement excavation 0 N/A
For pool/spa excavation 0 N/A
Overexcavation 0 N/A
TOTAL CUT 2 2
TOTAL Balanced Export
FILL
0 N/A
For other structures (i.e. walls)
List 0 N/A
-
For driveway(s) 2 N/A
For yard areas 0 N/A
For basement excavation 0 N/A
For pool/spa excavation 0 N/A
Recompaction 0 N/A
TOTAL FILL 2 2
4 Existing pad elevations House Other Pad:

Finished Floor 799.00 -
Finished Grade 798.00 -
Proposed pad elevations
Finished floor
Finished grade
0 Max Depth Location

CUT/EXCAVATION
For house/addition
PAD 1: HOUSE
10 Crest Road West

GRADING AND EXCAVATION INFORMATION
Widened Driveway

PAD/FLOOR ELEVATIONS
TOTAL GRADING (Sum
of total cut and total fill):

Widened Driveway
0 For house/addition
21 39
DATE: 9/9/2024 ZONING CASE NO.:

EXISTING
3340 sf 3370 sf
TOTAL MOTOR COURTS 480 sf 480 sf

AND PARKING PADS
AREA OF FRONT SETBACK 9,342 sf 9,342 sf
AREA OF SIDE SETBACK 5,098 sf 5,098 sf
AREA OF DRIVEWAYS IN SIDE 1,960 sf 1,960 sf

SETBACK
% OF SIDE SETBACK COVERED 38.4% 38.4%
AREA OF MOTORCOURT IN SIDE 480 sf 480 sf

SETBACK
% OF SIDE SETBACK COVERED 9.4% 9.4%
AREA OF DRIVEWAYS IN FRONT 1,024 sf 1054 sf

SETBACK AREA
% OF FRONT SETBACK COVERED 11.0% 11.3%
AREA OF MOTORCOURT IN FRONT 0 sf 0 sf

SETBACK
% OF FRONT SETBACK COVERED 0.0% 0.0%
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 3,820 sf 0 sf
PERVIOUS SURFACE 0 sf 4113 sf

TOTAL PROPOSED
0 ADDRESS: 10 Crest Road West
CALCULATION OF DRIVEWAY(S) AND MOTOR COURT(S) COVERAGE; IMPERVIOUS/PERVIOUS

SURFACES AND INCLUDING FIRE DEPARTMENT TURNAROUND, IF REQUIRED

TOTAL DRIVEWAYS
40 10 CREST ROAD WEST
41 ℄
℄
⅊
⅊
⅊
⅊
⅊
⅊
4"D
4"D
4"D
4"D
4"D
4"D

LIMIT OF GRADING

LEGEND ACROYNMS
4"D
5"
A
A
PLAN

SECTION A-A
1 10 10 20
10 Bolton Engineering Corp.

Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
planning submittal
C1.0

ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES SHOWN ON
THESE PLANS WERE PLOTTED FROM CITY RECORDS. NO

ADDITIONAL UTILITY OR SUBSTRUCTURE RESEARCH HAS BEEN
PERFORMED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THEEXISTENCE AND THE TRUE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION

AND SIZE OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES AND

SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTION, ADJUSTMENT, OR

DAMAGE TO ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITIES SHOWN OR NOT
SHOWN HEREON. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING U.S.A./DIG ALERT AT 1-800-227-2600FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY MARKING AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY CONSTRUCTION. CONSTRUCTION SHALL
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NOT COMMENCE PRIOR TO SAID UNDERGROUND UTILITY MARKING. 1 C1.0
20 42
Agenda Item No.: 11.A
Mtg. Date: 10/14/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOHN F. SIGNO, AICP,
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:

ZONING CASE NO. 23-070: SITE PLAN REVIEW TO DEVELOP A

VACANT LOT INCLUDING NON-EXEMPT GRADING AND THE

CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23

CREST ROAD EAST, AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA) PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15303
(LOT 132A-MS) (OGASAWARA)
DATE: October 14, 2024
BACKGROUND:

This item was continued from the August 12, 2024, City Council meeting. At that meeting, Council received the staff report and deliberated on the merits of the Project. Among other things, the City Council directed staff and the applicant to address the following:

Environmental Determination: Explore and confirm that the CEQA Class 3 categorical exemption determination for the Project is applicable.

Landscaping: Selection of tree and maturity height for placement on the mound.

Trellis: Re-evaluate the building pad for the 415 square foot trellis on the slope below the proposed residence to determine if grading is necessary:

LA County;s HydroCalc Calculator: Use LA Countys HydroCalc Calcualtor to calculate runoff rates and volume https://pw.lacounty.gov/wmd/dsp_LowImpactDevelopment.cfm Guest House: Clarify adjustments made to the location of the guest house.

Applicant's Technical Team : Provide the entire applicant team at the next meeting so that technical questions can be answered
Resolution Findings: Ensure that the findings and supporting analysis for the various entitlements in the resolution are consistent with the City’s pertinent zoning standards Pad Size: Explain the applicability of Rolling Hills Municiapl Code (“RHMC”) section

17.16.095 abd the minimum 12,000 SF pad size.
43 Building Pad Coverage Guidelines: Provide analysis of RHMC section 17.16.097 regarding guidelines for pad coverage.

Applicant Request
On June 2, 2023, an application was filed by the applicant, Frank Escher of Escher, Gune, Wardena Architecture on behalf of the property owner, Yuki Ogaswara, requesting a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances under Zoning Case No. 23-070 (ZC 23 -070).

The proposed project was for construction of a new single-family residence and other improvements on a vacant lot.

The applicant is requesting the following:
14,270 SF single-family residence (main residence)
1,000 SF garage (attached)
1,225 SF stable & 5,190 SF Corral (Discussed under the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Variance)
7,428 SF basement
700 SF accessory dwelling unit (ADU)
650 SF guest house
280 SF swimming pool
155 pool equipment
480 SF of attached covered porches
Service yard
Lightwell
Retaining walls to exceed a height of 3 feet (maximum 5 feet) 28,389 CY total grading
1 st Pad: 32,610 SF; 2nd Pad: 1,610 SF; 3rd Pad 2,900 SF; Sunset Terrace: 415 SF Oval driveway with center landscape mound
Landscaping and features
There have been changes to the project since the original submittal, mostly during the Planning Commission process. Since the August 12, 2024, City Council meeting, the following changes or clarifications have been made:

Underground cisterns updated to capture 100-year storm with changes to the onsite water management plan resulting in minimal changes to the landscaping plan.

No trees will be planted on the mound.

Grading calculations updated to show 8 CY cut and 9 CY fill in the "sunset terrace" covered patio located downslope from the residence. The 1 CY difference is an adjustment which is expected to come from the main building pad.

DISCUSSION:

The Project must be analyzed and weighed against the aforementioned required findings for the various entitlements for the Project. The City Council is limited to the record and evidence before it in analyzing the merits of the Project. A decision must be based on the explicit RHMC findings and be supported by evidence in the record.
44 Requested Entitlements
Site Plan Review
Per Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.46.020.A.1, a Site Plan Review (SPR) is required for the construction of any new buildings or structures that require any grading that is not exempt. The applicants are requesting a Site Plan Review for the construction of the project on a vacant lot. The proposal situates the main house and accessory structures as sensitively on the lot as possible, integrating them into the existing topography. The proposed residence will only be partially visible to adjacent neighbors with the inclusion of landscape features. The footprint of the main residence complies with the setback requirements of the RHMC. The main residence has been integrated into the existing slope to minimize grading and land disturbance by constructing a long and narrow V-shaped floor plan that closely follows the existing topography. The apex of the house is located at the point of the natural slope, with an adjacent west and east wing. The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review for the following 14,270 SF single-family residence (main residence)
1,000 SF garage (attached)
1,225 SF stable & 5,190 SF Corral (also discussed under the CUP and Variance sections)
7,428 SF basement
650 SF guest house
480 SF of attached covered porches
Lightwell
Retaining walls to exceed a height of 3 feet (maximum 5 feet) 28,389 CY total grading
1st Pad: 32,610 SF; 2nd Pad: 1,610 SF; 3rd Pad 2,900 SF; Sunset Terrace: 415 SF Oval driveway with center landscape mound
Landscaping
Certain aspects of the project, such as the ADU, swimming pool (less than 800 square feet), pool equipment, and service yard, are approved administratively and not subject to Site Plan Review.

Site Plan Review requires that the City Council make the following findings it order to approve or conditionally approve the project:

A. The Project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance.

The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan and Zoning ordinance – sans the requested variances. The proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low-density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The Project maintains the maximum possible distances from adjacent neighbors. The main residence has been integrated into the existing slope to minimize grading and land disturbance by constructing a long and narrow V-shaped floor plan that closely follows the existing topography, which will reduce the visual impact from neighboring properties. The Project complies with all of the City of Rolling Hills Development standards with the exception of requiring Variances for the structures to encroach into the front yard as discussed below in this Resolution.
45 The Project conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements. The net lot area of the lot is 262,368 square feet (6.02 acres) per RHMC Section 17.16.060(A). The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 18,205 square feet or 6.94% (20% max. permitted) excluding exempt structures; and the total lot coverage proposed, including flatwork, would be 36,590 square feet or 13.95% (35% max. permitted). The disturbed area is 87,770 square feet or 33.45% (40% max permitted).

B. The Project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot.

The topography and the configuration of the lot have been considered, and the Project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures; the Project will be built on new building pads which enables Project elements to be the least intrusive to surrounding properties. Further, the Project will be a sufficient distance from nearby residences so views and privacy of surrounding neighbors will not be impacted. The main house is sited to minimize grading and minimize impact on the site below the 1293-foot contour line that defines both the Finished Floor level and the precise orientation of the wings of the house. The landscape below this line will not experience any site disturbance and will be utilized to seed and reestablish a pallet of native species back into the landscape above the house. The Project includes three new building pads: Pad #1 is for the main residence for a total of 32,610 SF; Pad #2 is for the ADU for a total of 1,610 SF; and Pad #3 is for the stable for a total of 2,900 SF.

C. The Project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences.

The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in the vicinity of said lot. The proposed site plan is harmonious with the site conditions of the existing lot and neighboring lots. The integration of the into the slope following the topography enables the residence to be largely hidden from view from the street and neighboring residences, maximizing the distance between the main house and the street. The slopes being created have been rounded and it was attempted to mimic the existing natural slopes in the area.

D. The Project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls).

There will be no significant changes to the overall drainage features on the lot. There will be minimal impact to site design, vegetation, and mature trees. The property will be landscaped in accordance with the approved landscape plan.

E. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area.

The total proposed grading for the Project is 28,389 cubic yards (19,052 CY of cut and 9,337 CY of fill). The excavation for the basement (3,026 CY) and pool (105 CY) are exempt from the Site Plan Review. The non-exempt grading totaling 25,258 CY is subject to Site Plan 46 Review. The grading will be balanced on site with exception to 6,584 CY of non-exempt export. Rather than retaining the dirt on the property, export is needed to maintain the existing topography as much as possible. The Project has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and minimize grading to the extent feasible.

F. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course.

G. The Project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought-tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas.

Surrounding native vegetation and mature trees will not be affected or will be replaced. New vegetation will be installed in accordance with the approved landscape plan. The development will be considerate of the environment and will enhance the rural character of the community.

As such, the rural character of the community is maintained and privacy is maintained with neighbors. The new landscape will utilize this plant community as the framework for all new plantings in the landscape that will enhance the existing habitat and ecological community already present on site. These native plants are well suited to the existing site without the need for irrigation beyond their establishment period of 1 to 2 years. The trees will provide visual buffers and habitat creation between neighboring properties while preserving and protecting natural drainage patterns on the site. The new landscape adjacent to Crest Road focuses largely on the reestablishment of the coastal sage scrub planting community and providing habit for the local fauna while seamlessly blending the house into the surrounding native hillside without obstructing views
H. The Project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles.

The proposed site plan is not detrimental to convenience and safety of pedestrians and vehicles. The proposed continuous driveway allows for the simplest path between all structures, with an attached garage in the main residence accommodating four vehicles, suitable per Rolling Hills guidelines for the main house, guest house and ADU parking requirements. The open agricultural room in the stable will also facilitate storage of maintenance vehicles and equipment, as well as animal transportation equipment.

I. The Project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Project is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA 47 Guidelines, Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).

Class 3 exempts the construction and location of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including single family residence and accessory structures, including but not limited to garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. Here, the Project includes development on a vacant lot of a new single-family residence in a residential zone, with attached garage, driveway, stable, swimming pool, ADU, guesthouse and other residential improvements. Accordingly, the Project qualifies for the exemption pursuant to Section 15303.

Further, no exceptions to the exemptions in State CEQA Guidelines, section 15300.2, apply.

Conditional Use Permit
Per RHMC section 17.80.050, a conditional use permit is required for stable greater than 200- square-feet and a corral that is greater than 550 square feet in size. The proposed 1,225- square- foot stable exceeds the 200 -square-foot limit by 775 square feet. The proposed stable will not encroach into any required setbacks. The proposed corral encroaches into front yard and front setback. The stable and corral will also require a variance because they are located in the front yard. The corral will also require a variance to encroach into the 50-foot front setback. These are discussed below.

RHMC section 17.16.210 requires a conditional use permit in order to construct a guest house. The proposed 540-square-foot guest will not encroach into any required setbacks.

Further, a conditional use permit is required for an accessory structure that exceeds 200- square-feet. The project includes a detached 415-square-foot trellis at the bottom of the canyon. There are also two existing trails that lead down to the new trellis. The existing trails are currently overgrown and not accessible. The applicant is proposing to redesign and cut the overgrown vegetation the pathways for the new trellis.

In order to approve a CUP, the City Council must make the following findings:

A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan.

The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a guesthouse, stable, corral, and trellis is consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community, and meets all the applicable code development standards for such use. The Project is compatible with existing land uses as other properties in the same zone have a guest house and stable.

B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures.

The nature, condition, and development of adjacent structures have been considered, and the Project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed guest house, stable, corral, and trellis will be located on the property with sufficient proximity to neighboring buildings and structures.

C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the uses and buildings proposed.

The proposed conditional uses comply with all applicable development standards in the RAS-2 48 Zone. The net lot area is 262,368 SF (6.02 acres) and is adequate to support the proposed uses. The area of the site considered the "front yard", between the proposed main residence and the street, is the widest and most level part of the site. The exception to this is the location of the stable in the front yard, and the corral in the front yard setback, both are subject to variances. The property will be developed and adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed uses and buildings.

D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district.

The proposed conditional uses comply with all applicable development standards of the RAS2 Zone, with exception to the variances requested herein.

E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities.

Granting the proposed conditional use for the Project will be consistent with the applicable portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related to siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. The Project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. The proposed Project would not constitute a hazardous waste facility.

F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title.

The proposed Project allows the Applicant the ability to enjoy rights enjoyed by other residents in the City – the development and construction of a single-family home. The proposed uses are consistent with the residential character of the City.

Variance
The Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a variance for the following project components:

1. Stable, corral, swimming pool, and retaining walls to encroach into the front yard;

2. Corral to encroach into the required 50-foot front setback;

3. Retaining walls that exceed the maximum average height of two-and-one-half feet;

4. Basement with a portion extending beyond the building walls of the residence;

5. Decks/patios that exceed more than one foot above grade; and

6. Grading export.

In granting a variance, City Council must make the following findings:

A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone.

There are extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property. The location of stable and corral between the main house and the street is a design adopted by many neighbors on Crest Road East, requiring a variance to allow stables and corrals in the front yard and front yard setback. The area of the site considered the "front yard", between the proposed main residence and the street, is the widest and most level part of the site. Allowing the proposed 49 pool and retaining walls to encroach into the front yard will be consistent with the natural slope of the existing property. The construction of retaining walls to exceed the maximum average height of two-and one-half-feet, a basement with a portion extending beyond the building walls of the residence, and construction decks/patios more than one foot above grade will minimize grading and support the development. As a result of the shape of the lot, the grading of the Project requires a variance to export non-exempt grading of 3,131 CY of soil to keep the peak of the knoll below the height of the street and out of the view of neighbors.

B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question.

Developments similar to the proposed Project, with stables and corrals in the front yard, are enjoyed by many neighbors on Crest Road East who similarly position main residences away from the street to create privacy and maximize views from their residences, all while making the equestrian uses of the neighborhood visible along the street. The variance requests are necessary for preservation and enjoyment of property rights consistent with other properties in the same vicinity and zone.

C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

Granting a variance for the Project will not be detrimental to the public welfare and will not be injurious to properties in the vicinity because it is consistent with the encroachments by the existing residences and structures and contributes to a consistent and equitable treatment of development in the surrounding area.

D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed.

The granting of the variance will allow for a development that is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the proposed Project is visually harmonious with adjacent properties and in scale with adjacent residential development.

E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant.

The variance does not grant special privileges for the Applicant; the proposed Project is similar to other properties on Crest Road East that have stables and corrals in the front yard and setbacks. . The Project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, and general land uses specified in the General Plan.

F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities.

Granting a variance for the Project will be consistent with the applicable portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related to siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. The Project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. The proposed Project would not constitute a hazardous waste facility.

G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling 50 Hills.

Approvals granting the variance to allow encroachments into the front yard setback will be consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills, which encourages residential and equestrian uses.

City Council Concerns
Staff and the Applicant worked together to address the Council’s concerns raised the last time this Project was before the City Council:

Environmental Determination: The City has consistently applied Class 3 (CEQA Guidelines section 15303) categorical exemptions to single-family residence projects in the City. This Class 3 CEQA exemption (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) exempts the construction and location of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including single family residence and accessory structures, including but not limited to garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. Here, the Project involves the construction of a new single -family residence on a vacant lot within a residential zone, along with attached garage, driveway, stable, swimming pool, ADU, guesthouse and other residential improvements. It is staff’s position that the Project fits squarely within Section 15303 exemption.

Further, no exceptions to the exemptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The Project is not located in an environmentally sensitive habitat. As a single-family residence with accessory structures and landscaping/hardscaping improvements on a lot that permits a single- family residence, there is no likelihood of successive project on this site due to the City’s current development standards
Finally, staff does not believe there is a reasonable possibility that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Assertions that this Project will have some different or dispositive impact on land movement issues in the City is not supported by any technical evidence and the Project involves water retention features above and beyond what has been typically required and approved for other projects in the City Landscaping: Following the August 12th meeting, the applicant has decided to eliminate all trees from the mound. Condition AP in the draft resolution has been updated to eliminate any specific tree type on the mound. Landscaping must be in compliance with the landscape plan as approved by the City's landscape consultant.

Trellis: The applicant proposes a 415 square foot (SF) trellis an existing pad located below the slope. It is accessible via existing trails, however, due to overgrown vegetation access is currently not available. City Council was not able to visit the pad during the August field trip due to the overgrown vegetation. The applicant reevaluated the pad location and determined there will be minor grading of 16 cubic yards (CY) balanced at the same location to level the slab foundation. Vegetation will be cleared for access.

LA County’s HydroCal Calculator: The applicant was directed to use LA County’s HydroCalc Calculator to calculate runoff rates and volumes:
https://pw.lacounty.gov/wmd/dsp_LowImpactDevelopment.cfm. The applicant was able to use the tool and has upgraded the underground cisterns to store the excess runoff from a 100- year storm. To staff’s understanding, this Project is unique in the City in that its water retention 51 design efforts are meant to capture and store 100-year storm runoff. The Summary of Hydrology Analysis is included as Attachment 9.

Guest House: Through the Planning Commission process, the applicant was able to relocate the guest house 10 feet to the northwest to distance the corner from the top of the canyon.

Plans showing the proposed project from December 2023, April 2024, and June 2024 are provided as Attachment 12.

Applicant’s Technical Team : The City Council requested to have the entire applicant team present in case there were questions for the engineer, geologist, or landscape architect. Staff has contacted the applicant to forward this request that the entire team be present. Staff has reached out to LA County to have representatives from the Public Works Department present as well.

Resolution Findings: The City Council requested that staff ensure the analysis for each finding in the proposed Resolution of approval was supported by the evidence in the record. Findings are listed below and the revised Resolution, supporting each finding, is included as Attachment 3A.

Pad Size: Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) Section 17.16.095 indicates "The minimum size of a graded building pad shall be twelve thousand square feet [12,000 SF], as specified in the City's Subdivisions Code (Title 16 of this code)." The provisions in the Subdivision Code indicate the pad size is meant to demonstrate a minimum-sized pad for development of a main residence when a lot is subdivided. RHMC Section 17.18.020 requires all residential properties to be developed with a stable, contiguous corral and access thereto, or provide a minimum 1,000 SF to be set aside for such use. Thus, this minimum pad size described in Section 17.16.095 is not meant for accessory structures such as stables and other buildings as there exists another minimum size for these structures elsewhere in RHMC. Historically, the 12,000 SF minimum pad size has been applied to the main building pad and not for pads for stables and accessory structures. If the 12,000 SF minimum were required for all pads, including accessory structures, then a lot of other projects in the City would not have been subject to approval.

Building Pad Coverage Guidelines: RHMC Section 17.16.097 provides a guideline for "determining whether the proportion of the building pad that is proposed for development is appropriate. The Planning Commission's guideline is expressed in terms of a maximum percentage of building pad coverage. A determination as to whether a proposed project satisfies the guideline is determined by first calculating the square footage of the proposed structure(s) and of all existing structures on the lot, dividing that number by the square footage of that portion of the building pad that is not in the setbacks, and then comparing that percentage figure to the Commission's guideline percentage. . . Satisfaction of the Commission's guideline for allowable building pad coverage is only one of several factors for determining project compliance with the general plan and zoning ordinance and all other required findings for the particular approval sought must also be satisfied." , many projects exceeding this building pad guideline have been approved more recently.

Other Items
Traffic Commission Review of Driveway
The proposed driveway connects to Crest Road East and has a driveway apron of 62-feet 5- 52 inches wide. The driveway entrance will be 26 feet wide and connects to an oval-shaped driveway that will be 15 feet wide. The oval-shaped driveway connects to the barn, ADU, and main residence. Existing eucalyptus trees along Crest Road East will remain. The proposed driveway apron was reviewed and approved by the Traffic Commission on December 11, 2023. The City Council makes the final decision on the Traffic Commission’s recommendations.

Rolling Hills Community Association Review
Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date.

Public Participation
The public was given an opportunity to address the Planning Commission during field trips and meetings, and the City Council at the August 12, 2024 meeting and October 14, 2024 meeting.

Environmental Review
The City has consistently applied Class 3 (CEQA Guidelines section 15303) categorical exemptions to single-family residence projects in the City. This Class 3 CEQA exemption (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) exempts the construction and location of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including single family residence and accessory structures, including but not limited to garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. Here, the Project involves the construction of a new single-family residence on a vacant lot within a residential zone, along with attached garage, driveway, stable, swimming pool, ADU, guesthouse and other residential improvements. It is staff’s position that the Project fits squarely within the Section 15303 exemption.

Further no exceptions to the exemptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The Project is not located in an environmentally sensitive habitat. As a single-family residence with accessory structures and landscaping/hardscaping improvements on a lot that permits a single-family residence, there is no likelihood of successive project on this site due to the City’s current development standards.

Finally, staff does not believe there is a reasonable possibility that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Assertions that this Project will have some different or dispositive impact on land movement issues in the City is not supported by any technical evidence and the Project involves water retention features above and beyond what has been typically required and approved for other projects in the City.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Open the public hearing, take public testimony, and adopt Resolution No. 1376 approving the Project (Attachment 3A).

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1A: PL_ADR_23CrestRdE_ZC23-
53 070_StaffReports_CC240812_CCStaffReport.pdf
Attachment 1B: PL_ADR_240711_23CRE_RadiusMap_VicinityMap_Google.pdf Attachment 1C: PL_ADR_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_ProximityMap.pdf Attachment 2A: PL_ADR_240607_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_DevelopmentTable.pdf Attachment 2B: 240605_Comparison_Table_23_Crest_Road_East_CCMeeting_8.12.pdf Attachment 2C: 22324_Application Takeoffs-grading page 10.03.24.pdf Attachment 2D: PL_ADR_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_StaffReports_CC241014_ChangeLog.pdf Attachment 3A: ResolutionNo1376_23CrestRoadE_ZC23-070_241014_F.pdf Attachment 3B: 2024-06_PC_Resolution_23CrestRoadE_ZC23-070_F_E.pdf Attachment 4: 240613_23 Crest Road East_ZC23-070_PhotosForCCAgenda.pdf Attachment 5A: PL_ADR_240118_23CrestRdE_ZC23-
070_CopyofEmailfromResidents17CRE_01.17.24.pdf
Attachment 5B: PL_ADR_240521_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_EmailfromPaulHuh.pdf Attachment 5C: CL_AGN_241014_CC_Item11A_PublicComment01_Redacted.pdf Attachment 6: Attachment06_LandscapeReviewComments_23CrestRoadEast (ZC23-070) Attachment 7A: CL_AGN_240812_CC_Item11A_GMED_Referral.pdf Attachment 7B: CL_AGN_240812_CC_Item11A_LomitaAgencyRef_Rev_5-2024.pdf Attachment 7C: CL_AGN_240812_CC_Item11A_PagesFromGradingReviewSheet_02-23.pdf Attachment 8: PL_ADR_240612_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_TechRep_GeotechnicalReport.pdf Attachment 9: PL_ADR_241002_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_TechRep_HydrologyReport.pdf Attachment 10A: CL_PBN_241014_PH_CC_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_Proof_Affidavit.pdf Attachment 10B: CL_PBN_240812_PH_CC_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_Affidavit.pdf Attachment 11: 22324_CIVIL PLANNING SET_10.02.24.pdf
Attachment 12: Drawing_SitePlanComparison_2024-10-02.pdf Attachment 13A: PL_ADR_23CRE_ZC23-070_Plans_Architecture_CityCouncil_2024-10- 14_P1p.pdf
Attachment 13B: PL_ADR_23CRE_ZC23-070_Plans_Architecture_CityCouncil_2024-10- 14_P2p.pdf
Attachment 13C: PL_ADR_23CRE_ZC23-070_Plans_Architecture_CityCouncil_2024-10- 14_P3.pdf
Attachment 13D: PL_ADR_23CRE_ZC23-070_Plans_Architecture_CityCouncil_2024-10- 14_P4.pdf
Attachment 14: PL_ADR_23CRE_ZC23-070_Plans_Civil_CityCouncil_10.14.24.pdf Attachment 15: PL_ADR_23CRE_ZC23-070_Plans_Landscape_CityCouncil_2024-10-14.pdf CL_AGN_241014_CC Item11A_PublicComment02_Redacted.pdf
CL_AGN_241014_CC Item11A_PublicComment03.pdf
54 Agenda Item No.: 11.A
Mtg. Date: 08/12/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:

ZONING CASE NO. 23-070: SITE PLAN REVIEW TO DEVELOP A

VACANT LOT INCLUDING NON-EXEMPT GRADING AND THE

CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH
BASEMENT, RETAINING WALLS EXCEEDING A HEIGHT OF 3 FEET
(UP TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 5 FEET), DRIVEWAY WITH
PORTIONS THAT EXCEED A WIDTH OF 20 FEET, AND OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS; CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR

CONSTRUCTION OF A STABLE, CORRAL, DETACHED TRELLIS, AND GUEST HOUSE; AND VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE STABLE,

CORRAL, SWIMMING POOL, AND RETAINING WALLS TO ENCROACH

INTO THE FRONT YARD, ALLOW A PORTION OF THE CORRAL TO

ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, CONSTRUCT

RETAINING WALLS EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM AVERAGE HEIGHT

OF TWO-AND-ONE-HALF FEET, CONSTRUCT A BASEMENT WITH A

PORTION EXTENDING BEYOND THE BUILDING WALLS OF THE

RESIDENCE, CONSTRUCT DECKS/PATIOS MORE THAN ONE FOOT

ABOVE GRADE, AND ALLOW GRADING EXPORT FOR A PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 23 CREST ROAD EAST, AND FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (LOT 132A-MS) (OGASAWARA)
DATE: August 12, 2024
BACKGROUND:

On July 22, 2024, the City Council considered the Planning Commission's action to approve the proposed project and the Traffic Commission's action to approve the driveway apron. The City Council voted 5-0 to take the matter under its own jurisdiction. On August 1, 2024, a public hearing notice was published in the Daily Breeze for the field trip and evening Council meeting on August 12, 2024. Notices were mailed to owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property (Attachments 1A and 10).
55 Applicant Request
On June 2, 2023, an application was filed by the applicant, Frank Escher of Escher, Gune, Wardena Architecture on behalf of the property owner, Yuki Ogaswara, requesting a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances under Zoning Case No. 23-070 (ZC 23-070).

The proposed project was for construction of a new 14,680-square-foot (SF) single-family residence with a 7,849 SF basement, 1,000 SF attached garage, 1,225 SF stable, 5,190 SF corral, 600 SF accessory dwelling unit (ADU), 600 SF guest house, 280 SF swimming pool, 155 SF pool equipment, 480 SF of attached covered porches, 95 SF service yard, lightwells, maximum five-foot-high retaining walls, walkways, landscaping, and other improvements (Attachment 2). A 17,700 SF oval driveway was proposed in the front of the property for access to the residence, ADU, and stable.

Previous Projects
On January 2017, the City Council adopted a resolution approving Zoning Case (ZC) No. 902 for construction of an 11,500 SF new single-family residence with an 11,500 SF basement and appurtenances (See City Council Resolution No. 1202).

On December 12, 2018, the Planning Commission granted a two-year time extension for ZC No. 902 to January 23, 2021. Due to COVID-19 several entitlements were placed on hold and Assembly Bill 1561 created an automatic time extension for ZC No. 902 which extended the expiration to July 22, 2022.

On November 9, 2021, an application was received for development of a new 8,460 SF residence, basement, accessory dwelling unit (ADU), guest house, stable, swimming pool, spa, and other improvements (ZC No. 21-11). On March 15, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a field trip and evening public hearing to discuss the project, and continued the public hearing to April 19, 2022. On March 24, 2022, the Traffic Commission recommended approval of the main driveway, but removal of the secondary driveway. On April 13, 2022, the applicant requested the item be pulled from the Planning Commission agenda since the property had been sold to a new owner who did not want to continue with the project. As such, ZC No. 21-11 was closed; the approval for ZC No. 902 ultimately expired.

Planning Commission Review of ZC 23-070
On January 16, 2024, the Planning Commission reviewed ZC 23-070 for the first time. After conducting a field trip and evening public hearing, the Planning Commission continued the item and directed staff to work with the applicant to revise the plans to address certain issues:

The height of the mound at the center of the oval driveway. The plans indicated a height of 15 feet from the existing grade at the highest point and showed Coast Live Oak Trees (these can grow up to 80 feet tall) to be planted. This would negatively impact the line of site from Crest Road East. The Commission required that the proposed mound be staked and silhouetted.

The residents at 17 Crest Road East expressed concerns about privacy and the proximity of the proposed barn.

The walkway that extends out from the basement and the portion of the basement under the covered patio that is not under the footprint of the residence.

The discrepancies with the grading calculations, application, and plans.

Mixed-Use Structure/Stable located in the front yard.

The guest house's proximity to the canyon.
56 Retaining walls along the stable.

Floor level above the grade/raised decks – various sections of the residence, guest house, stable, and guest house show raised decks.

Trellis calculations need to be added to the calculations (415 square feet (SF) On April 16, 2024, this item was presented to the Planning Commission for a second time.

That morning, the Planning Commission held a field trip at the site. Commissioners, staff, and attendees viewed the silhouettes of the proposed project. The project was presented later at the evening Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commissioners voted 4-0 (1 Commissioner was absent) to continue the item to the next meeting. The Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant to revise the plans to address the following:

The basement projection from the main residence;
The exit from the basement;
The proposed mount height at 1330' elevation, which must be lowered; Privacy; and
View blockage issues.

On June 18, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a third field trip and evening public hearing. The applicant and several residents were present at the field trip. The Commission and the public were able to walk the site to better understand the proposed project. At the evening hearing, the Commission listened to the staff's presentation and heard the applicants' testimonies. Several residents spoke about stormwater concerns. At the conclusion of the evening hearing, the Planning Commission voted 3-0 (two commissioners absent) to adopt Resolution No. 2024-06 approving ZC 23-070 (Attachment 3). The action included amending the conditions of approval to address future area drainage, the height of the mound and what can be planted atop, and the orientation of a passageway to the basement.

Traffic Commission Review
On December 11, 2023, the Traffic Commission reviewed the proposed driveway and apron.

The proposed driveway connects to Crest Road East and has a driveway apron of 62 feet 5 inches wide. The driveway entrance will be 26 feet wide and connects to an oval-shaped driveway that will be 15 feet wide. The oval-shaped driveway connects to the barn, ADU, and main residence. Existing eucalyptus trees along Crest Road East will remain. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Traffic Commission voted 4-0 (one commissioner absent) to approve the proposed driveway and apron.

Zoning, Location, and Lot Description
The property is zoned RAS-2, and the gross lot area is 7.05 acres or 307,098 SF. The net lot area for development purposes is 6.02 acres or 262,368 SF. The lot is currently undeveloped and vacant (see photos in Attachment 4). The lot is irregularly shaped and has a depth of approximately 820 feet and a width of approximately 480 feet. The property slopes downward from Crest Road East to the rear of the property. The grade elevation between the proposed main building pad and the street is approximately 42 feet. The lot is located in the southern portion of the City and has views of the Pacific Ocean. A natural drainage course is located along the western portion of the lot, and a blue line stream, which is a part of the Klondike Canyon System, is located approximately 200 feet south of the southern property line of the lot. The lot is also located in proximity to the Geotechnical Hazardous area of the City, known 57 as the Flying Triangle. The existing topography of the project site slopes down approximately 115 feet from Crest Road East to the lowest portion of the lot. The closest structures to the proposed project are 330 feet to the north, 179 feet to the east, 220 feet to the west, and 403 feet to the south (Attachment 1B).

DISCUSSION:

Project Approved by the Planning Commission on June 18, 2024 The applicant revised the project during the public hearing process to address issues discussed at previous meetings. On June 18, 2024, the Planning Commission approved the following:
14,680 SF single-family residence
7,849 SF basement
1,000 SF attached garage
652 SF accessory dwelling unit (ADU; not subject to discretionary review) 1,225 SF stable and 5,190 SF corral (Discussed under the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Variance)
Retaining walls to exceed a height of 3 feet (maximum 5 feet) 28,389 cubic yards (CY) of total grading
25,343 SF mound in the center of the oval driveway
58,050 SF landscaping
Native plants & tree species
3,000 SF native pollinator meadow in the center of the mound Three building pads are proposed:

Pad 1: 32,610 SF main building pad
Pad 2: 1,610 SF accessory dwelling unit (ADU) pad
Pad 3: 2,900 SF stable pad
The Planning Commission amended or added conditions to address certain issues:

Condition AB: Language included to address drainage.

Condition AP: Condition added regarding the mound height (maximum elevation of 1330 feet) and landscaping.

Condition AQ: Condition added that basement passageway be redesigned to be angled or zigzagged.

Grading
The total grading is 28,389 CY (see Attachment 8). Grading export is 9,715 CY (3,131 CY exempt and 6,584 CY non-exempt). Grading for the mound was reduced from 11,405 CY to 9,337 CY. A Site Plan Review is required for the non-exempt grading and a Variance is required for non-exempt export.

Site Plan Review
Per Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) Section 17.46.020.A.1, a Site Plan Review is required for the construction of any new buildings or structures that require any grading that is not exempt. RHMC Section 17.46.50 includes required findings which are listed below. 58 Conditional Use Permit
Per RHMC Section 17.80.050, a conditional use permit (CUP) is required for a stable greater than 200 SF and a corral that is greater than 550 SF. The proposed 1,225 SF stable exceeds the 200 SF limit by 775 SF. The stable has not changed in this project.

Per RHMC Section 17.16.210, a CUP is also required to construct a guest house. The new proposal for the guest house has been changed to 600 SF, which was reduced from 540 SF.

The guest house will not encroach into any required setbacks and was moved away from the top of the canyon.

As per RHMC Section 17.16.210, a CUP is required for an accessory structure that exceeds 200 SF. The project includes a detached 415 SF trellis at the bottom of the canyon. There are also two existing trails that lead down to the new trellis. The existing trails are currently overgrown and not accessible. The applicant is proposing to redesign and cut the overgrown vegetation on the pathways for the new trellis. There are no changes to the trellis.

Variances
The Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a Variance application and approvals for the following:

1. Stable, corral, swimming pool, and retaining walls to encroach into the front yard;

2. Corral to encroach into the required 50-foot front setback;

3. Retaining walls that exceed the maximum average height of two-and-one-half feet;

4. Basement with a portion extending beyond the building walls of the residence;

5. Decks/patios that exceed more than one foot above grade; and

6. Grading export.

Municipal Code Compliance
Lot and Building Pad Coverage
The net lot area is 262,368 SF. The structural coverage is as follows: the total proposed structural coverage is 18,970 SF or 7.23%, which is well below the 20% maximum (with deductions). The proposed flatwork coverage is 18,385 SF or 7.01%, which is below the 15% maximum. The total proposed structural and flatwork coverage for the entire lot with deductions is 37,355 SF or 14.24%, which is well below the 35% maximum. The project complies with all of the RHMC development standards.

The project exceeds the 30% maximum building pad coverage guidelines, the smaller building pads provides less disturbance to the lot and preserves the natural terrain.

Pad 1: Main Residence will be developed with a 32,610 SF building pad area for a total of 17,799 SF, or 54.58% building pad coverage. This exceeds the maximum 30% guideline by

24.58%.

Pad 2: ADU Pad will be developed with a 1,610 SF building pad area and a total of 700 SF, or

43.48% building pad coverage. This exceeds the maximum 30% guideline by 10.5%.

Pad 3: Stable Pad will be developed with a 2,900-square-foot building pad area and a total of 59 1,340 square feet, or 46.21% building pad coverage. This exceeds the maximum 30% guideline by 16.21%.

Disturbance
The total disturbed area for the lot will be 87,770 SF, or 33.45% of the lot (40% maximum permitted). The previous proposed disturbed area was 87,920 SF, or 33.51% of the lot (40% maximum permitted). This is a reduction of 150 SF or 0.06%.

Stable/Corral
The project includes a 1,225 SF one-story stable with 2 stalls, a tack room/office, 2 bathrooms, a tack workspace, feed/counter space, and a large agricultural space with a garage accessible from the circular driveway. The ridgeline of the new stable is 13.9 feet maximum height. The stable is accessible from a driveway that is connected off of the northwest portion of the oval-shaped driveway.

Site Access
The new driveway apron will be located at Crest Road East on the northeast side of the lot and will provide access to the oval driveway. The driveway will be 15 feet wide, leading to a stable storage garage, motor court, main entry to the house, and garage. The proposed continuous driveway allows for the simplest path between all structures, with a garage in the main residence accommodating four vehicles, suitable per RH guidelines for the main house, guest house, and ADU parking requirements. The center of the oval driveway will be landscaped with native trees, native plants, a native pollinator meadow, and a 115 SF water feature. An entry gate with pilasters will be located at the driveway entrance.

Walls
The RHMC Section 17.16.190(F), requires a Site Plan Review for any walls that exceed a height of 3 feet. Such walls require a variance if located in the front yard. The project includes 6 wall sections:

Wall A is located at the east wing of the main residence and connects to the guest house. It has a maximum height of 2.5 feet and an average height of 2.5 feet. Wall B is a 3-foot-high retaining wall located at the west wing of the main residence along the swimming pool. Wall C is located along the south portion of the mound and extends along the south portion of the driveway with a maximum height of 5 feet high with an average height of 4 feet high (Wall C requires a Variance). Wall D is located on the west portion of the mound and west portion of the driveway. The maximum height is 5 feet high, with an average height of 4.1 feet (Wall D requires a variance). Wall E located along the southern portion of the driveway, is a maximum of 2.5 feet high with an average height of 2.1 feet. Wall F is located just north of the stable walkway, and the maximum height is 3 feet high with an average of 2.4 feet high.

Landscaping
The project includes 58,050 SF of new native landscape area and 3,000 SF of a native 60 pollinator meadow area with a water feature, and 21 native tree species. The project proposes seven Lyonothamnus Floribundus known as the Catalina Ironwood trees that will grow up to a maximum height of 20 feet and maximum width of 12 feet, six Quercus Argrifolia known as the Coast Live Oak with a maximum height of 30 feet and 30 feet maximum width, and 8 Cercus Canadensis known as the Forest Pansy with a maximum height and width of 12 feet. The project will restore the majority of the new landscape areas to a state similar to the original pre-developed, pre-cleared condition of the site, with few visible changes to the existing topography and to the panoramic views from the street and neighboring houses. A review by the City's landscape consultant is required for compliance with landscape standards and the Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO). See Attachment 6 for the landscape review.

Building Height and Pad Elevations (Pads 1 - 3)
The new residence, basement, and attached garage will be developed on the lower southern portion of Pad 1 with a maximum ridge height of 12 feet 9 inches; the ridgeline of these structures will be about 31 feet below Crest Road East. The maximum height of the chimneys is 19 feet 2 inches. The main residence includes eaves that will extend a maximum of 8 feet.

The basement and atrium are located at the V section of the main residence under the proposed deck. The elevations on Page A201 of the plans show that there is a 5-foot maximum retaining wall just above the finished grade. The guest house will be 13 feet and 2 inches in height; the ridgeline of the structure will be about 31 feet below Crest Road East.

The accessory dwelling unit (ADU) (Pad 2) will be 11 feet and 9 inches in height, with a ridgeline about 5 feet below Crest Road East.

The front upper east portion of the lot (Pad 3) will consist of a corral and stable. The stable will be 13 feet and 9 inches in height, and the ridgeline of the structures will be about 5 feet below Crest Road East.

Drainage
A natural drainage course is located along the western portion of the lot, and a blue line stream, which is part of the Klondike Canyon System, is located approximately 200 feet south of the southern property line of the lot. The lot is also located in proximity to the Geotechnical Hazardous area of the City known as the Flying Triangle; however, no part of the lot is within the Flying Triangle.

This project is subject to the Low Impact Development (LID) requirements pertaining to stormwater management, including provisions for retention of run-off on the property. LID is plan checked by Building Services after the City grants entitlements. The proposed storage system is designed to store the difference in stormwater runoff volume between the pre-and post-development conditions. The design proposes two separate drainage systems, splitting runoff between the two adjacent watercourses, to mimic the existing flow patterns.

Included in each system is a Contech Urbangreen SRPE cistern system, at the main residence pad, to intercept and store runoff as follows:

1. The eastern system will collect runoff from the ADU, easterly driveway, easterly half of the residence and residential pad, and guest house.

2. The western system will collect runoff from the stable/corral, westerly driveway, westerly half of the residence and residential pad, and pool area.

3. Each system:
61 a. Will first pass runoff through a Contech inline CDS pre-treatment system to remove trash, debris, and suspended solids. Runoff will then enter the storage barrels. b. Downstream of the storage barrel will be a second manhole with a pump, supplying the irrigation system. Runoff impounded in the storage tanks will be used to irrigate the site after the storm has passed.
c. Above the soffit of the storage barrel, an overflow pipe will direct runoff exceeding the storage capacity and discharge to the watercourse below through an erosioncontrol outlet structure.

Utility Lines / Septic Tank
All utility lines for the development will be required to be placed underground. The Los Angeles County Public Health department will review the septic system (location to be determined).

Rolling Hills Community Association Review
Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date.

Public Participation
On January 16, 2024, Yuan Chang, 17 Crest Road East, attended the morning field trip and expressed concerns with privacy and the proximity of the proposed stable. Youkun Nie, representing the owner, submitted an email dated January 17, 2024, regarding the concern (Attachment 5A). The applicant has since moved the stable away from the property and reduced the size to address the concern.

At the January 16, 2024 evening meeting, John Mackenbach, 56 Portuguese Bend Road, commended the project but suggested putting the cisterns closer to vegetation. He asked about drainage and the applicant's team explained the drainage system.

On May 6, 2024, Paul Huh and Jane Huh, the residents of 20 Crest Road East, came into the City to review the project and express their concerns regarding any view obstructions at 23 Crest Road East. Mr. Huh sent an email to staff on May 21, 2024, opposing any obstructions above the Crest Road East ocean view (Attachment 5B).

On June 10, 2024, Charlie Raine, the resident at 4 Pinto Road, came into the City to review the drainage plans for 23 Crest Road East. He expressed his concerns regarding the capacity of cisterns, impermeable and permeable surfaces, excess water flowing into the canyon, future storm drainpipe that the applicant can tie into, and storm drain plans.

At the June 18, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Raine discussed issues with drainage in his neighborhood. Leah Mirsch, 4 Cinchring Road, suggested a larger design for the cisterns.

At the July 22, 2024 City Council meeting, Mr. Raine expressed similar concerns he discussed with the Planning Commission. Mr. Mike Nash discussed the location and commented about stormwater. Mr. Alfred Visco suggested that City Council take the item under its jurisdiction and consider large projects south of Crest Road.

Environmental Review
The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 3, Section 15303. New construction of a single-family residence and accessory structures.
62 SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
RHMC Section 17.46.010 Purpose.

The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills.

RHMC Section 17.46.50 Required findings.

The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal unless the following findings can be made:

1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; the project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot;

2. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences;

3. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and landforms (such as hillsides and knolls);

4. Grading has been designed to follow the natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area;

5. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;

6. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought-tolerant landscaping, which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas;

7. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and

8. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA
RHMC Section 17.42.50 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:
63 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, buildings or structures;

3. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed;

4. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district;

5. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities;

6. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title.

CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE
RHMC Section 17.38.050 Required 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:

Open the public hearing, take public testimony, and provide direction to staff and the applicant.

A resolution is provided in case the City Council wishes to approve the project with conditions (Attachment 11).

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1A: PL_ADR_240711_23CRE_RadiusMap_VicinityMap_Google.pdf Attachment 1B: PL_ADR_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_ProximityMap.pdf Attachment 2: PL_ADR_240607_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_DevelopmentTable.pdf Attachment 3: 2024-06_PC_Resolution_23CrestRoadE_ZC23-070_F_E.pdf Attachment 4: 240613_23 Crest Road East_ZC23-070_PhotosForCCAgenda.pdf Attachment 5A: PL_ADR_240118_23CrestRdE_ZC23-
070_CopyofEmailfromResidents17CRE_01.17.24.pdf
64 Attachment 5B: PL_ADR_240521_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_EmailfromPaulHuh.pdf Attachment 6: Attachment06_LandscapeReviewComments_23CrestRoadEast (ZC23-070) Attachment7: 240605_Comparison_Table_23_Crest_Road_East_CCMeeting_8.12.pdf Attachment 8: PL_ADR_23CrestRdE_ZC23-
070_StaffReports_CC240812_GradingBreakdown.pdf
Attachment 9: 240605_ChangeLog_23 Crest Road East_CCMeeting_8.12.pdf Attachment 10: CL_PBN_240812_PH_CC_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_Affidavit.pdf Attachment 11: ResolutionNo1376_23CrestRoadE_ZC23-070_F.pdf Attachment 12: PL_ADR_23CrestRdE_ZC23-
070_240715_Plans_9thSubmittal_CCMeeting7.22.24.pdf
65 1,000’
City of Rolling Hills ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
TITLE VICINITY MAP CASE NO. Zoning Case No. 23-070
Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits, Variances

OWNER OGASAWARA
ADDRESS 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills 90274 SITE
66 Vicinity Map: 23 Crest Road East
67 PROXIMITY MAP
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ZC NO. 23‐070
68 Development Table for 23 Crest Road East Zoning Case No. 23-070_Planning Commission Meeting June 18, 2024 Site Plan Review, Conditional
Use Permit
Variance
New 14,680 SF single family
residence with 7,849 SF basement,
atrium, 1,000 SF garage, 600 SF
guest house, 1,225 SF stable, 280
SF pool, new driveway apron,
circular driveway, decks, motor
court, retaining walls, concrete
stairs, and landscape

EXISTING
Vacant Lot

PROPOSED
PAD NO. 1
Main Residence,
Garage, Guest
House, Swimming
Pool, Decks,
Retaining Walls,
Entryways, Atrium,
Water feature

PROPOSED
PAD NO. 2
Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU)

PROPOSED
PAD NO. 3
Structure Stable with
Agricultural Storage and
Corral
TOTAL
RA-S- 2 Zone Setbacks
Front: 50 ft. from front
easement line
Side: 35 ft. from side property
line Rear: 50 ft.
from rear easement line
Net Lot Area 262,368 SF — — — 262,368 SF
Residence 0 SF 14,680 SF — — 14,680 SF
Garage 0 SF 1,000 SF — — 1,000 SF
Swimming Pool/Spa 0 SF 280 SF — — 280 SF
Pool Equipment 0 SF 155 SF — — 155 SF
Guest House 0 SF 600 SF — — 600 SF
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) 0 SF — 700 SF — 700 SF
Stable 0 SF — — 1,225 SF 1,225 SF
Basement
Depth of Basement
0 SF
0 SF
7,849 SF
10 FT
— — 7,849 SF
10 FT
Entryway, Breezeway 0 SF 0 SF — — 0 SF
Attached Covered Porches 0 SF 480 SF — — 480 SF
Detached Structures:

Guest House
Water Feature
Trellis
0 SF
0 SF
0 SF
600 SF
115 SF
415 SF
— — 600 SF
115 SF
415 SF
Raised Deck 0 SF 0 SF — — 0 SF
69 Development Table for 23 Crest Road East Zoning Case No. 23-070_Planning Commission Meeting June 18, 2024 Service Yard 0 SF 95 SF — — 95 SF

EXISTING PROPOSED
PAD NO. 1

PROPOSED
PAD NO. 2

PROPOSED
PAD NO. 3 TOTAL
Grading 0 CY 19,052 CY Cut
9,337 CY Fill
— — 28,389 CY
Structural Coverage (20 %
maximum)
0 SF 18,970 SF (7.23%) — — 18,970 SF (7.23%)
Flatwork Coverage (15%
maximum)
0 SF 18,385 SF (7.01%) — — 18,385 SF (7.01%)
Total Structural &
Flatwork Coverage
(35% maximum)
0 SF 37,355 SF (14.24%) — — 37,355 SF (14.24%)
Disturbance (40% maximum) 0 SF 87,770 SF (33.45%) — — 87,770 SF (33.45%) Building Pad 1 Area
Building Pad Coverage
0 SF
0 SF
32,610 SF
17,799 SF (54.58%)
— — 32,610 SF
17,799 SF (54.58%)
Building Pad 2 Area
Building Pad Coverage
0 SF
0 SF
— 1,610 SF
700 SF (43.48%)
— 1,610 SF
700 SF (43.48%)
Building Pad 3 Area
Building Pad Coverage
0 SF
0 SF
— — 2,900 SF
1,340 SF (46.21%)
2,900 SF
1,340 SF (46.21%)
70 Comparison Table
6/5/2024 1
Comparison Table: 2017 Hynes, 2022 Dark Moon Ranch, and 2023 Ogasawara Orig. and Rev-1 Proposals Hynes 2017 Dark Moon Ranch 2022 Ogasawara 1/16/24 Ogasawara 4/16/24 Ogasawara 6/18/24 Architecture
Main Residence and Garage 11,520 sf 9,970 sf 13,000 sf 14,680 sf 14,680 sf Basement 10,400 sf 8,460 sf 7,610 sf 8,240 sf 7,849 sf
Covered Porches 2,500 sf 2,165 sf 480 sf 480 sf 480 sf
Guest House 800 sf 800 sf 540 sf 600 sf 600 sf
Guest House Porches 369 sf 570 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf
Stable 2,092 sf 2,456 sf 1,940 sf 1,225 sf 1,225 sf
Stable Porches 350 sf 1,225 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf
Misc Accessory Structures 956 sf 882 sf 300 sf 1,070 sf 1,070 sf Raised Deck 0 sf 520 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf
Pool 864 sf 1,230 sf 270 sf 315 sf 280 sf
Hardscape 8,100 sf 6,390 sf 6,430 sf 5,595 sf 5,595 sf
Primary Driveway 8,860 sf 8,050 sf 16,100 sf 13,480 sf 13,480 sf Secondary Driveway 600 sf 1.850 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf
Disturbance 95,850 sf 104,850 sf 92,460 sf 87,920 sf 87,770 sf Mound Height n/a n/a 1335' 1335' 1330'
Structure
Total Structures 29,851 sf 28,178 sf 17,184 sf 18,872 sf 18,970 sf Total Structures (excluding Basment) 19,451 sf 19,718 sf 9,574 sf 10,632 sf 11,121 sf Total Flatwork 17,560 sf 16,290 sf 20,520 sf 18,714 sf 18,385 sf Total Structures and Flatwork 47,411 sf 44,468 sf 37,704 sf 37,587 sf 37,770 sf Total Structures (excluding Basment) and Flatwork 37,011 sf 36,008 sf 30,094 sf 29,347 sf 29,921 sf Grading
Cut 15,185 cy 14,600 cy 16,980 cy 17,320 cy 19,052 cy
Fill 7,300 cy 9,310 cy 11,950 cy 11,405 cy 9,337 cy
Over-excavation 11,750 cy 17.510 cy 3,760 cy 3,760 cy 3,760 cy Recompaction 13,885 cy 22,800 cy 5,400 cy 5,400 cy 5,400 cy Total Cut and Fill 22,485 cy 23,910 cy 28,930 cy 28,725 cy 28,389 cy Total Overall 48,120 cy 64,220 cy 38,090 cy 37,885 cy 37,549 cy

6.5.24 71
DATE: 5/30/2024 ZONING CASE NO.: 23 Crest Road East
Grading Quantities: Cubic Yds. Max Depth
5363 13.6
For other structures (i.e. walls)
List Stable 63 3.3
ADU 61 3.8
Sunset Terrace 8 3.0
For driveway(s) 2,848 15.0
For yard areas 3,818 15.1
For basement excavation 3,026 10.0
For pool/spa excavation 105 4.5
Overexcavation 3,760 3.0
TOTAL CUT 19,052 16.4
TOTAL EXPORT Export:

FILL
12 3.2
For other structures (i.e. walls)
List Stable 202 6.8
ADU 10 1.8
Sunset Terrace 8 3.0
For driveway(s) 457 6.9
For yard areas 3,247 11.9
For basement excavation 0 0
For pool/spa excavation 0 0
Recompaction 5,400 3
TOTAL FILL 9,336 11.9
28,388
Existing pad elevations House ADU Stable Cabana
Finished Floor - - -
Finished Grade - - -
Proposed pad elevations
Finished floor 1293.00 1319.00 1316.00 1293.00
Finished grade 1292.50 1318.50 1315.50 1292.50
Basement 1283.50

PAD/FLOOR ELEVATIONS
at structure
TOTAL GRADING (Sum
of total cut and total fill):
at top of slope
9,716
For house/addition
0 ADDRESS:
at structure
Max Depth Location
6,585

GRADING AND EXCAVATION INFORMATION
Export (less exempt):

CUT/EXCAVATION
For house/addition
at toe of slope
72 Site Planning Change Log (From 12/1/23 to 4/16/24)
Main House
-Finish floor at 1293’ (Previous 1291’)
-Apex at 1288’ (Previous 1286’)
-Building footprint moved 12’-5” North and 4’-6” East
-Pool footprint angled perpendicular to west property line (previously parallel with main house west wing) -Building GSF incl. Basement 21,920 sf (Previous 20,940 sf) Guest House
-Finish floor at 1293’ (Previous 1291’)
-Building footprint moved 16’ North and 4’ West
-Southeast building corner from property line 51’-3” (Previous 39’-9”) -Southeast building corner does not require fill grading (Previously required fill grading) ADU
-Finish floor at 1319’ (Previous 1320’)
-Building footprint moved 2’-6” North and 0’-8”’ West
-Northeast building corner from property line 38’-8” (Previous 37’-5”) -Building footprint 38’-4” x 18’-4” (Previous 36’-0” x 16’-0”) -Building GSF 700 sf (Previous 576 sf)
Stable
-Finish floor at 1316’ (Previous 1314’)
-Building southwest corner 62'4" from the western property line and 207'11" from the north east corner of 17 Crest Road East's nearest building.
(Previous southwest building corner 39'8" from the western property line and 185'7" from the north east corner of 17 Crest Road East's nearest building)
-Building footprint 58’-10” x 20’-10” (Previous 70’’-0” x 27’-6”) -Building GSF 1,225 sf (Previous 1,295 sf)
-Office space, closet space, and full bath are omitted (Previously included) Civil
-Total grading 28,725 cy (Previous 28,930 cy)
-Total Structure 18,457 sf (Previous 17,184 sf)
-Total disturbed area 87,920 sf (Previous 92,460 sf)
-Total flatwork 18,715 sf (Previous 20,520 sf)
-Primary driveway 13,480 sf (Previous 16,100 sf)
-Paved walks, patio areas 2,675 sf (Previous 4,010 sf)
-Pool decking 1,120 sf (Previous 410 sf)
Site Planning Change Log (From 4/16/24 to 6/18/24)
Main House
-Building footprint moved 9’-5” North and 3’-5” West.
-Southwest building corner from property line 57-9” (Previous 65’-9”) -Southeast building corner from property line 100'-11" (Previous 100'-1") -Building east wing rotated clockwise 5 deg.
-Pool deck area 1,100 sf (Previous 1,500 sf)
-All basement area under covered porch has been removed. -Basement area 7,428 sf (Previous 7,610 sf)
Guest House
-Building footprint rotated counterclockwise 12 deg.
-Southeast building corner from property line 55’-1” (Previous 51’-3”) Civil
-Total grading 28,725 cy (Previous 28,930 cy)
-Total Structure 18,457 sf (Previous 17,184 sf)
-Total disturbed area 87,920 sf (Previous 92,460 sf)
-Total flatwork 18,715 sf (Previous 20,520 sf)
-Primary driveway 13,480 sf (Previous 16,100 sf)
-Paved walks, patio areas 2,675 sf (Previous 4,010 sf)
-Pool decking 1,120 sf (Previous 410 sf)
Site
-Mound height 1330’ (Previous 1335’)
73 RESOLUTION NO. 1376

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 23-070 FOR A SITE PLAN

REVIEW TO DEVELOP A VACANT LOT INCLUDING NON-EXEMPT GRADING

AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 CREST

ROAD EAST, AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (LOT 132A-MS) (OGASAWARA).

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

I. Recitals
Section 1. On June 2, 2023, an application was filed by the applicant, Frank Escher of Escher, Gune, Wardena Architecture on behalf of the property owner Yuki Ogasawara, to request approval to construct on the vacant lot at 23 Crest Road East. The proposed Project under Zoning Case (ZC) No. 23-070 includes a new 14,270-square-foot (SF) single-family residence with a 7,428 SF basement, 1,000 SF attached garage, 1,225 SF stable, 5,190 SF corral, 700 SF accessory dwelling unit (ADU), 650 SF guest house, 280 SF swimming pool, 155 pool equipment, 480 square feet of attached covered porches, service yard, lightwells, maximum five-foot-high retaining walls, walkways, native landscaping, and other improvements (the “Project”). There is a proposed 13,480-square-foot oval driveway with access to the residence, ADU, and stable.

Section 2. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 7.05 acres or 307,098 SF. The net lot area for development purposes is 6.02 acres or 262,368 SF. The lot is currently undeveloped and vacant. The lot is irregularly shaped and has a depth of approximately 820 feet and a width of approximately 480 feet. The property slopes downward from Crest Road East to the rear of the property. The grade elevation between the proposed main building pad and the street is approximately 42 feet. The lot is located in the southern portion of the City, and has views of the Pacific Ocean. A natural drainage course is located along the western portion of the lot and a blue line stream, which is a part of the Klondike Canyon System, is located approximately 200 feet south of the southern property line of the lot. The lot is also located in proximity to the Geotechnical Hazardous area of the City, known as the Flying Triangle.

Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at its morning field trip meeting and regular meeting for the first time on January 16, 2024. Neighbors within a 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in the Daily Breeze on January 5, 2024. The applicant and owner were notified of the public hearings and were in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal. The Planning Commission opened the meeting, took public testimony, and continued the public hearing to a later date. The 74 2
Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant on revising the plans to address the issues.

The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at its morning field trip meeting and regular meeting for a second time on April 16, 2024. Neighbors within a 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in the Daily Breeze on April 5, 2024. The applicant and owner were notified of the public hearings and were in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal. The Planning Commission opened the meeting, took public testimony, and continued the public hearing to a later date. The Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant on revising the plans to address the issues.

Subsequently, the applicant revised the Project, and it was brought back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at its field trip meeting and regular meeting for a third time on June 18, 2024.

Neighbors within a 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in the Daily Breeze on June 8, 2024. The applicant was notified of the public hearings and was in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard and presented at the public hearings from all persons interested in affecting said proposal. On June 18, 2024 the Project was approved by the Planning Commission by 3-0 Vote (2 Commissioner were absent) to adopt Resolution No. 2024-06 approving Zoning Case No. 23-070. The action included amending the conditions of approval to address future area drainage, the height of the mound and what can be planted atop, and the orientation of a passageway to the basement.

On July 22, 2024, the City Council considered the Planning Commission's action to approve the proposed Project and the Traffic Commission's action to approve the driveway apron. The City Council voted 5-0 to take the matter under its own jurisdiction.

The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at a morning field trip on August 12, 2024, and regularly scheduled evening meetings on August 12, 2024. The City Council then continued the item and heard it again on October 14, 2024.

Neighbors within a 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in the Daily Breeze on August 1, 2024, and October 4, 2024. The applicants and owner were notified of the public hearings and were in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal. The City Council opened the public hearing, took public testimony, and discussed the Project.

Section 4. On February 13, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1202 approving Zoning Case (ZC) No. 902 for construction of an 11,500 SF new single-family residence with an 11,500 SF basement and appurtenances. On December 12, 2018, the Planning Commission granted a two-year time extension for ZC No. 902 to January 23, 2021.

Due to COVID-19 entitlements were placed on hold and Assembly Bill 1561 created an automatic time extension. As such, the expiration date for ZC No. 902 was extended to July 22, 2022, but the permit was not used and expired.

On November 9, 2021, an application was received for development of a new 8,460- square-foot residence, basement, accessory dwelling unit (ADU), guest house, stable, 75 3
Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
swimming pool, spa, and other improvements (ZC No. 21-11). On March 15, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a field trip and evening meeting and continued the item to April 19, 2022. However, before the April 19, 2022 meeting could take place, the applicant requested the item be pulled because the property had been sold and there was no interest in moving forward with the Project as proposed. As such, the item did not return to the Planning Commission and ZC No. 21-11 was closed. Thus, the Project was never approved.

Section 5. On December 11, 2023, the Traffic Commission reviewed the proposed driveway and apron located on Crest Road East under the current application (ZC No. 23-070).

The Traffic Commission recommended approval of the new driveway and apron to City Council.

II. Findings
Section 6. CEQA Findings. The City Council finds that the Project is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15303 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (“State CEQA Guidelines”), Class 3 "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures." Class 3 exempts the construction and location of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including single family residence and accessory structures, including but not limited to garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. Here, the Project involves the construction of a new single-family residence on a vacant lot within a residential zone, along with attached garage, driveway, stable, swimming pool, ADU, guesthouse and other residential improvements. Accordingly, the Project qualifies for the exemption pursuant to Section 15303.

Further, no exceptions to the exemptions in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

Specifically, the Project:
a. Is not located in a particularly sensitive environment. The Project is located in an urbanized area and is not environmentally sensitive.
b. There is no possibility of a cumulative impact of the same type of project in the same place over time. The Project entails the construction of a 14,270-square-foot single-family residence with accessory structures and landscaping/hardscaping improvements. Once the residence is built, the likelihood of a successive project on this site is low and probability of a cumulative impact is low.
c. Is not marked by unusual circumstances. There is nothing unusual about the construction of a new single-family residence and accessory structures in a residential area. In addition, the Project will implement best management practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and construction pollutants from contacting stormwater.
d. Would not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway.
e. Is not located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
f. Would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
76 4
Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
The City Council directs staff to prepare, execute, and file a Notice of Exemption with the Los Angeles County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of the Project’s approval and the adoption of this Resolution.

Section 7. Site Plan Review Findings. Site Plan Review is required for construction of any new building or structure pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) Section

17.46.020(A). The Project requires a Site Plan Review (SPR) in order to develop a vacant lot including non-exempt grading, for the construction of a new single-family residence, basement, attached garage, retaining walls that exceed a height of 3 feet (up to a maximum of 5 feet), oval driveway with portions that exceed a width of 20 feet, and other improvements. With respect to the Site Plan Review for the development, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:

A. The Project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance.

The Project complies with all of the City of Rolling Hills Development standards with the exception of requiring Variances for the structures to encroach into the front yard as discussed below in this Resolution.

The Project conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements. The net lot area of the lot is 262,368 square feet (6.02 acres) per RHMC Section 17.16.060(A). The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 18,205 square feet or 6.94% (20% max. permitted) excluding exempt structures; and the total lot coverage proposed, including flatwork, would be 36,590 square feet or 13.95% (35% max. permitted). The disturbed area is 87,770 square feet or 33.45% (40% max permitted).

The landscape below this line will not experience any site disturbance and will be utilized to seed and reestablish a pallet of native species back into the landscape above the house. The Project 77 5
Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
includes three new building pads: Pad #1 is for the main residence for a total of 32,610 SF; Pad #2 is for the ADU for a total of 1,610 SF; and Pad #3 is for the stable for a total of 2,900 SF.

C. The Project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences.

E. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area.

Rather than retaining the dirt on the property, export is needed to maintain the existing topography as much as possible. The Project has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and minimize grading to the extent feasible.

F. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course.

Grading will be balanced on site with exception to 9,715 CY of export (3,131 CY exempt and 6,584 CY non-exempt). Grading has been minimized by integrating the main residence into the natural slope. The width of the main residence is limited to 25 feet, and the result is a long and narrow ranch house rambling along the 1293-foot contour line. The main residence is centered on its site so that runoff is not increased within existing drainage courses on either side of the lot. Control of water collected by impervious surfaces will utilize large cisterns to collect and redistribute storm-water in a controlled manner that does not alter drainage courses or runoff loads from the undeveloped state of the lot. These cisterns are designed to retain runoff in the event of a 100-year storm event.
78 6
Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
G. The Project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought-tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas.

Surrounding native vegetation and mature trees will not be affected or will be replaced.

New vegetation will be installed in accordance with the approved landscape plan. The development will be considerate of the environment and will enhance the rural character of the community. As such, the rural character of the community is maintained and privacy is maintained with neighbors. The new landscape will utilize this plant community as the framework for all new plantings in the landscape that will enhance the existing habitat and ecological community already present on site. These native plants are well suited to the existing site without the need for irrigation beyond their establishment period of 1 to 2 years. The trees will provide visual buffers and habitat creation between neighboring properties while preserving and protecting natural drainage patterns on the site. The new landscape adjacent to Crest Road focuses largely on the reestablishment of the coastal sage scrub planting community and providing habit for the local fauna while seamlessly blending the house into the surrounding native hillside without obstructing views
H. The Project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles.

I. The Project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Project is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Class 3 exempts the construction and location of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including single family residence and accessory structures, including but not limited to garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. Here, the Project includes development on a vacant lot of a new single-family residence in a residential zone, with attached garage, driveway, stable, swimming pool, ADU, guesthouse and other residential improvements.

Accordingly, the Project qualifies for the exemption pursuant to Section 15303. Further, no exceptions to the exemptions in State CEQA Guidelines, section 15300.2, apply.

Section 8. Conditional Use Permit Findings. RHMC Section 17.16.040 and 17.16.200 require a Conditional Use Permit per RHMC Section 17.16.040(A)(3) for a guest house, per RHMC Section 17.16.040(A)(6) for a stable over 200 square feet, per RHMC Section

17.16.040(A)(7) for corral over 550 square feet, and per 17.16.200(H) for a 400 SF detached trellis, respectively. The Applicant is proposing a 650 SF guesthouse located at the eastern 79 7
Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
portion of the main building pad. The Applicant is also proposing a 1,225 SF stable with two stalls and a tack room, and a 5,190 SF corral. Given the foregoing, in accordance with RHMC Section 17.42.050, the City Council makes the following findings:

A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan.

C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the uses and buildings proposed.

The proposed conditional uses comply with all applicable development standards in the RAS-2 Zone. The net lot area is 262,368 SF (6.02 acres) and is adequate to support the proposed uses. The area of the site considered the "front yard", between the proposed main residence and the street, is the widest and most level part of the site. The exception to this is the location of the stable in the front yard, and the corral in the front yard setback, both are subject to variances. The property will be developed and adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed uses and buildings.

D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district.

The proposed conditional uses comply with all applicable development standards of the RAS-2 Zone, with exception to the variances requested herein.

E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities.

Section 9. Variance Findings. Section 17.38.050 sets forth the required findings for granting Variances to allow the stable, corral, swimming pool, and retaining walls to encroach into the front yard, allow a portion of the corral to encroach into the front yard setback, construct retaining walls exceeding the maximum average height of two-and one-half-feet, construct a basement with a portion extending beyond the building walls of the residence, construct decks/patios more than one foot above grade, and allow grading export. With respect to this request for Variances, the City Council finds as follows:

A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone.

There are extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property. The location of stable and corral between the main house and the street is a design adopted by many neighbors on Crest Road East, requiring a variance to allow stables and corrals in the front yard and front yard setback. The area of the site considered the "front yard", between the proposed main residence and the street, is the widest and most level part of the site. Allowing the proposed pool and retaining walls to encroach into the front yard will be consistent with the natural slope of the existing property. The construction of retaining walls to exceed the maximum average height of two-and one-half-feet, a basement with a portion extending beyond the building walls of the residence, and construction decks/patios more than one foot above grade will minimize grading and support the development. As a result of the shape of the lot, the grading of the Project requires a variance to export non-exempt grading of 3,131 CY of soil to keep the peak of the knoll below the height of the street and out of the view of neighbors.

C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 81 9
Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
Granting a variance for the Project will not be detrimental to the public welfare and will not be injurious to properties in the vicinity because it is consistent with the encroachments by the existing residences and structures and contributes to a consistent and equitable treatment of development in the surrounding area.

D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed.

E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant.

The variance does not grant special privileges for the Applicant; the proposed Project is similar to other properties on Crest Road East that have stables and corrals in the front yard and setbacks. The Project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, and general land uses specified in the General Plan.

F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities.

G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.

Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, and the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby approves Zoning Case No. 23-070 subject to the following conditions:

A. Approval for the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits, and Variances shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in RHMC Section

17.38.070 of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section.

B. If any condition of this resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by this resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject property 82 10
Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the violation. The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee’s determination that a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for which the agenda has not yet been posted; the Applicant shall be provided written notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, the Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on the property until and unless the violation is cured by the deadline, other than work designated by the Council to accomplish the cure. If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at the Applicant’s request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by this Resolution pursuant to Chapter

17.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC).

C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise a variance to such requirement has been approved.

D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file at City Hall and approved by the City Council on August 12, 2024, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the approved development plan. All conditions of the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits, and Variance approvals shall be incorporated into the building permit working drawings, and where applicable complied with prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the building department.

The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto a separate sheet and included in the building plans submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times.

Any proposed modifications and/or changes to the approved Project, including resulting from field conditions, shall be discussed with staff so that staff can determine whether the modification is minor or major in nature. Minor modifications are subject to approval by the City Manager or his or her designee. Major modifications are subject to approval by the City Council after a public hearing. Applicant shall not implement modifications or changes to the approved Project without the appropriate approval from the City Manager or designee or the City Council, as required.

E. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to Building and Safety Department for issuance of building and grading permits, the plans for the Project shall be submitted to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the City Council.

83 11
Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
F. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this Project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this Project and all of the conditions set forth herein and the City’s Building Code and Zoning Ordinance.

Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the Project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith.

G. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 18,205 square feet or 6.94% of the net lot area (20% maximum). The flatwork coverage is 18,385 square feet or 7.01%. The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork, shall not exceed 36,590 square feet or 13.95% (35% maximum).

H. The total disturbed area will be 87,770 square feet or 33.45% (maximum 40%).

Grading for this Project shall not exceed 19,052 cubic yards of cut and 9,337 cubic yards of fill for a total of 28,389 cubic yards. Total export of 9,715 cubic yards, Variance granted for nonexempt 6,584 cubic yards, and export of exempt 3,131 cubic yards for the basement and swimming pool.

I. The total proposed building pad coverage for the residential main pad 1 (32,610 square foot area) is 17,799 square feet or 54.58% which is above the 30% maximum guideline.

The total proposed building pad coverage for the ADU pad 2 (1,610 square foot area) will be 700 square feet or 43.48%, which exceeds the maximum 30% guideline. The total proposed for stable pad 3 (2,900 square foot area) is 1,340 square feet or 46.21% which exceeds the maximum 30% guideline.

J. A driveway access shall be provided per the Fire Department requirements and the driveway shall be roughened and the first 20 feet of the driveway shall not exceed 7% in slope.

K. Access to the stable and to the corral shall be decomposed granite or 100% pervious roughened material; it shall not be wider than 12 feet.

L. A minimum of five-foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of all of the proposed structures, including the detached garage and stable, or as otherwise required by the Fire Department.

M. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Low Impact Development requirements for storm water management on site (RHMC Chapter 8.32).

N. Hydrology, soils, geology and other reports, as required by the Building and Public Works Departments, and as may be required by the Building Official, shall be prepared.

O. Prior to issuance of a final construction approval of the Project, all graded slopes shall be landscaped. Prior to issuance of building permit, the landscaping plan shall meet the 84 12
Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
requirements of the City, shall be submitted to the City in conformance with Fire Department Fuel Modification requirements, and shall be approved by the City’s landscape consultant.

P. The Project shall be landscaped, and continually maintained in substantial conformance with the landscaping plan on file approved by the City’s landscape consultant. A detailed landscaping plan shall provide that any trees and shrubs used in the landscaping scheme for this Project shall be planted in a way that screens the Project development from adjacent streets and neighbors, such that shrubs and trees as they mature do not grow into a hedge or impede any neighbors’ views and the plan shall provide that all landscaping be maintained at a height no higher than the roof line of the nearest Project structure. In addition, the landscaping plan shall provide for screening of development with vegetation not to exceed 10 feet in height, and that the vegetation used for screening shall be planted in an off-set manner, so as to prevent it, as it grows from forming a solid hedge. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area, are water-wise and are consistent with the rural character of the community. Plants listed as high hazardous plants under RHMC Section 8.30.015 are prohibited.

Q. The applicant shall submit a landscaping performance bond or other financial obligation, to be kept on deposit by the City, in the amount of the planting plus irrigation plus 15%. The bond shall be released no sooner than two years after completion of all plantings, subject to a City staff determination that the plantings required for the Project are in substantial conformance with approved plans and are in good condition.

A Certificate of Completion shall be submitted by the Project designer or contractor prior to final landscape installation inspection.

R. The landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, (Chapter 13.18 of the RHMC).

S. Pursuant to Chapter 8.30 of the RHMC, the property shall at all times be maintained free of dead trees and vegetation.

T. The setback lines and roadway easement lines in the vicinity of the construction for this Project shall remain staked throughout the construction. A construction fence may be required.

U. Perimeter easements, including roadway easements and trails, if any, shall remain free and clear of any improvements to advance equestrian use and emergency preparedness for evacuation within the City. Where RHCA has demonstrated authority over the easement, the City’s Planning Director may grant relief from this condition upon satisfactory proof of permission from RHCA and a legitimate showing that there is no need for the condition to advance equestrian uses and emergency preparedness.

V. Minimum of 65% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City’s Construction and Demolition permits for waste hauling prior to start of work and provide proper documentation to the City. 85 13
Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
W. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required.

X. During construction, to the extent feasible, all parking shall take place on the Project site, on the new driveway and, if necessary, any overflow parking may take place within the unimproved roadway easements along adjacent streets, and shall not obstruct neighboring driveways, visibility at intersections or pedestrian and equestrian passage. During construction, to the maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City. To the extent feasible, a minimum of 4’ wide path, from the edge of the roadway pavement, for pedestrian and equestrian passage shall be available and be clear of vehicles, construction materials and equipment at all times.

Y. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and relate traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills.

Z. Prior to demolition of the existing structures, an investigation shall be conducted for the presence of hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or products, mercury and asbestoscontaining materials (ACMs). If hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, remediation shall be undertaken in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies.

AA. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the no-smoking provisions in the Municipal Code. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at:
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard_definitions#FIRE. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions.

AB. Development shall drain in accordance with the approved grading and drainage plan. Drainage dissipaters shall be constructed outside of any easements. The drainage system shall be approved by the Department of Building and Safety. If an above ground swale and/or dissipater is required, it shall be designed in such a manner as not to cross over any equestrian trails or discharge water onto a trail, shall be stained in an earth tone color, and shall be screened from any trail, road and neighbors’ view to the maximum extent practicable, without impairing the function of the drainage system. In the event a storm drain pipe is installed to divert water flows through Klondike Canyon, the property owner shall use reasonable efforts to investigate the viability of creating a connection between the water overflow from the two cisterns on the property and the installed storm drain pipe.

AC. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in 86 14
Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices.

AD. During construction, an Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2022 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution.

AE. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities and septic tank.

AF. The applicant shall pay all of the applicable Building and Safety and Public Works Department fees and Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District fees, if any.

AG. Prior to final inspection of the Project, “as graded” and “as constructed” plans and certifications shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed Project is in compliance with the City Council approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the Project during construction, shall be depicted on the “as built/as graded” plan.

AH. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Variance approval, or the approval shall not be effective.

AI. All conditions of this Resolution, when applicable, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the Building and Safety Department.

AJ. Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.

AK. To the extent permitted by law, applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Rolling Hills, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void any permit or approval for this Project authorized by the City, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. The applicant shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this permit. Although the applicant is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition.

AL. The stable and corral shall comply with all requirements in Sections 17.18.060 and

17.18.090, unless otherwise approved herein.
87 15
Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
AM. Future expansion of the driveway or motor court is prohibited unless previously approved by the City. Connection to the stable and corral shall be decomposed granite or 100% pervious roughened material; it shall not be less than 6 feet wide and no wider than 12 feet.

AN. New landscaping in the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) easement is prohibited unless previously approved by RHCA. Landscaping not approved by RHCA in the easement shall be removed from the final landscape plan.

AO. The ADU will require Evergreen landscape screening that must be planted and maintained between the ADU and adjacent parcels. The plant specimens for screening must not exceed the maximum roofline height of the ADU. All landscaping must be drought-tolerant. All landscaping must be from the City's approved plant list.

AP. The mound shall have a maximum elevation of 1330 feet. Landscaping on the mound shall be planted in accordance with the approved landscape plan on file at City Hall.

Three-foot-high shrubs shall be allowed atop the mound. Landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s landscape consultant prior to issuance of a grading permit.

AQ. The passageway on the western side of the basement shall be angled or zigzagged. The passageway shall be redesigned on the plans and reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to submittal to building plan check.

AR. The applicant, irrespective of any approval, direction or other information from the County of Los Angeles or other relevant permitting agency, shall not modify any part or portion of the Project that impacts, deals with or is related to the drainage on the Property, including the size and scope of the proposed cisterns on the Property, without prior City approval.

Section 11. Custodian of Records: The documents and materials associated with this Resolution that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California 90274. The Director of Planning and Community Services is the custodian of records for the record of proceedings.

Section 12. Protest of Fees, Dedications, Reservations or Other Exactions: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, the applicant may protest the imposition of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on this development project by taking the necessary steps and following the procedures established by Sections 66020 through 66022 of the California Government Code.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14th DAY OF OCTOBER 2024.

LEAH MIRSCH, MAYOR
88 16
Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
ATTEST:
____________________________________

CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 89 17
Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1376 entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 23-070 FOR A SITE PLAN

REVIEW TO DEVELOP A VACANT LOT INCLUDING NON-EXEMPT GRADING

AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 CREST

ROAD EAST, AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (LOT 132A-MS) (OGASAWARA)
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on October 14, 2024, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:

Administrative Offices.
__________________________________

CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
23 Crest Road East (Zoning Case No. 23-070)
June 18, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Photos
Photo #1: Taken on June 13, 2024 from top of Crest Road East looking west. 107
Photo 2 taken on June 13, 2024 from standing at the top of Crest Road East looking west. 108
Photo 3: Taken on June 13, 2024 from standing at the top of Crest Road East looking west. 109
From: Youkun Nie <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 4:04 PM
To: John Signo <[email protected]>; Stephanie Grant <[email protected]> Cc: TAO SPACES <[email protected]>; zhe song <[email protected]> Subject: 23 Crest Rd East---My client's concerns
H i John, Stephanie, H ope yo u are doi ng well! Af ter pa rticipa ting the fiel d tri p and public hea ring yesterday o n the devel opmen t plan at 2 3 Crest R oad East ( Subject Project ), my client has a few conce External ([email protected])
Report This Email FAQ Protection by INKY
Hi John, Stephanie,
Hope you are doing well!
After participating the field trip and public hearing yesterday on the development plan at 23 Crest Road East ( Subject Project), my client has a few concerns about the Subject Project:

1. The potential impact of the Subject Project's WEST WING on my client's privacy
The Subject Project is located at a higher grade than my client's house at 17 Crest Rd East, and its site layout will enable the people in its west wing to see my client's house from high above.

To better understand how the Subject Project might impact his privacy, my client would like to request a site section from the Owner of the Subject Project. The site section shall include both the Subject project and my client's house and demonstrate what measures the Subject project will take to protect my client's privacy.

2. The Potential impact of the Subject Project's STABLE on my client's privacy My client is not comfortable with the location of the Subject Projects Stable either. The Stable's adjacency to my client's property will potentially impact my client's privacy, and the Stable's odor will potentially bring unpleasant feeling to my client. It might be more desirable if the Owner of the Subject Project could consider switching the Stable location with ADU's,
My client understands that he was supposed to raise his concerns before the Public Hearing. He will greatly appreciate it if you can kindly advise what he can do with his above concerns.

Any way, it doesn't mean my client opposes to the Subject Project. While he is raising his concerns, he wants to be a good neighbor of the Subject Project's Owner.

Thanks for your time. Look forward to hearing from you. 110
Best,
Youkun Nie
111
112
From: Kathleen Hughes
To: City Clerk
Subject: Opposition and Request for Geologist at the Next Meeting Date: Monday, October 7, 2024 1:00:47 PM
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.

Dear City Council,
My name is Kathleen Hughes and my husband, Dan Bethencourt, and I live at Caballeros Road, less than a mile from the proposed construction at 23 Crest Road East.

I have already voiced my opposition to any construction at 23 Crest Road East given the land movement we are seeing directly below it. The owner has tried to quell fears about this by designing tanks to capture water. But I am also concerned about the impact of the construction itself.

I would like to request the opinion of an independent geologist. I would also like to hear from any engineers and geologists the owner hired and I think that team should be available to answer questions from the public. They were supposed to be at the last meeting but were unfortunately out of town.

RPV has banned new construction believing that it will exacerbate the current devastating slide. Many of our residents are now devastated by the loss of their utilities. Why on earth would we take the risk of making the slide even worse when we know that the slide in 1956 was triggered by construction?
I'm amazed you are even considering this project! Why not, at a minimum, wait until we have time to collect more data about the rate of land movement within our city? The Fire Station, less than a quarter mile away, has cracks in its foundation. The Fykman's home, on the same street, has had its power cut off.

Please delay this project!
Thank you,
Kathleen Hughes
Rolling Hills
113
Environmental Design Associates
14121 Sawston Circle . Westminster, CA 92683
Phone 714.350.6910
1 DATE: January 30, 2024
TO: Stephanie Grant
FIRM: City of Rolling Hills
FROM: Carrie Mandarino
PROJECT: 23 Crest Road E
SUBJECT: Conceptual Landscape Plan Review
Dear Stephanie,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the conceptual landscape plan for 23 Crest Road East located in the City of Rolling Hills. The landscape plans have been reviewed for compliance with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).

Landscape plans were reviewed for appropriateness and adaptability of selected plants, water efficient irrigation design, and the use of design elements that enhance the character of the community. Review of hardscape and precise grading and drainage are not included.

Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) Compliance Landscape plans have been reviewed for compliance with The City of Rolling Hills Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance No. 361.

This is a Conceptual Plan submittal with approximately 83,000 s.f. of landscape. The MAWA and ETWU calculations for the project are not provided. Refer to the City of Rolling Hills Water Efficient Landscape Submittal Package for plan requirements and Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet. Use the Eto of 39.7 for City of Rolling Hills in the calculations. Include the water feature in the ETWU calculation with a 1.0 plant factor and 1.0 irrigation efficiency (1.0 ETAF). Show the fountain as a high hydrozone, and provide a hydrozone map.

The proposed plant palette is comprised low water use native plants. Three groups of low water use zones are shown and include a Native Meadow, Native Garden, and Native Chaparral. Photos with plant water use are shown and checked per WUCOLS IV Region 3 South Coastal.

The Project Application needs to be submitted. Show a Statement of Compliance with the Landscape Ordinance, and a note requiring a 3-inch layer of mulch on the plan. Planting notes should include soil preparation with amendments for planting.

Irrigation Plan
An irrigation plan was not submitted. A Conceptual Plan for Water Management was included. Provide an irrigation plan showing equipment location and a legend. 114
Environmental Design Associates
14121 Sawston Circle . Westminster, CA 92683
Phone 714.350.6910
2 Planting Plan
The plant palette is comprised of a variety of low water use trees, shrubs, succulents, grasses, and ground cover that are adapted to the local climate and conditions on site.

Three plant palette zones of low water use plants are shown including, Native Meadow, Native Garden, and Native Chaparral. Photos of plants are included with the WUCOLS Water Use.

Low water use native trees specified include: Quercus agrifolia and Lyonothamnus.

Moderate water use Cercis ‘Forest Pansy’ is also specified.

Planting details are shown. Planting notes should also be provided with soil preparation and amendments.

City Requirements and Notes
Per City of Rolling Hills requirements, trees specified shall not grow taller than the roof ridge height. Species of concern that grow taller than this include Quercus agrifolia and Lyonothamnus. Cercis ‘Forest Pansy’ trees are acceptable. Trees should also be located so that neighboring views are not obstructed. Show the mature tree height in legend. No City prohibited tree species are shown on the plan.

No planting is allowed in the RHCA easement. In addition, hedges are not allowed in Rolling Hills. The Toyon hedge shown at the edge of the property should be spaced in an uneven pattern approximately 15 feet minimum apart so as not to create a hedge.

The following notes should be added to the Plan:

No landscaping shall be allowed in the RHCA easement.

Trees specified shall not grow higher than the height of the roof ridge.

Trees shall be planted in locations that do not hinder views from the adjacent lots.

Trees are required to be maintained to a height not to exceed the roof ridge and so that views from adjacent lots are not obstructed.

Hedges are not allowed.

Required Revisions for MWELO Compliance
 Provide Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet project calculations.  Include water feature in calculations as a high hydrozone with a 1.0 ETAF.  Provide required notes on plan: Statement of Compliance with Landscape Ordinance, and 3-inches of mulch required in all planting areas.  Provide irrigation plan with legend, notes/specifications, and details.  Provide planting plan with legend, and notes/specifications.  Specify smaller trees with acceptable mature tree height below roof ridge. Locate trees so that neighboring views are not obstructed. Show mature height in legend.  Space Toyon shrubs so as not to create a hedge.
 Add City Required Notes shown above to plan.
115
Environmental Design Associates
14121 Sawston Circle . Westminster, CA 92683
Phone 714.350.6910
3 Installation Note
The irrigation and planting plans shall be installed per the approved landscape plan documentation package. Any changes or substitutions to plans shall be subject to approval by the planning department and landscape architect for the City.

A Certificate of Completion shall be submitted by the project designer or contractor prior to final landscape installation inspection.

I appreciate the opportunity to assist with the review of this landscape plan and would be happy to discuss any questions you may have.

Respectfully submitted,
Environmental Design Associates
Carrie Mandarino, RLA #4769
116
County of Los Angeles - Department of Public Works

GMED PLAN CHECK REFERRAL FORM

TO BE COMPLETED BY COUNTY PLAN CHECKER ONLY
---- APPLICANT TO UPLOAD THIS SHEET TO GMED ----
Plan Checker Name ________________________ District Office ___________ BSD Permit Case: BLD ________________ GRAD________________________ Valuation: BLD $_______________ GRAD (cubic yards)
Linked GMED Plan Case: ESTU _______________________________________ Address: ______________________________________APN_______________  Multiple Plan Checks on subject site (Please Verify in EpicLA/DAPTS) Initial reason for referral:
 Seismic Hazard Zone
Liquefaction / Seismically Induced Landslide / Fault Zone  Slope Stability
Over-Steeped Slopes / Landslide / Debris Flow
 Retaining Walls or Structures
Basement / Tiered / Soldier Piles / Tie-Back / Geo-Grid  Foundations Recommendations
Piles / Caissons / Mat / Settlement / Repairs / Soil-Cement Columns  Temporary Conditions
Shoring / Steep excavations / Slot-Cuts / Tie-Backs
 Low Impact Development
Soil Infiltration Rate / Infiltration Report / LID BMP Location and Depth  Grading
Fill and Bearing Recommendations / Soil-Improvements / Geology  Other (Please Specify)
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Please Note:

This initial referral reason may not limit the extent of GMED review. Additional geologic and geotechnical conditions may become apparent after GMED review of the plans, reports, and references.

Please verify with your Plan Checker:

GMED plan check fees will need to be paid prior to start of plan check. Once invoiced, please pay GMED fees online through EpicLA or at the Building and Safety District Office. 117
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works
Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Division
GEOLOGY AND SOILS ENGINEERING – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBMITTALS Requirements Prior to Submittal
Plan check applications must be filed with Building and Safety or Land Development Division and an Agency Referral form provided BEFORE any documents can be accepted for review by GMED. For questions regarding the submittal or review process, please contact GMED at [email protected], or (626) 458- 4923.

GMED Submittals for LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION (LDD)
Log in to the same web application used to submit to LDD:
https://epicla.lacounty.gov/SelfService/#/home.

Once logged in, click “Apply” then under the “Plans” heading click “Geotechnical Study.” GMED Submittals for BUILDING AND SAFETY (BSD)
If your BSD application is through EPIC LA/CSS, log in to EpicLA/CSS:
https://epicla.lacounty.gov/SelfService/#/home.

First-time users of EpicLA/CSS are required to create site login. Please register on-line.

Once logged in, click “Apply” then under the “Plan” heading click “Geotechnical Study.” You will receive an ESTU# for your GMED plan check.

If your BSD application is through a Contract City system, then submit documents to GMED here: https://dpw.lacounty.gov/apps/esubmissions/gme/default.aspx. First-time users are required to create a site login.

PDF file format for GMED Submittal
Please include all plan sheets into one PDF file.

Please name the file in the following format:

For Agency Referral Forms:

Name file as: “Agency Referral Form”
For Plans:
“YYYYMMDD – [Type of Plan]”
Submittal Date- example: “20190101 – Grading Plan”

For Reports:
“YYYYMMDD – [Firm Name]”
Submittal Date- example: “20190101 – Best Geotechnical Company” 118
Lomita Agency Referral Rev 05-2024

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION

AGENCY REFERRAL

VHFHSZ Y / N
Waste Sewer / Septic
Hwy.

Dedication
Y / N
______ ft.

Geology Fault / Liq / LS
Methane Y / N
Code
Enforce.

Y / N
# _______________
(N) Address Y / N

LOMITA DISTRICT OFFICE
24320 S. Narbonne Avenue
Lomita, CA 90717
Telephone: (310) 534-3760, Fax (310) 530-5482
Office Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. M - F
Plan Checker Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Appointments are recommended Prepared By HNM OM Initial Date
Applicant’s
Signature:

Plans for (Grading/ Structure) at __________________________________________________ _____________________________________ (Address) (Locality)
Plan Check No. _______________________________________________ was submitted on _______________________________________ Land Use Zone _____________________ Proposed Occupancy _____________________ Type of Construction ____________________ Description of proposed work: __________________________________________________________________________________________

THIS NOTICE IS TO INFORM YOU THAT APPROVAL FROM THE AGENCIES MARKED BELOW, IN ADDITION TO BUILDING PLAN CHECK APPROVAL, MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65913.3, if review of the permit application is required by a State Agency or Other Agency, as marked below, the applicable time limits for review of the application are tolled until the applicant provides Building and Safety with a copy of the Agency approval. Issuance of this referral sheet shall serve as formal notice of tolling. You may need to submit the pertinent plans, plan check number, calculations, reports, etc., directly to these agencies. To assist you, we have listed below the information which you will need to contact these agencies. Follow-up is your responsibility. Please be aware that some items resulting from these agency plan reviews may affect your building plan check. These should be communicated to your Building Plan Check Engineer as soon as possible to prevent unnecessary delays. Submit all agency approvals 48 hours prior to permit issuance. Notify the Plan Check Engineer when all agency approvals have submitted and request review.

ADDITIONAL AGENCY CLEARANCES MAY BE REQUIRED BY YOUR BUILDING PLAN CHECK ENGINEER

COUNTY AGENCIES

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
____ AVIATION DIVISION
1000 S. Fremont Ave., Bldg. A9 East, 1st Flr., Alhambra, CA 91803 (626) 300-4600 Mon-Thurs 7:00 a.m. - 5:45 p.m.
____ BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
Headquarters M-Th 6:45 - 5:30 (626) 458-3173
900 S. Fremont Ave., 3rd Fl, Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
Approval for the following sections is required as noted below:
□ ELECTRICAL SECTION
900 S. Fremont Ave., 3rd Fl, Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
(626) 458-3180
Approval is required for:
□ Energy Plan Check □ Electrical Code Check
□ Emergency Egress Illumination (O.L. ≥ 100)
□ Methane Mitigation required in Methane Zone
□ MECHANICAL SECTION
900 S. Fremont Ave., 3rd Fl, Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
(626) 458-3182
Approval is required for:
□ Energy Plan Check □ Mechanical Code Check
□ Plumbing Code Check □ Roof Drainage
□ Green Building Check
□ Methane Mitigation required in Methane Zone
□ Research Section
900 S. Fremont Ave., 3rd Fl, Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
(626) 458-3173
(Alternate Materials, Methods, SMRF…)
□ GRADING AND DRAINAGE SECTION
Anthony Wong – Regional Drainage and Grading Engineer
24320 S. Narbonne Ave, CA Lomita 90717
(310) 534-3760
Thursday 8:00 -11:00 a.m.
□ Grading Plan Check
□ “Rough Grade” approval is required prior to
issuance of building permit
□ Drainage Plan Check (NPDES/LID COMPLIANCE)
□ Drainage approval is required
____ LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION – PERMIT SECTION
Permits are required for road excavations and encroachments within County roads and Flood Control easements.
□ PERMIT SECTION
900 S. Fremont Ave., 3rd Floor, Alhambra, CA 91803-1331 (626) 458-3129 6:45-5:30 Mon-Thurs
□ Westchester Office
5530 W. 83rd St, Westchester, CA 90045
(310) 649-6300 7:30 a.m. – 3:30 p.m. Mon-Fri
____ ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS DIVISION
Plan approval is required for most commercial and industrial buildings for:
□ INDUSTRIAL WASTE / UNDERGROUND TANKS /

STORMWATER
Lomita Office Headquarters
24320 S. Narbonne Ave 900 S. Fremont Ave., Annex 3rd Fl Lomita, CA 90717 Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
(310) 534-4862 (626) 458-3517
8:00-9:30 a.m. Mon-Fri 6:45-5:30 Mon-Thurs
[email protected] Industrial Waste
[email protected] Underground Storage Tanks
[email protected] Stormwater
□ NPDES/SUSMP Approval
Industrial Waste Unit
900 S. Fremont Ave, Annex 3rd Fl
Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
(626) 458-3517 7:00am-5:00pm Mon-Thurs
□ DUMP AREAS/METHANE MITIGATION/OIL & GAS
WELLS/CONTAMINATED SOIL HAZARDS (structure within
1,000 ft from a landfill)
900 S. Fremont Ave., Annex 3rd Fl
Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
[email protected]
(626) 570-2810 7:00am -5:00pm Mon-Thurs
□ SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT (TRASH ENCLOSURES)
900 S. Fremont Ave., Annex 3rd Floor
Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
[email protected]
(626) 570-2810 7:00am -5:00pm Mon-Thurs
□ CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION DEBRIS RECYCLING AND REUSE PLAN 900 S. Fremont Ave., Annex 3rd Fl, Alhambra, CA 91803-1331 (626) 458-3517 www.CleanLA.com 6:45-5:30 Mon-Thurs
Instructions on how to apply are available at: www.LACountyCND Email at [email protected]
(626) 458-3517 7:00am -5:00pm Mon-Thurs
_____ GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING DIVISION (GMED) GEOLOGY/SOILS SECTIONS - Plan approval is required for site stability and geologic hazard. (626) 458-4925 M-Th 6:30-5:15 pm Upload plans, reports, GMED fee receipt, this Agency Referral Sheet to:
https://epicla.lacounty.gov/SelfService/#/home
GMED Referral for:

Seismic Hazard Zone
Liquefaction / Seismically Induced Landslide / Fault Study Slope Stability
Over-Steepened Slopes / Landslide / Debris Flow
Retaining Walls or Systems
Basement / Tiered / Soldier Piles / Tie-Back / Geo-Grid Foundation Recommendations
Piles / Caissons / Mat / Repairs / Soil-Cement Columns
Temporary Conditions
Shoring / Steep Excavations / Slot-Cuts / Tie-Backs
119
Lomita Agency Referral Rev 05-2024
____ LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
900 S. Fremont Ave., 3rd Fl, Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
(626) 458-4921 6:45-5:30 Mon-Thurs
□ SUBDIVISION PLAN CHECK SECTION
□ LANDSCAPE (Residential or Non-Residential landscaped area > 500 square feet)
□ HIGHWAY DEDICATION Form "48-0040-DPW"
should be filled out when plan approval for street improvements and/or dedication is required for commercial and multiple residential buildings. "Bridge & Major Thoroughfare (B&T) Fee" is also required for commercial, multiple residential buildings and designated tracts.
(626) 458-4915
_____ MAPPING AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
□ ADDRESS REQUEST:

Manual: Address Request Manual

OTHER COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
____ DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH – Environmental Health Division 5050 Commerce Way, Baldwin Park, CA 91706
(626) 430-5380
Approval is required for:
□ Private Sewage Disposal Systems
□ Underground Cisterns
□ Food Service Establishments
6053 Bristol Parkway 2nd Fl, Culver City 90230
(310) 665-8483 8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
□ Public Swimming Pool- Recreational Health
(626) 430-5360
□ X-Ray Machine Installation
Radiation Management
3530 Wilshire Blvd., 9th Fl
Los Angeles, CA 90010
(213) 351-7897
____ COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY
Payment of Library Facilities Mitigation Fee is required. A Certificate of Payment or a Certificate of Clearance must be obtained from the Public Library. Bring Plan Check Fee Receipt from Building and Safety. 7400 E. Imperial Highway, Downey, CA 90242
(562) 940-8430 M-Th 7:30 am - 5:30 pm
____ PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Approval for building plans is required for construction adjacent to "Designated Trails"
Planning Division, Research & Trails Section
510 S. Vermont Ave. 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90020
(213) 351-5098 M-Th 7:00 am – 5:30 pm
____ REGIONAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT
320 W. Temple St., 13th Floor (Rm. 1360)
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3282
Public Counter : 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mon-Thurs
Telephone Hours: 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (213) 974-6411 Mon-Thurs Southwest District Office for General Information:
1320 W. Imperial Hwy, Los Angeles, CA 90044
(323) 820-6500
Mon – Thurs 7:30 a.m.– 11:30 a.m.
(must sign in by 11:00 a.m.)
____ DEPARTMENT OF ARTS AND CULTURE
Compliance of the Public Art in Private Development Ordinance is required.

Pat Gomez (Phone or email inquiries only) [email protected] or 213-315-9972 M-Th 9:00am-5:00pm
_____ LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Recordation of affordable housing land use covenant is required and must be recorded senior to all existing deeds of trust on the property.

Payment of monitoring fee is required at time of covenant recordation.

Paulina Safarian (Email inquiries only)
[email protected]

STATE AGENCIES
____ CALTRANS
Permits are required for outdoor signs, excavation, encroachment (including driveway aprons) and improvements (including grading or structures that affect drainage) on State Highways:
100 S. Main Street 2nd Fl.

Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 897-3631
____ CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
A Coastal Development permit is required. Prior to application submittal obtain local approval in concept from the Regional Planning Department.
200 Oceangate 10th Fl, Suite 1000, Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 590-5071
____ STATE DEPT. OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS - CAL/OSHA

DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH
Permit is required for excavation of trenches which are 5 ft. or more deep into which a person is required to descend or for the construction or demolition of any structure 4 or more stories. Brick-lined seepage pits may require permit.

County Area & Contracted Cities: Lawndale Office:
680 Knox St, Ste. 100 320 W. 4th St, Ste. 850
Torrance, CA 90502 Los Angeles, CA
(310) 516-3734 (213) 576-7451
____ STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF OIL

AND GAS
Obtain clearance for the requirements of abandonment of oil wells. 5816 Corporate Ave., Ste. 200, Cypress, CA 90630-4731
(714) 816-6847
____ CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STORM WATER PERMIT UNIT – Notice of intent required when disturbed area  1 acre.

P. O. Box 1977, Sacramento, CA 95812-1977
(916) 341-5536

OTHER AGENCIES
____ FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU OF THE CONSOLIDATED FIRE

PROTECTION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
- Plan approval is required
4475 W. El Segundo Blvd., Hawthorne, CA 90250
(310) 263-2732
[email protected]
□ FIRE STATION DEVELOPER FEE is required
4475 W. El Segundo Blvd., Hawthorne, CA 90250
□ "HAZMAT" form must be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department for non-residential occupancies if hazardous materials are being handled. Obtain form from Building and Safety and submit to:

Fire Prevention Bureau
Hazardous Materials Section
5825 Rickenbacker Road, Commerce, CA 90040-3027
(323) 890-4000
□ FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
5823 Rickenbacker Road, Commerce, CA 90040-3027
(323) 890-4125
□ OTHER APPROVALS (Sprinklers<20 Heads, Sprinklers:

Residential & Remodel, Pool draft Hydrant, Alarms, Hoods, Restaurants with new cooking, Tanks, and TI<2500 sq. ft.) 4475 W. El Segundo Blvd., Hawthorne, CA 90250
(310) 263-2732
□ FUEL MODIFICATION
Brushing Clearance Office, Fire Station 32
605 N. Angeleno Ave., Azusa, CA 91702
(626) 969-5205 Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 p.m.
____ COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
Payment of sewer connection fee is required
1955 Workman Mill Rd., Whittier 90601
(562) 908-4288 ext. 2727
____ SCHOOL DISTRICT
Development fee must be paid to the District for residential and commercial construction. A "Certificate of Payment of Developer Fee" must be submitted to Building and Safety prior to obtaining a building permit.
□ Obtain “Certification Form” from B&S District Office. ____ SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
(SCAQMD)
Applicants for non-residential buildings must fill out "Air Quality Permit Checklist" furnished by Building & Safety. If "Yes" is marked, a written release will be required before occupancy is allowed. Notification form required for demolition and alteration permits where ASBESTOS is involved.
21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182
(909) 396-2000, (800) 288-7664
____ LOCAL WATER COMPANY
□ Provide a copy of the Fire Flow Availability letter (Form 195/196) completed by the water company serving the site. (Form
available from B&S District Office)
□ Provide a “Will Serve” letter from the water company for all new residential and commercial buildings (including additions that will create new units) prior to permit issuance
____ CITY APPROVALS
□ City of Lomita
24300 S. Narbonne Ave.

Lomita, CA 90717
(310) 325-7110
□ City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Rd.

Rolling Hills CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
120
Lomita Agency Referral Rev 05-2024
OTHER
121

Page 10 ends

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) Requirements
All development must comply with the County of Los Angeles’ Title 12, Chapter 12.84 (LID).

LID standards are intended to distribute stormwater and urban runoff across developed sites to help reduce adverse water quality impacts and replenish groundwater supplies. The LID Manual is available at the following link: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/ldd/web/ Under the NPDES permit (LACBC Section 106.4.3) and the County of Los Angeles LID ordinance, priority projects are required to prohibit the discharge of pollutants from property developments. Preventing these pollutants from entering stormwater discharge system will be accomplished by requiring the installation and maintenance of post-construction treatment controls. (Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Residential development of 4 units or less:
□ New development, hillside development, redevelopment, alterations, or additions which alter 50% or more of impervious surfaces, entire site shall meet LID requirements.

61. Residential development of 4 units or less must implement a minimum of two LID Best Management Practice (BMP) alternatives as indicated in Section 3.2 and Appendix E – Stormwater Quality Control Measure Fact Sheets of the LID Manual. Plans must show complete construction details, materials, manufacturer, model number, dimensions, location, structures, slopes, construction notes, specifications, cross sections, elevations, and setbacks from property lines needed to construct proposed LID BMPs. BMPs should be designed so as not to adversely impact building foundations, pavement, slope stability, or an adjacent property. For hillside properties all catch basins and inlets that discharge into an existing or proposed storm drains must be labeled to discourage illegal dumping of pollutants. Stencils are available at your local Building and Safety office.
a. Permeable Porous Pavement or other impervious surfaces (at least 50% of pavement on lot shall be porous) • Show detail of placement, base, geotextile, subgrade, and soil preparation per manufacturer’s specifications. • The required soils report must address percolation and manufacturer’s recommendations and guidelines. • H-20 loading is required for Fire Department access.
• A minimum of 30” deep impervious liner or edge restraint is required within 5’ of public right of way, property lines, and structures unless otherwise recommended by a soils engineer. b. Downspout routing (choosing one of the options below satisfies 1 of 2 required BMPs) □ Cistern/rain barrel (Option 1)
• Show location of cistern/rain barrels. Rain barrels should be designed to store 200 gallons and be located such that roof run-off is equally distributed. Rain gutters & downspouts shall be shown on plans. • Plans shall show hose bibs or pump systems for discharge and watering of landscaping. (Note: A separate electrical permit is required for pump systems).
• A plumbing permit is required for backflow prevention devices when the discharge system is tied into a landscaping irrigation system served by a potable water source. • H-20 loading is required for underground cisterns located in an area subject to traffic conditions. • Plans should include manufacturer specifications and notes for rain barrels. See provided guidelines. □ Rain garden/Stormwater Planter (Option 2)
• Surface area of flow through type planter box shall be designed and sized to treat 200 gallons. Planter must have a 18” minimum top soil layer and 12” minimum gravel layer. The infiltration type planter box shall be designed to infiltrate 200 gallons over a 48 hour period. c. Divert Runoff/Disconnect Impervious Surfaces (Hillsides > 25% slope must comply with this requirement) • Show driveway, roof, and other impervious surfaces to drain toward pervious landscaped areas. The ratio of impervious to pervious area shall be no less than 2:1. This ratio must be identified on plans for each affected area.

A minimum of 90% of the untreated impervious area shall be routed toward vegetated areas or water quality BMPs. d. Dry well
• Show details including the following: location, cross section details, liner materials, subbase, and all manufacturer’s specifications and/or recommendations from soils engineer. The required soils report shall address dry well and manufacturer’s specification and requirements.
• The system should be designed to store and infiltrate a minimum of 200 gallons of stormwater within a 48 hour period.
• Provide calculations to determine the infiltration volume for sizing of well and determine time of infiltration to percolate 200 gallons.
• A filter or sediment control is required to filter water entering the dry well. • Drywells that are deeper than their widest dimension are defined by the EPA as Class V injection wells, and are subject to inventory requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act and must be registered at the following link with the EPA as injection wells. http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/groundwater/injection-wells-register.html. If this type of dry well is proposed, provide copy of registration. e. Landscaping and landscape irrigation
• Show a minimum of two 15-gallon trees to be planted and maintained. Trees shall be located near impervious surfaces (10 foot maximum distance). One of the trees may be on the drought-tolerant plant list as required under the County’s Green Building Ordinance (http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/green_drought-tolerantgarden.pdf). In Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, applicant should verify compliance with Fire Department’s requirements https://www.fire.lacounty.gov/forestry-division/forestry-fuel-modification/. o Install Smart Irrigation Controllers. (see Comment 86 for requirements) f. Green Roof
• Show area of green roof on site plan.
• Structural calculations for design of green roof will be required at time of building plan submittal. • Fire Department approval will be required as part of building plan check. 122

Page 11 ends

62. The following is a list of Designated Projects for new development and redevelopment activities that require compliance with LA County’s LID ordinance. (See LID manual for additional information) ❑ All development projects equal to 1 acre or greater of disturbed area and adding more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area
❑ Residential new or redeveloped projects that creates, adds, or replaces >10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. ❑ Industrial parks 10,000 square feet or more of surface area ❑ Commercial malls 10,000 square feet or more surface area ❑ Retail gasoline outlets 5,000 square feet or more of surface area ❑ Restaurants (SIC 5812) 5,000 square feet or more of surface area ❑ Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area, or with 25 or more parking spaces ❑ Street and road construction of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area ❑ Automotive service facilities with 5,000 square feet or more of surface area ❑ Projects located in or directly adjacent to, or discharging directly to a Significant Ecological Area (SEA),where the development will discharge storm water runoff that is likely to impact a sensitive biological species or habitat; and Create 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface area
❑ Redevelopment projects identified below*:
o Land-disturbing activity that results in the creation or addition or replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area
o Development which alters less than 50% of impervious surfaces. Only proposed re-development needs to meet NPDES requirements.
o Development which alters 50% or more of impervious surfaces. Entire site shall meet NPDES requirements.
*Impervious surface replacement, such as the reconstruction of parking lots and roadways which does not disturb additional area and maintains the original grade and alignment, is considered a routine maintenance activity. Redevelopment does not include the repaving of existing roads to maintain original line and grade.

REQUIREMENTS:

A. New Development and Re-Development Projects must control runoff through infiltration, bioretention, and/or rainfall harvest and use. Project must retain onsite the Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv) as defined by the greater of the following:
• The 0.75-inch, 24 hour rain event or
• The 85th percentile, 24-hour rain event, as determined from the Los Angeles County 85th percentile precipitation isohyetal map (www.dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/hydrologygis) ,.

B. Bioretention and biofiltration systems shall meet the design specifications provided in Appendix E of LA County’s LID manual. (available at http://dpw.lacounty.gov/ldd/web/). Biofiltration systems shall be entirely open-bottom.

C. When evaluating the potential for onsite retention, each projects must consider the maximum potential for evapotranspiration from green roofs and rainfall harvest and reuse for both indoor and outdoor use.

D. To demonstrate technical infeasibility, it must be shown that a project site cannot reliably retain 100 percent of the SWQDv onsite. Technical infeasibility may result from the following:
i. The infiltration rate of saturated in-situ soils less than 0.3 inch per hour. ii. Seasonal high ground water is within 5 to 10 feet of the surface. iii. Locations within 100 feet of a ground water well used for drinking water. iv. Brownfield development sites where infiltration poses a risk of pollutant mobilization. v. Locations with potential geotechnical hazards.

E. When technical infeasibility has been demonstrated the site must biofiltrate using the following equation for volume required:

Bv = 1.5 * [SWQDv – Rv] Where: Bv = Biofiltration volume SWQDv = Stormwater runoff as defined in 88 A
Rv = Volume reliably retained onsite (amount infiltrated) Show volumes and flow rates on plans as applicable.

Note: For additional alternative compliance measures see Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R4-2012-0175 section VI.D.7.c.iii (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/stormwater/municipal/index.shtml) F. Project sites that outlet to natural drainage systems that are subject to hydromodification shall be in compliance with LA County’s LID manual, Section 8 (available at http://dpw.lacounty.gov/ldd/web/).

G. The plans must show complete construction details, materials, manufacturer, model number, dimensions, location, structures, slopes, construction notes, specifications, cross sections, elevations, GPS x-y coordinates for each BMP, and setbacks from property lines needed to construct proposed LID BMPs. BMPs should be designed as not to adversely impact building foundations, pavement, slope stability, or an adjacent property.

H. Clearly show driveway/access road drainage and provide BMPs for treatment of driveway flows. Provide elevations, cross sections, or slopes as applicable.

I. Submit and obtain approval from Environmental Programs Division, Industrial Waste Unit at 900 S. Fremont, Alhambra, Annex Building, 3rd floor, Alhambra, CA 91803. Please contact EPD by email at [email protected] or call (626) 458-3517 for required fees and submittal requirements. An annual operating permit may be required. , . Please note:
prior to obtaining approval from EPD the location and the design flows for all BMPs must be shown on plans and approved by Building and Safety (This applies to all non-residential projects).

J. Pre-treatment BMPs are required.
123

Page 12 ends

63. Non-Designated Projects.

Non-residential development (Commercial, Industrial) or a residential development consisting of 5 or more residential units:
□ Development which alters less than 50% of impervious surfaces. Only proposed new impervious areas needs to meet LID requirements.
□ Development which alters 50% or more of impervious surfaces. Entire site shall meet LID requirements.

A. This project is required to retain the Delta Storm Water Quality Design Volume (∆SWQDv), the difference between the stormwater runoff volume pre- and post-condition. The SWQDv, from which the ∆SWQDv is calculated, is defined in item 85A of this grading review sheet. ∆SWQDv is defined as the difference in the runoff volume between undeveloped (1% impervious surface) and post-developed condition. The ∆SWQDv is calculated according to the following equation:
∆SWQDv = Vd – Vu
Where: ∆SWQDv = Increase in stormwater runoff volume from the project [ft3]; Vd = Stormwater runoff volume post-development [ft3]; and Vu = Undeveloped stormwater runoff volume [ft3] (1% impervious).

If ∆SWQDv cannot be infiltrated due to geotechnical or technical feasibility as indicated in Section 7 of the County’s LID Manual; onsite storage or other water conservation requirements must be implemented.

B. Provide calculations for sizing of the proposed BMP’s. Calculations must consider ∆SWQDv, percolation rate, and geotechnical considerations.

C. Plans must show complete construction details, materials, manufacturer, model number, dimensions, location, structures, slopes, construction notes, specifications, cross sections, elevations, GPS x and y coordinates for each BMP, and setbacks from property lines needed to construct proposed LID BMPs. BMPs should be designed as not to adversely impact building foundations, pavement, slope stability, or an adjacent property.

D. Hydrology Calculations to determine the increase in volume due to development is required. For smaller sites, the County’s Hydrocalc Program may be used for determining Pre- and Post-construction volumes. See Section 6 of County’s LID Manual. • A drain system is required for all infiltration basins. Drain systems shall discharge to an approved location and must be shown on site drainage or grading plans. Calculations for sizing of the infiltration basins are required.

64. For LID compliance, all catch basins and inlets that discharge into an existing or proposed storm drain must be labeled to discourage illegal dumping of pollutants. Stencils are available at your local Building and Safety office.

65. All infiltration basins, dry wells, or planters must comply with the following setbacks Infiltration Facility Setbacks*
Setback from Distance in feet
Property lines & Public Right of Way 5’ minimum
Any Foundation 15’ or within a 1:1 plane drawn up from the bottom of foundation Face of any slope H/2, 5’ minimum (H is height of slope)* Seasonal high ground water 10’ minimum depth to invert
Water wells 100’ minimum
Required Infiltration Time (due to vector control)
BMP Type Duration
Open above ground (includes planting soil or open gravel pit) 48 hours to drain completely Underground retention 96 hours to drain completely
*unless otherwise recommended by a Soils Engineer and approved by Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Division.

Note: Infiltration is not allowed in areas where pollutant mobilization is a documented concern, or where undisturbed soil infiltration rates are less than 0.3 inches per hour, or where infiltration could cause adverse impacts to biological resources.

66. An Infiltration Report by a Soils Engineer and the grading plans must be reviewed and recommended for approval by the Geology and Soils Section prior to approval of an Infiltration/Retention - Low Impact Development (LID) BMP. Please see attached GMED Plan Check Referral Form for instructions. The Infiltration Report must comply with GMED Geotechnical Memo GS 200.1 and should be presented as its own report. All recommendations and notes as indicated in the soils engineering report and/or GMED review sheets must be incorporated into the grading plans. The GS 200.1 memo can be found at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/gmed/permits/docs/policies/GS200.1.pdf Gravel Specification for Non-proprietary gravel storage layers must indicate 1.5” to 3” diameter, angular, clean rock compacted to 90% relative compaction or equivalent determined and field verified by a Soils Engineer.

67. Rainwater harvest and reuse systems that are NOT gravity fed require approval from LA County Public Health, Cross Connection & Water Pollution Control Program. The application and further information is found at http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/eh/EP/cross_con/cross_con_main.htm. In addition, approval from LA County, Building and Safety Plumbing Section is required. Rainwater harvest design and plans must comply with County of Los Angeles, Plumbing Code, Chapter 16 – Non-Potable Rainwater Catchment Systems.

68. Different types of infiltration facilities such as dry wells, unlined sumps, seepage pits, and infiltration galleries are some of the terms used to describe Class V injection wells as defined by the EPA. Register the proposed infiltration facility at the following online registration form: http://www.epa.gov/uic/forms/underground-injection-wells-registration. 124
May 23, 2024
Project No. 23-3282
Ms. Yukiko Ogasawara
3 Flying Main Lane
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Subject: Geotechnical and Geological Report Update, Proposed Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills Estates, California.

Dear Ms. Ogasawara:

Per your request, presented herewith is Hamilton & Associates, Inc. (H&A) Preliminary Geotechnical and Geological Investigation Report for the subject project. H&A’s work was conducted in accordance with the proposal dated September 26, 2023 and your subsequent authorization on December 12, 2023. H&A prepared a comprehensive geotechnical and geological investigation report for the site in 2013. Wildan reviewed and approved the report in 2013/14. An update report was prepared in 2021. This report presents all prior exploration and testing performed by H&A and updates getoechnical / geological analysis and recommendations for the current project scope. This evaluation has concluded that the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations and design guidelines presented in this report are incorporated in the project plans and design, and are implemented during construction.

We thank you for the opportunity to provide professional services on this important project and we look forward to assisting you during construction. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Karen Duarte Eirik F. Haenschke, PG, CEG
Staff Engineer Engineering Geologist
David T. Hamilton, PE, GE
President/Geotechnical Engineer
125
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 1 Project Concept.............................................................................................. 1 Existing Site Conditions.................................................................................. 1 Structural Loading .......................................................................................... 1 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE REPORTS................................................................... 2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING................................................ 2 FIELD EXPLORATION......................................................................................... 2 Bucket Auger Borings..................................................................................... 2 Test Pits ......................................................................................................... 3 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................... 3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITONS ....................................................................... 3 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING ...................................................................... 3 LOCAL GEOLOGIC SETTING ............................................................................. 4 GROUNDWATER AND CAVING ......................................................................... 9 SEISMOLOGICAL AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................. 9 Ground Shaking Analysis ............................................................................... 9 Surface Fault Rupture .................................................................................... 9 Seismic Settlements (Liquefaction) .............................................................. 10 Seismically Induced Landslides.................................................................... 10 Hydro-Consolidation..................................................................................... 10 Expansive Soils ............................................................................................ 10 SLOPE STABILITY....................................................................................................... 10 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 12 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING............................................................... 12 Existing Construction Debris, Undocumented Fill, Disturbed Soils............... 12 Remedial Grading......................................................................................... 13 Hillside Grading ............................................................................................ 13 Temporary Excavations................................................................................ 15 New Fills....................................................................................................... 16 Backfilling and Compaction Requirements ................................................... 16 Imported Soils............................................................................................... 17 Observation and Testing During Construction.............................................. 17 FOUNDATION DESIGN ..................................................................................... 18 Foundation Capacity..................................................................................... 18 Lateral Resistance........................................................................................ 19 Active Loads on Piles ................................................................................... 19 Settlements/Displacements .......................................................................... 19 Slope Setback .............................................................................................. 20 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS .................................................................... 20 RETAINING WALLS........................................................................................... 20 126
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page ii
POOL RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 21 SLAB-ON-GRADE.............................................................................................. 23 SOIL CORROSIVITY.......................................................................................... 23 SITE DRAINAGE................................................................................................ 24 IRRIGATION / VEGETATION............................................................................. 24 UTILITY TRENCHES ......................................................................................... 25 PLAN REVIEW, OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING............................................ 25 CLOSURE..................................................................................................................... 25

FIGURES
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Regional Geology Map
Figure 3 – Landslide Inventory Map
Figure 4 – Regional Fault Map
Figure 5 – Seismic Hazard Zones Map
Figure 6 – Friction Pile Capacity
Figure 7 – Slope Setbacks

REFERENCES

APPENDIX
Appendix A – Field Exploration, Laboratory Results, Geotechnical / Geological Plates Appendix B – Slope Stability Analysis
127
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 1

INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of H&A’s geotechnical and geological investigation for the Project (described below in Project Concept) conducted at 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California (Site). Figure 1, “Site Location Map” presents the site’s location.

Site exploration was conducted to identify and evaluate select surface and subsurface geological and geotechnical conditions. Geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the Project were developed based on the review of select published and unpublished documents in conjunction with the findings of this field investigation and laboratory analysis. This report summarizes the data collected and presents geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project concept was provided in plans provided by Escher GuneWardena Architecture. Plans as understood by H&A are incorporated into Plate A-1, “Site Plan and Geologic Map”.

Project Concept
It is understood that the proposed development will consist of a single-family residence, swimming pool, stable and an ADU as presented on Plate A-1, “Site Plan and Geologic Map”.

Existing Site Conditions
The subject site occupies a part of a small south-trending ridge immediately west of 29 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California. The site is located at approximately 33.752 degrees north latitude and 118.347 west longitude, and at about elevation 1295 feet above mean sea level. The following information pertaining to site conditions was obtained during the course of performing field, research and laboratory work for this project.

The project area consists of approximately 9.8 acres of property, excluding the Crest Road easement that is situated on the south side of Crest Road East. The property is a vacant lot that has not been developed as of this writing. The subject site is adjoined by similarly developed (residential) properties to the south, east and west.

Structural Loading
In the absence of actual structural loading information, we will assume that the structure will be supported by shallow conventional or cast-in-drilled-hole pile foundations with 128
DATE: May 2024
ADDRESS: 23 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, California
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence PROJECT NO: 23-3282
FIGURE: 1

SITE LOCATION MAP
Site
129
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 2
maximum column load on the order of 30 kips and maximum continuous footing loads on the order of 2.5 kips per linear foot.

REVIEW OF AVAILABLE REPORTS
Hamilton & Associates, Inc., performed geotechnical and geologic engineering investigations on the subject site in 2013 and 2014, with respect to the proposed site improvement for a prior owner. Those studies of this property have included, in part, the excavation, logging and sampling of eleven (10) test pits and two (2) borings, plus four (4) percolation borings, most of which were downhole logged by the geologist. A thorough discussion of the geotechnical study has been presented in the reports.

In addition to the studies on the subject property, the writers have been involved with studies on 29 Crest Road East with Hamilton & Associates, and on 17 and 33 Crest Road East with Coastline Geotechnical Consultants.

This office concluded that the site was suitable for the proposed residential developments provided the presented recommendations were implemented during design and construction. The detailed findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this study are presented in the referenced reports.

FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
The field exploration for this report included surface observations and mapping, advancing exploratory excavations and logging and sampling of Site earth materials.

All excavations were logged by or under the direction of a California Professional Geotechnical Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist. Logs and descriptions were based on visual and tactile field observations. Exploratory excavations were backfilled with the excavated materials. Subsurface exploration locations, as well as the surficial distribution of earth materials were located and recorded based on field mapping techniques. No locations were surveyed. Samples of earth materials were secured and transported to H&A’s certified geotechnical laboratory for further observation and testing.

FIELD EXPLORATION
Bucket Auger Borings
On May 6 and 7, 2013 two (2) 24-inch diameter bucket auger borings were accomplished utilizing a truck mounted drill rig. The bucket auger borings were advanced to 59 feet bgs.

The borings were downhole logged by a California Certified Engineering Geologist. 130
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 3
Relatively undisturbed Modified California Ring and bulk samples were retrieved from the exploratory borings for subsequent laboratory testing and analysis.

Test Pits
On April 4, 2013, a backhoe, subcontracted by Hamilton & Associates, excavated ten (10) exploratory test pits. Test pit depths generally range from 3 to 5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). Relatively undisturbed Modified California Ring and bulk samples were retrieved from the exploratory test pits for subsequent laboratory testing and analysis.

Exploration locations are presented on Plate A-1 provided in Appendix A. Logs of subsurface observations are presented on Plates B-1 through B-16.

LABORATORY TESTING
Select field samples were further inspected in Hamilton & Associates’, Inc. geotechnical laboratory for subsequent confirmatory soil classification and engineering property testing. This testing included in-situ moisture content (ASTM D2216), dry unit weight (ASTM D2937), maximum density (ASTM D1557), consolidation (ASTM D2435), direct shear (ASTM D3080) and Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829), as well as corrosion testing per California 422 (Chloride), and California 643 (pH and Resistivity) test procedures on a representative sample of the on-Site soils.

SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITONS

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING
Twenty-three Crest Road East occupies a part of the terraced and dissected southwestern slope of the Palos Verdes Hills, California (Dibblee, 1999; Figure 2, herein) that form the southwest margin of the Los Angeles basin. The hills are composed of an elevated core of metamorphic rock (Catalina Schist) mantled by marine and non-marine Miocene through Quaternary sedimentary rocks.

The most widespread bedrock unit – and that which underlies the study site -- is the lower (tuffaceous) section of the Miocene-aged Altamira Shale Member of the Monterey Formation (“Altamira Shale,” herein). Thinly to thickly bedded marine shale, siltstone, siliceous shale, sandstone, tuff and occasional hard siliceous and carbonate hard beds typify the sedimentary rock.

Upper Miocene sills and dikes mainly comprised of basalt and diabase intruded the Altamira Shale. Hence, both bedding-parallel and irregular bodies that have disrupted and locally tightly folded the host rock are interspersed within the Altamira Shale. 131
DATE: May 2024
ADDRESS: 23 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, California
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence PROJECT NO: 23-3282
FIGURE: 2

REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP
From: “Geologic map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and vicinity, Redondo Beach, Torrance, and San Pedro quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California” by Thomas W. Dibblee, Jr., 1999 N
Site
132
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 4
Typically, these locally warped, brecciated and (“contact”) metamorphosed the host sediments during injection. Associated with the Miocene volcanism are aerial- and waterlaid beds of tuff (volcanic ash) and tuffaceous sandstone. While not observed on the subject site, in some places the tuff has been weathered and altered into bentonite – a clay mineral that becomes quite weak and malleable when saturated. The major such deposits are of sufficient size as to be mappable, including the Portuguese Bend and Miraleste Tuff units shown on some geologic maps of the Portuguese Bend region, but are not shown onsite.

A regional geological feature important to this investigation is the generally seaward inclination of strata within the Altamira Shale caused by the upwarping and folding along the active Palos Verdes fault that is about 3 to 4 miles north of the site. This, along with combinations of such factors as long-term coastal bluff erosion, pluvial episodes, infiltration of anthropic wastewater, and possibly earthquakes, have and are giving rise to generally “bedding-controlled” landslides along parts of the southwest flank of the Palos Verdes Hills. Among these is the well-recognized and at least partly active nearby Portuguese Bend Landside Complex that includes the Klondike Canyon Landslide; and the particularly germane Flying Triangle Landslide. Figure 3 from the California Landslide Inventory Map (2024) illustrates the locations and propensities of these landslides, as well as areas that have are seemingly devoid of landslides owing to a large part the local geological conditions.

LOCAL GEOLOGIC SETTING
Geomorphology
The characteristic topographic aspect of the geomorphically complex southern slope of the Palos Verdes Hills is a flight of 13 wave-cut marine terraces that formed during varying stands of sea level through the last million or so years (for example, Dibblee, 1999; Cleveland, 1976; Woodring, and others, 1946). The youngest being the current shoreline.

Tectonic uplift and to a lesser degree episodic sea level changes have elevated the terraces, giving the local slopes their classic “stair-step” profile, except where locally disrupted by past and current landslides and incised seaward draining canyons.The study site lies atop a typical “flat-topped” south-trending ridge bound by steep, V-shaped canyons (Plate A-1; Figures 1 and 2). The ridge slopes descend to canyon bottoms at ratios varying from about 1.5 (vertical):1 (horizontal) to 2:1 with local steeper and flatter elements. Total site relief is about 230 feet (Plate A-1).

In turn, imprinted, at least locally, is “landslide” topography (Figure 3) that characterizes the aforementioned landslides. “Deflated”, undulating surfaces that are bound upslope 133
DATE: May 2024
ADDRESS: 23 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, California
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence PROJECT NO: 23-3282
FIGURE: 3

LANDSLIDE INVENTORY MAP
Landslide Types Landslide Activity
Produced from Landslide Inventory
Retrieved from- https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/lsi/app/ Date retrieved: May 23, 2024
Information provided by: County of Los Angeles, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P,
USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDA | California Geological
Survey, USGS, Cooper-Clark Associates | California
Geological Survey
N
Site
134
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 5
by lunate scarps typify the topography. These landslides vary from currently active to dormant to inactive. Generally, the dormant and inactive landslides are eroded and incised by streams and thus have subdued topography; whereas the active slides have sharp definition and geomorphic indicators. Among the active landslides is the Flying Triangle Landslide whose crown is about 150 feet west of the study site’s western boundary and about 425 west of the portion of the site to be developed [(California Landslide Inventory Map, 2024, Figure 3; Slosson/County of Los Angeles, 1986/7, Plate A-7).

Stratigraphy
Artificial Fill: The H&A exploration excavations did not encounter artificial fill, for the site is in essence in its natural state. Small, unmappable deposits of artificial fill likely bound the downslope sides of small paths and possibly along Crest Road East. These were not investigated owing to their likely small dimensions, and likely small impact on proposed development.

Surficial Soils: H&A surmises that shallow soils cover much of the site. Where observed in test pits and natural exposures, these soils consist of black to dark gray to brown, silty clay with Altamira siltstone fragments. These soils are slightly moist to moist, generally soft to medium stiff, and commonly contain roots. The test pits exposed up to 3 feet of these soils. It is thus anticipated that the natural soils are likely relatively thin, perhaps ranging from 1- to 5-ft thick, particularly on slopes.

Landslides: No landslides are mapped onsite. The site, however, is northwest of the crown of the well-known active “Flying Triangle Landslide (for example, California Landslide Inventory Map, 2024, Slosson/County of Los Angeles, 1986/7), A separate section assessing the landslide relative to the proposed development follows below.

Bedrock – Monterey Formation: Natural and anthropic outcrops, as well as the exploration excavations, expose(d) two principal and distinct rock types within the Altamira Shale, siltstone and basalt, as follows:

Siltstone: Based on Dibblee (1999), Slosson/County of Los Angeles (1986/7) and Woodring and others (1946), the site and its environs are underlain by the lower (tuffaceous) part of the Altamira Shale Member of the Monterey Formation (“Altamira Shale”) comprised mainly of interbedded diatomaceous, clayey and siliceous siltstone/shale and occasional hard carbonate/siliceous beds. Bedding within this unit is generally thin with well-developed partings, although the carbonate/siliceous beds are roughly one- to three- feet thick. Regionally, the carbonate beds are lightly to intensively 135
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 6
fractured, and thus locally “blocky”. The carbonate/siliceous beds, where present in graded areas, generally yield tabular boulders during difficult excavation, frequently requiring special handling.

The bedrock exposed in the Test Pits and Borings, as well as that exposed in pathway cut slopes on the ridge slopes, is consistent with the regional, in that generally thinbedded siltstone predominates. These are generally clayey, but porcellaneous and siliceous beds are common. Also, rare sandstone stringers are intercalated in the bedrock.

Importantly, H&A mapping, Test Pits and Borings did not encounter decomposed tuff or bentonite beds. According to Anderson (1987) weak tuff beds above basalt units have acted as slide planes elsewhere in the Portuguese Bend area. Based on local geological investigations (for example, Marseth, Howe and Lockwood and Associates, 1970; and Steiner, 2004), the study site is likely straigraphically below these tuff beds, including the Portuguese Tuff, a local weak unit of decomposed tuff/bentonite ranging from a few to perhaps 60-feet thick that is amenable to landsliding.

The engineering characteristics of the bedrock are given in the Appendix.

Basalt: Intrusive and extrusive basalt and diabase lithosomes are intercalated within the lower Altamira Shale. These occur mainly as sills and dikes injected along stratigraphic units within the Altamira. Slosson and County of Los Angeles (1986/72) suggest that two major basaltic zone occur within the lower Altamira. As the sills were injected, they “burned” and contorted (in essence contact metamorphosed) the host sedimentary rocks.

Relict localized folds and welded zones are yet mappable. These distortions are to some degree responsible for the “undulatory” bedding plane attitudes measured in the Altamira Shale on and near site.

Basalt sills were encountered in both of the H&A Borings. B-1 encountered basalt from 34 to 48 feet below ground surface and B-2 penetrated basalt at 26 to 38 feet and at 55 feet, bottoming in basalt. (Plates A-2, A-3 and B-11 through B-16, herein). The basalt is reported to be massive and fractured. The basalt contacts with the host Altamira are baked (lightly metamorphosed).

Slosson/County of Los Angeles (1986/7) mapped two basalt sills near the base of the subject ridge. Note that aforementioned tuff beds noted elsewhere by Anderson are absent at Borings B-1 and B-2.
136
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 7
Geologic Structure
The study site lies on a structural high formed by transpressional deformation along the regional, active Palos Verdes fault zone that is about 4-miles to the northeast. Most investigators (Woodring and others, 1946; Cleveland, 1976; Dibblee, 1999) portray the hills as an anticlinorium composed of many smaller folds generally trending northwest, with local variations. [Figure 2 depicts the regional geology as mapped by Dibblee (1999) and Plate A-7 shows the local geology as interpreted by Slosson/County of Los Angeles].

Accordingly, the south flank of the hills is also the south flank of the Palos Verdes Hills anticlinorium; hence, bedding planes generally dip to the south except where they are locally interrupted by small folds or by basaltic sills and dikes. Near the site, a variety of investigators portray different interpretations of the structure, including the placement of folds that are auxiliary to the major northwest-trending anticlinorium (for example, Dibblee, 1999; Woodring and others, 1946; Marseth, Howe, Lockwood, 1970; Slosson/County of Los Angeles, 1986/7). For reference, the former two investigators produced generalized regional geologic maps, whereas the latter two studied the area immediate to the study site. The latter studies therefore added much detail that inevitably led to revision of the work by earlier investigators.

In sum, the through-going local fold axes (Figure 2) mapped by Woodring and others and Dibblee probably are not as mapped. Based on the information provided by Slosson/County of Los Angeles (1986/7) and this investigation, the ridge (from Crest Road south) on which the study site lies is underlain by a monocline (Plates A-1 through A-6) that might be part of a larger anticline whose axis is north of the H&A study area.

Importantly, based on the foregoing, bedding planes near the top of the ridge in the area of interest are undulatory but generally dip at low angles to the south or are near horizontal (Plates A-1 through A-6). By inspection, the beds steepen to the south, thereby likely providing planes steep enough to induce a proclivity for south-directed landsliding (Figure 3) as typified by the Flying Triangle, Portuguese Bend and other local landslides to the south.

Small local folds are evident or inferred by mapping of available local outcrops. These appear to a great degree to be penecontemporaneous folds resultant from Miocene-aged slip or from subsequent injection of basalt, or combinations thereof; although later tectonism cannot be entirely ruled out as causation.

No suspected active faults have been mapped in the area applicable to this report (see References). Some investigators have mapped faults in the region but these seem of no practical effect to the study site. For example, Slosson/County of Los Angeles mapped 137
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 8
two faults on- or near-site. One fault is depicted by those investigators as crossing the subject lot in a northeastern manner from the southwestern offsite Flying Triangle scarp.

However, later mapping by DeVries (2004) and Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc. (2010) indicates that the fault does not exist. A second fault is mapped as in essence following the bottom of the canyon that borders the site on the west.

Joints in the bedrock are generally high-angle. They vary from wide-spaced to closely spaced.

Flying Triangle Landslide
Owing to its proximity, the Flying Triangle Landslide bears assessment.

The landslide is active and is composed of about 70 acres located downslope of the study site (Figure 3). The crown of the landslide lies about 230 feet west of the west site margin and about 425 feet southwest of proposed site development (Plate A-1). This landslide has been well-studied by, among others: Maurseth, Howe, Lockwood and Associates (1970), Ehlig (1987), (Anderson (1987), Keene (1986), Slosson/County of Los Angeles (1986/7) and Steiner (2004). That large body of work is not repeated but only briefly summarized herein, so the reader is thus referred to those articles.

In brief, the Flying Triangle Landslide is an ancient landslide of which a part began to slip in the period of 1978 to 1980, causing the removal of about four houses. According to the literature, little has been done since to mitigate the potential for slip.

Investigators agree that the slide mass is to some degree footed by bedding planes within the Altamira Shale that dip seaward at moderate angles; and yet they indicate that part of the sliding has and is occurring across bedding planes. Maximum depth of the slide mass is enigmatic. For example, Maurseth, Howe, Lockwood Associates concluded that the landslide is about 76-feet deep, whereas Ehlig (1987) suggested that a deeper slide plane could be as much as 450-feet below ground surface; thus making it the deepest landslide in the Portuguese Bend area, if true. Based on review of the available literature, both published and proprietary, the slide plane angles dip moderately southerly at angles ranging from about 12- to 15-degrees to about 20 to 25- degrees. Undercutting by streams that removed lateral support and possibly ancient undercutting of the toe area by wave action, combined with the introduction of ground water via rainy cycles and anthropic disposal of water led to the landslide reactivation. The investigators generally agree that the internal structure and hence the movement patterns in this landslide and the adjacent Klondike Canyon Landside (Figure 3) are complex; and that the slide mass consists of several blocks.
138
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 9
The Flying Triangle Landslide has and is moving on planes with moderate to moderately steep inclinations, as opposed to the nearly flat to quite shallow dips of bedding at and near the study site which is on the crest of the aforementioned monocline. This, perhaps aided by disruption of the continuity of the strata by intrusion of basalt, likely accounts for the relative stability of the upper part of the subject ridge.

GROUNDWATER AND CAVING
Groundwater was not encountered within the maximum depths explored for this project (59 feet below existing grades). Owing to the elevated position of the site with respect to nearby drainage courses, ground water is not expected to be a factor during construction of the proposed project. However, seasonal and long-term fluctuations in the groundwater conditions may occur as a result of variations in irrigation, rainfall, surface run-off and other factors.

Caving was not observed during test pit excavation and sampling operations during the course of subsurface exploration at the site. Caving may occur in excavations deeper and/or greater in dimension than our test pits.

SEISMOLOGICAL AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Ground Shaking Analysis
Neither the location nor magnitude of earthquakes can accurately be predicted at the time of this report. In the past, the site has been periodically subject to moderate to intense earthquake-induced ground shaking from nearby faults. Considerable damage could occur at the site and structural improvements during a strong seismic event.

There are several faults in the region, as presented on Figure 4, Regional Fault Map, that were, at the time of this report, considered ‘active’ and that could produce moderate to strong ground shaking at the site. The possibility of ground acceleration or shaking at the site could be considered as approximately similar to the Southern California region as a whole.

Based on the USGS Degradation Application (2014 V4.2.0), the peak ground acceleration for Site Class “D” earth materials was reported to be 0.41g, with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years, and 0.72g for a 2% probabilistic of exceedance in 50 years.

Surface Fault Rupture
The site does not lie within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, Figure 5, Seismic Hazards Map. Therefore, the potential for surface fault rupture at the Site during the design life of onsite structures is considered low. 139
DATE: May 2024
ADDRESS: 23 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, California
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence PROJECT NO: 23-3282
FIGURE: 4

REGIONAL FAULT MAP
From: “Fault Activity Map of California,” compiled by Charles W. Jennings and William A. Bryant, California Geological Survey, Map No. 6, California Geologic Data Map Series, 2010 N
Site
Vicinity
140
DATE: May 2024
ADDRESS: 23 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, California
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence PROJECT NO: 23-3282
FIGURE: 5

SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES MAP
N
Approximate
Project Location
141
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 10
Seismic Settlements (Liquefaction)
The term “liquefaction” describes a phenomenon in which a saturated cohesionless soil loses strength and acquires a degree of mobility as a result of strong ground shaking during an earthquake. The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type and depth, grain size, relative density, groundwater level, degree of saturation, and both the intensity and duration of ground shaking. Hazard data published by the State of California is shown on Figure 5 “Seismic Hazard Map” and indicates that the subject site is not within an area identified as having a potential for soil liquefaction.

Seismically Induced Landslides
A landslide is a movement of the ground and is categorized based on the type of material that has failed and the movement type that occurs. A landslide is broadly categorized by its’ failure mode, its’ movement, and the earth materials involved. Predicting where landslides may occur utilizes this information as well as other factors such as slope steepness, slope height, slope orientation, relative density of the earth materials, groundwater level, degree of saturation, as well as location, intensity, and duration of ground shaking.

As shown on Figure 5 the portions of the site lie within an area identified by CGS as having a potential for earthquake induced landslides. According to Figures 2 and 3, no known or inferred landslides are on or project into the site.

Hydro-Consolidation
Hydro-consolidation settlement potential is considered to be low to moderate, as evidenced by subsurface soil properties, and laboratory engineering and index test results.

Expansive Soils
Laboratory testing on a sample of near surface soils indicated a ‘Medium’ soil expansion potential (EI=60) as defined in the latest edition of ASTM D4829. It is H&A’s opinion that a ‘Medium’ soil expansion should be used in project design. The degree of soil expansion should be confirmed by additional tests during or after rough grading operations.

SLOPE STABILITY
Slope stability analysis was performed for Sections A-A’, B-B’, C-C’, D-D’ and E-E’, Plates A-2 through A-6, marked through the site. Analyses were based on laboratory strength properties under saturated conditions, and engineering judgment for the proposed slope configurations. The below table presents strength data for the soil parameters used for the slope stability analysis:
142
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 11
Design Soil Parameters for Slope Stability Analyses
Soil or Bedrock Type Cohesion,c
(psf)
Friction,phi
(degrees)
Bulk Density
(pcf)
Fill / Colluvium 290 20 115
Bedrock (fbc), < 25 ft 400 25 125
Bedrock (fbc), > 25 ft 500 34 125
Bedrock (abc) 200 21 125
Groundwater was not encountered during the field investigation. Based on field investigation and SHZR Historic High Groundwater data, groundwater was not incorporated into the slope model and is not anticipated to be a factor in the project’s development.

The SLIDE computer program, using the Bishop Method of Analyses for circular and wedge failure surfaces, was utilized to search for the most critical failure surfaces. The seismic coefficient was based on the County of Los Angeles guidelines utilizing the Special Publication 117A methods. The seismic coefficient procedure assumes a value of k=0.15g with a minimum FS=1.1 required to achieve acceptable results. Results of the analyses are summarized below.

Summary of Slope Stability Analysis
Description
Static
Factor of
Safety (FS)
Seismic
Factor of
Safety (FS)
Shear Pin
Reinforcement
A-A’ Global Circular/Wedge 1.78 / 1.94 1.20 / 1.18 -
A-A’ Upper Circular/Wedge 1.77 / 2.05 1.26 / 1.35 -
B-B’ Global Circular/Wedge 1.57 / 1.55 1.11 / 1.10 200 kips shear min 10’ OC, 60 ft bgs
C-C’ Global Circular/Wedge 1.66 / 1.52 1.28 / 1.11 200 kips shear min 10’ OC, 35 ft bgs
D-D’ Global Circular/Wedge 1.69 / 1.77 1.17 / 1.27 -
E-E’ Global Circular/Wedge 1.74 / 1.80 1.35 / 1.40 -
E-E’ Upper Circular/Wedge 2.04 / 2.34 1.49 / 1.70 -
Stability Analyses indicate that the proposed development has a calculated global static factor-of-safety (FS) greater than 1.5 and a calculated global seismic FS greater than 1.1.

Sections B-B’, C-C’ require that the outer row of piles also be designed as shear pins.

Plots of slope stability output files, including critical failure surfaces, are attached in Appendix B for reference.
143
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 12

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of H&A’s field exploration and laboratory testing, combined with engineering analysis, experience and judgment, it is this firm’s opinion that the project may be developed as planned, provided the site grading and foundation criteria discussed herein are incorporated into the project plans and specifications and implemented during construction.

Based on the findings in this report, and provided the recommendations of this report are followed, and the designs, grading and construction are properly and adequately executed, it is our finding that the proposed construction will not be subject to geotechnical hazards from landslides, slippage, or settlement, within the standard limits of geotechnical practice. Further, it is our finding that the proposed construction will not adversely affect the stability of the adjacent properties, with the same provisos listed above.

The major geotechnical considerations that affect the design and construction of the planned construction included the following:
• Soil disturbance as a result of site excavation and preparation operations. • Hillside Grading with keyways, benching, subdrains, and compacted fill. • Cast-in-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) construction into bedrock. • The outer row of piles are to be designed as stabilization shear pins at various locations.
• Expansive soils that are subject to heave and shrinkage with wetting and drying. • Improvements adjacent to slopes will require maintenance and/or periodic replacement due to slope creep and other movement, unless supported by piles. • Foundation depths to achieve building code setbacks.

It is this firm’s opinion that the proposed residence development may be supported by conventional foundations and/or cast-in-drilled hole (CIDH) pile foundation system embedded into competent bedrock. Building slabs shall be structural, supported by perimeter foundations. The following recommendations are provided.

SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING
Existing Construction Debris, Undocumented Fill, Disturbed Soils Prior to grading operations, it will be necessary to remove designated existing construction, including any remaining buried obstructions, which may be in the areas of proposed construction. Concrete flatwork should also be removed from areas of proposed construction. Concrete fragments from site demolition operations should be disposed of 144
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 13
off-Site. Any undocumented fill or disturbed soils in areas of proposed foundations and slab on grade construction should be excavated to full depth.

Remedial Grading
The proposed buildings shall be supported by foundations into bedrock. Grading to support ancillary improvements located away from slopes should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction above optimum moisture content for clayey soils and near optimum moisture content for granular soils. A six-inch scarification and recompaction of in-place soils to 90 percent relative compaction above optimum moisture contents may be taken equivalent to six-inches of approved compacted fill, when computing total excavation requirements. Expansive clay subgrade shall be pre-soaked prior to slab construction.

The depth of over excavation should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant during construction. Any subsurface obstruction, buried structural elements, and unsuitable material encountered during grading, should be immediately brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Consultant for proper exposure, removal and processing, as recommended. Exposed excavation bottoms should be observed by the Geotechnical consultant or his representative.

Hillside Grading
Hillside Grading Recommendations are provided below.
• All Grading shall be performed according to County and City grading codes, approved plans and specifications, and the below recommendations, whichever is more restrictive.
• Prior to commencement of work, a pre-grading meeting shall be held between the contractor, the owner or their representative, and the geotechnical engineer for the purpose of adhering to report recommendations.
• A surveyor shall be retained to layout the proposed grading including but not limited to locating all keys, top of cuts, toe of fills, stability fills, setbacks, easements and areas requiring over excavation of the cut portions of the building pads. • Hillside fills shall have a key placed at the toe of the proposed fill slope. The key should be cut (3) feet into competent bedrock. The base of the key shall be sloped back into the hill. The key should be a minimum of (10) feet wide, except where slope stability analyses results in a wider key. Where slopes are steeper than 5:1 (H:V), horizontal benches shall be cut into competent bedrock in order to provide both lateral and vertical stability.
• All areas to receive compacted fill, including all removal areas, keys and benches, shall be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to placing compacted fill. 145
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 14
• Materials excavated uphill from where fills are to be placed, shall not be cast over the slope into the fill area. Materials shall be channeled down a ramp to the area to receive compacted fill and the spread in horizontal layers. As compacted fills are placed, this ramp will be trimmed out to expose the dense, tight materials approved by the geotechnical engineer. The minimum vertical height of bench in approved materials shall be (3) feet. This will maintain the proper benching, as fill is placed up the slope.

The ramp will be shifted periodically during the grading operations to allow for complete removal of the loose fill material and for the proper benching. • The fill soils shall consist of select materials approved by the geotechnical engineer.

These materials may be obtained from the excavation areas and any other approved sources, and by blending soils from one or more sources. The material used shall be free from organic vegetable matter and other deleterious material and shall not contain rocks greater than (4) inches.
• On-site and import materials approved for use should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8-inches in loose thickness, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture contents, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the latest edition of ASTM Test Method D1557. The grade that is determined to be satisfactory for the support of the filled ground shall be scarified to a depth of at least six inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to the above standard.
• Review of the fill placement should be provided by the geotechnical engineer during grading. In general, density tests will be made at intervals not exceeding (2) feet of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placed.
• The contractor shall be required to obtain a minimum compaction of 90 percent out to the finish face of 2:1 fill slopes. Compaction on slopes may be achieved by overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. Direct compaction on the slope faces shall be accomplished by back-rolling the slopes in (3) foot to (4) foot increments of elevation gain.
• During the inclement part of the year, or during periods when rain is threatening, all fill that has been spread and awaits compaction shall be compacted before stopping work for the day or before stopping because of inclement weather. These fills, once compacted, shall have the surfaces sloped to drain to an area where water can be removed.
• Work may start again, after the rainy period, once the site has been reviewed by the geotechnical engineer and authorization is given to resume. Loose materials not compacted prior to the rain shall be removed and aerated so that the moisture content of these fills will be within (3) percent above the optimum moisture content. 146
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 15
• Surface materials previously compacted before the rain shall be scarified, brought to the proper moisture content and recompacted prior to placing additional fill, if deemed necessary by the geotechnical engineer.
• Hillside fill shall have back drains installed at the compacted fill/competent bedrock contact to dissipate potential subsurface porewater pressure buildup. Backdrains shall consist of (4) inch perforated pipes; placed with perforations down. The pipe should be encased with at least (1) foot of gravel around the pipe. The minimum cover on the pipe should be (1) foot. The gravel should consist of (3/4) to (1) inch crushed rock. The first drain shall be placed no higher than (3) feet above the front cut of the key excavation. Additional back drains shall be placed at intervals roughly equivalent to (10) feet of vertical rise in elevation or where deemed necessary by the project soils engineer. For slopes where less than (20) feet of compacted fill is placed the drains shall be placed in the base of the keyway and at mid-slope. Each drain shall be placed into a trench excavated along the back of a horizontal bench at the compacted fill/competent bedrock contact. The trench bottom shall slope downward to each exit drain with a minimum gradient of (2) percent. The exit pipe shall consist of a (4) inch diameter non-perforated pipe. This pipe need not be encased in gravel. It shall exit at a minimum gradient of (2) percent to the finish face of the fill slope. Exist drains shall be placed at intervals not exceeding (50) feet. A cutoff wall consisting of concrete or soil cement shall be placed at the junction of the perforated pipe and the exit drains to stop seepage and force the water being removed into the perforated pipe.

Temporary Excavations
Excavations of site soils 4 feet or deeper should be temporarily shored or sloped in accordance with Cal OSHA requirements. For the purpose of Cal OSHA soil classification and shoring design, site soils should be considered as Type B.

A. Temporary Slopes:

In areas where excavations deeper than 4 feet are not adjacent to existing structures or public right-of-ways, sloping procedures may be utilized for temporary excavations. It is recommended that temporary slopes in native soils be graded no steeper than 1:1 (H:V) for excavations up to 15 feet in depth. The above temporary slope criteria is based on level soil conditions behind temporary slopes with no surcharge loading (structures, traffic) within a lateral distance behind the top of slope equivalent to the slope height.

It is recommended that excavated soils be placed a minimum lateral distance from top of slope equal to the height of slope. A minimum setback distance equivalent to the slope height should be maintained between the top of slope and heavy excavating/grading equipment.
147
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 16
Should adverse conditions be experienced during excavation operations, flattening of cut slope faces, or other special procedures, may be required to achieve stable, temporary slopes.

Soil conditions should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant as excavation progresses to verify acceptability of temporary slopes. Final temporary cut slope design will be dependent upon the soil conditions encountered, construction procedures and schedule.

B. Shoring:

Temporary shoring will be required for those excavations where temporary slope cuts as specified above are not feasible.

Temporary cantilever shoring, if used, should be designed to resist active earth pressures of 35 pounds per cubic foot equivalent fluid pressure for level conditions behind shoring.

The design of shoring should also include surcharge loading effects of existing structures and anticipated traffic, including delivery and construction equipment, when loading is within a distance from the shoring equal to the depth of excavation.

In addition to the above, a minimum uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot in the upper ten feet of shoring should be incorporated in the design when normal traffic is permitted within ten feet of the shoring.

New Fills
The upper one foot of site soils should be excavated and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction near optimum moisture content prior to placement of any new fills, where required, to achieve finish grade elevations. Exposed excavation bottoms should be scarified a minimum 6-inches and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture content. Excavation bottoms should be firm and unyielding prior to backfilling.

Backfilling and Compaction Requirements
On-site and import materials approved for use should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8-inches in loose thickness, moisture conditioned to above optimum moisture content for clayey soils and near optimum moisture content for granular soil, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the latest edition of ASTM Test Method D1557. Existing site soils, unless indicated otherwise, are considered suitable for re-use during Site grading and backfilling, provided they are free of debris, particles greater than 4 inches in maximum dimension, organic matter or 148
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 17
other deleterious materials, and are to a suitable moisture condition to permit achieving the required compaction.

Imported Soils
Any imported soil required to complete grading operations should consist of predominantly granular material which exhibits an Expansion Index (“EI”) of less than 20 when tested in accordance ASTM Expansion Test Procedures and should be free of debris and particles greater than 4 inches in maximum dimension, organic matter or other deleterious materials, and should be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant or his representative. Potential import material should be identified, sampled and provided to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 72 hours prior to importation to the site. Final acceptance of any imported soil will be based upon review and testing of the soil actually delivered to the Site.

Observation and Testing During Construction
All foundation, grading, compaction, and backfill operations should be performed under the observation of and testing by the Geotechnical Consultant’s designated representative. The consultant should be notified at least two days in advance of the start of construction. A joint meeting between the contractor and geotechnical consultant is required prior to the start of construction to discuss specific procedures and scheduling.

A. Grading Observation and Testing:

Prior to placing any fill the exposed excavation bottoms should be observed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant or their representative. If it is determined during grading that site soils require overexcavation to greater depths for obtaining proper support for the proposed structure, this additional work should be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. Any subsurface obstruction, buried structural elements, and unsuitable material (such as undocumented fill, natural topsoil, etc…) encountered during grading, should be immediately brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Consultant for proper exposure, removal and processing, as recommended. Field moisture and density tests should be taken during grading in accordance with this report and local ordinances. All foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant's representative to verify minimum embedment depths and competency of bearing soils. Such observations should be made prior to placement of any reinforcing steel or concrete.

B. CIDH Pile Observation and Testing:

General guidelines for pile installation are summarized below:
• Pile excavation will require equipment suitable to penetrate bedrock and/or soil typical to the area.
149
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 18
• Pile excavations should be drilled with suitable equipment and should not be out-ofplumb by more than 0.5 percent of the pier length. The center-to-center distance of constructed piers at the base of pile cap should not vary by more than three inches from the design spacing, or as directed by the Structural Consultant, whichever is more restrictive.
• Methods are the responsibility of the contractor. Casing should be used during drilling of any piles in the event caving conditions are experienced. If casing is used, concrete placement and casing removal should be done in stages such that the casing bottom is always as a minimum 3 feet below the top of concrete. Where applicable, bentonite slurry displacement (with steel casing to avoid caving) should be used for placement of concrete during drilled pier installation. All pile excavations shall be cleaned of loose soils and cuttings.
• A representative of this office should be present during all pile-drilling operations to verify pile embedment depths and acceptability of strata. • The placement of reinforcement and concrete should conform to ACI and other applicable code requirements.
• Pile installation specifications should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant.

FOUNDATION DESIGN
It is this firm’s opinion that the proposed residence development may be supported by conventional foundations and/or cast-in-drilled hole (CIDH) pile foundation system embedded into competent bedrock. Building slabs shall be structural, supported by perimeter foundations. Foundation design details such as concrete strength, reinforcements, etc. should be established by the Project Structural Engineer.

Foundation Capacity
A. Conventional Foundation Capacity
A dead plus live load allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot may be used in the design of both continuous and spread footings, when supported in competent bedrock. Recommended minimum footing embedment is 24 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade and 12 inches into competent bedrock, whichever is deeper. The above bearing pressures may be increased by one-third when considering short term loading from wind or seismic forces.

B. Cast-in-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) Friction Piles
Piles shall be at least 24-inch diameter and deepened into bedrock with no support from fill or colluvium. Recommended bearing and uplift capacities for drilled cast-in-place piles are provided on Figure 6. It is recommended that the minimum depth of penetration into 150

FRICTION PILE DESIGN
Project No. 23-3282
Figure 6
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Design values given are for 12 inch diameter, cast-in-place friction piles. For piles of different sizes, the allowable capacity will be directly proportional to the comparative pile diameter.

Uplift capacity will be one half the downward value given. 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Embedment into
Allowable Capacity (Kips)
Minimum Embedment 7 Feet
Bedrock
(Ft.)
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
23 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, California
151
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 19
bedrock be 7 feet. The weight of the concrete in the piles may be neglected in considering bearing pressure.

Lateral Resistance
A. Conventional Foundations
Resistance to lateral loads can be assumed to be provided by pressure acting on structural components in contact with bedrock. Lateral resistance on the sides of footings may be computed using a passive pressure of 200 pounds per square foot per foot embedment into bedrock, subject to a maximum of 2,000 pounds per square foot. Friction between the base of the footings, and/or floor slabs, and the underlying material may be assumed as 0.30. Friction and lateral pressure may be combined, provided either is limited to two-thirds of the allowable.

B. Cast-in-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) Friction Piles
Resistance to lateral loads can be assumed to be provided by passive earth pressure and by friction acting on structural components in permanent contact with the bedrock. Lateral resistance on the sides of piles may be computed using a passive pressure of 400 pounds per square foot per foot embedment into bedrock, subject to a maximum of 4,000 pounds per square foot. Piles shall be tied by gradebeams and in two directions where possible.

Active Loads on Piles
Piles shall be designed for a lateral load of 1,000 pounds per linear foot of shaft exposed to fill and colluvium soils located above bedrock. Depths should be confirmed by the Geotechnical Consultant during construction.

Settlements/Displacements
Total settlements for foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the above criteria and supporting maximum assumed column and wall loads of 30 kips and 2.5 kips per linear foot, respectively, are not anticipated to exceed 1 inch. A differential settlement on the order of 1/2 inch is anticipated between similarly loaded pad footings and for continuous wall footings over a distance of approximately 30 feet. Settlement of single piles, or groups of up to three (3) piles, may be estimated to be less than 1/2 inch. Lateral displacement at the top of piers is not expected to exceed 1/2 inch. Most of the estimated settlement will take place rapidly with the first application of load.

This office should be contacted for further evaluation and recommendations, as necessary, should final design structural loads exceed the maximum loads used in our analysis by more than 10 percent.
152
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 20
Slope Setback
The foundation setbacks, required by the Building Department is for the placement of buildings and structures on, or adjacent to, slopes steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) to provide protection from water, mudflow, loose slope debris and shallow slope failures.

These setbacks, shown on Figure 7 are for the horizontal clearance from the face of the foundations to the slope face.

SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
The Site-specific seismic design parameters were determined as a part of this study in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code, which is based on the 2019 International Building Code (IBC). Additionally, seismic design parameters were determined using the Structural Engineering Association (SEA) website which uses the USGS Seismic Design Web Services for the hazard loads. The 2022 CBC seismic design parameters that apply to the Site are as follows:
2022 CBC Seismic Parameters
CBC Seismic Parameter Value or
Classification
Site Classification (per Table ASCE/SEI 7-10 Table 20.3-1) D Mapped Spectral Response at 0.2 Sec Acceleration, Ss 1.559 Mapped Spectral Response at 1.0 Sec Acceleration, S1 0.564 Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Acceleration, SMS 1.871 Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Acceleration, SM1 *null 5-Percent Damped Design Spectral Acceleration, SDS 1.247 5-Percent Damped Design Spectral Acceleration, SD1 *null *See ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8
The Structural Consultant should review the above parameters and the 2022 CBC to evaluate the seismic design. Final selection of design coefficients should be made by the structural consultant based on the local laws and ordinances, expected structure response, and the desired level of conservatism.

RETAINING WALLS
Retaining walls planned should be adequately designed to resist the lateral soil pressures and the anticipated construction loadings and service conditions. The earth pressure acting on retaining walls depends primarily on the allowable wall movement, type of backfill materials, backfill slopes, wall inclination, surcharges, and any hydrostatic pressure. The following equivalent fluid pressures are recommended for vertical walls with no hydrostatic pressure and no surcharge loading:
153
DATE: May 2024
ADDRESS: 23 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, California
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence PROJECT NO: 23-3282
FIGURE: 7
SLOPE SETBACK – Section 1808.7
154
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 21
Soil Type Backfill Slope
Behind Walls

EARTH PRESSURE
Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf)
Active(Cantilever) At-Rest (Rigid)
Granular
Non-Expansive Level 40 60
Site Soil
Expansive Level 60 100
Site Soil
Expansive 2:1 (H:V) 80 120
These values are applicable for granular non-expansive fill soils placed between the wall sides and an imaginary plane rising at 45 degrees from below the edges (heel) of wall bottoms. The surcharge effect of anticipated loads on the wall backfill (e.g., traffic, construction equipment, footings) should be included in the wall design. Depending on whether the wall is free to deflect or restrained, 33 or 50 percent, respectively, of a maximum surcharge load located within a distance equal to the retained height of the wall should be used in design.

If it is determined that retaining walls require an additional seismic design pressure in accordance with the CBC, the following is provided for lateral earth pressures of site retaining walls. A resultant lateral force acting on proposed retaining walls as a result of seismic forces may be computed as 25 pcf-equivalent fluid pressure. This seismic resultant force may be applied to the retaining wall at a point located at (2/3)*H, measured from the bottom of the wall.

Positive drainage measures should be incorporated in design. Retaining wall subdrains should be located below the basement slab elevation and consist of a minimum four-inch diameter perforated ABS-SDR-35 or PVC SCH-40, or equivalent, connected to similar non-perforated outlet pipe. The perforated portion of the pipe should be embedded in at least three cubic feet per lineal foot of 3/4 inch crushed rock or equivalent material which has been wrapped in fabric, consisting of Mirafi 140N or equivalent, and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. The filter fabric should overlap at least 12 inches at the ends of the fabric. Other subdrainage alternatives may be considered but should first be reviewed and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to implementation.

POOL RECOMMENDATIONS
It is H&A’s opinion that the proposed pool shall be supported by conventional foundations or piles into competent bedrock, depending on slope setbacks. The shell shall be designed for full loss of soil support on the downhill side. No pipes shall enter the pool or spa from the slope side.
155
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 22
Excavations of site soils should be performed in accordance with Cal OSHA requirements and in a manner to protect adjacent structures and property. The following minimum recommendations apply to pool design and construction:

Pool Shell
Expansive testing generally indicates ‘Medium’ expansion potential of the on-site soils and should be considered for pool design. Swimming pool walls should be designed to resist an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure of 100 psf both ways. Additionally, the pool shell should be designed as a self-standing structure for total loss of soil support.

Additional loads should be added to the shell design for structures laterally located within the depth of the shell. Consideration should be given to deepening existing or proposed adjacent structure’s footings, so they have no influence on the shell nor derive support from the pool shell.

As the weight of the soil removed for the pool shell exceeds the weight of the pool and water, neither bearing nor settlement due to new loads is an issue.

Decks and Flatwork
Pool decks adjacent to slopes shall be pile supported. Incidental pool decks and flatwork away from slopes, regardless of areas of cut or fill, shall be underlain by a minimum of 2 feet of approved compacted fill beneath existing grade or finish grade, whichever is lower, and extend a minimum of two (2) feet beyond the footprint of the deck/flatwork, where possible. Approved fill materials in these areas should consist of on-site or import suitable material recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction above optimum moisture contents for fine-grained soils and near optimum moisture contents for coarsegrained soils in accordance with the slab recommendations in this report. From a geotechnical standpoint, concrete slabs should be a minimum five (5) inches thick and reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced at least 24 inches on center. Exterior slabs should be scored or saw cut, 1/2” to 3/8” deep, often enough so that no section is greater than ten feet by ten feet. The slabs should be separated from the foundations and sidewalks with expansion joint material.

Other Pool Considerations
Hydrostatic relief valves should be incorporated into the pool design. All fittings and pipe joints should be heavy duty and should be properly sealed to prevent water from leaking into the underlying soils. A poorly designed, installed, or maintained waterproofing system could lead to excessive soil movement upon occurrence of the leakage. An elastic waterproof expansion joint should be installed to prevent water from seeping into the soil at all deck joints.
156
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 23

SLAB-ON-GRADE
Building slabs shall be structural, fully supported by the foundation system.

Incidental concrete slabs should be supported on properly compacted soils in accordance with the site preparation and grading section of this report. Slab subgrade soils should not be allowed to dry out and should be maintained at the placement moisture condition until concreting. From a geotechnical standpoint, as a minimum, slabs should be 5-inches thick and reinforced with #4 reinforcing bars spaced at 12-inches on center each way.

Expansive structural slab and slab-on-grade subgrade should be pre-saturated just prior to construction.

Any interior slab to receive a moisture-sensitive floor covering should include a moisture membrane system. The vapor barrier shall consist of Stego Wrap Vapor Barrier 15 mil extruded poloylefin plastic, or equivalent. No recycled content or woven materials are permitted. Permeance as tested before and after mandatory conditioning (ASTM E 1745 section 7.1 and sub-paragraphs 7.1.1 – 7.1.5): less than 0.01 perms [grains/(ft2 · hr · inhg)] and comply with the ASTM E 1745-11 class a requirements. Install vapor barrier according to ASTM E 1643-11 and the manufactures recommendations, unless directed otherwise by the project structural engineer.

Slabs should be properly designed and reinforced for the construction and service loading conditions. The structural details, such as slab thickness, concrete strength, amount, and type of reinforcements, joint spacing, etc., should be established by the Project Structural Engineer.

SOIL CORROSIVITY
Limited soil constituent tests were performed on a select sample of site soils to give a general idea as to the corrosive nature of on-site soils to proposed concrete foundations, rebar, and any underground metal conduit. A corrosion engineer/specialist should be consulted for any advanced analysis or recommendations relating to corrosion at the site.

Constituent test results are presented in Appendix A.

Concrete Corrosion
Disintegration of concrete may be attributed to the chemical reaction of soil sulfates and hydrated lime and calcium aluminate within the cement. The severity of the reaction resulting in expansion and disruption of the cement is primarily a function of the soluble sulfates and the water-cement ratio of the concrete. A soluble sulfate content of 0.0050% by weight has been recorded from corrosivity testing conducted on on-Site soils, as indicated in the test results provided in Appendix A. In accordance with Table 19.3.1.1 of 157
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 24
ACI 318-19, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, soils exhibiting soluble sulfate content less than 0.1% by weight are classified as ‘S0’. ‘S0’ sulfate class has no type restriction on concrete and a minimum requirement of fc’ of 2500 psi.

Metal Corrosion
In the evaluation of soil corrosivity to metal, the hydrogen ion concentrate (pH) and the electrical resistivity of the site and backfill soils are the principal variables in determining the service life of ferrous metal conduit. The pH of soil and water is a measure of acidity or alkalinity, while the resistivity is a measure of the soil’s resistance to the flow of electrical current.

Currently available design charts indicate that corrosion rates decrease with increasing resistivity and increasing alkalinity. It can also be noted that for alkaline soils, the corrosion rate is more influenced by resistivity than by pH.

The resistivity value of 730 ohm-cm, as well as a pH-value of 7.81 classifies the on-site soils tested to be ‘Severely’ to buried ferrous metals. Based on California Test 643, the year to perforation for 18-gauge steel in contact with soils of similar resistivity and pHvalue is approximately 22 years. In lieu of additional testing, alternative piping materials, i.e. coatings, plastic piping, may be used instead of metal if longer service life is desired or required. Where more detailed corrosion evaluation is required, we recommend that a qualified corrosion consultant be engaged to provide further evaluation and recommendations.

A soluble chloride content of 113 ppm was recorded and is considered low to the threshold values of 500 ppm per Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines 2018. Therefore, no special measure in terms of rebar protection against chloride corrosion is recommended herein as a result of the low soluble chloride content tested.

SITE DRAINAGE
In accordance with the CBC, unless exceptions apply, the ground immediately adjacent to buildings should be sloped away from the building not less than 5% for a minimum distance of 10 feet. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, the 5% slope should be provided to an alternate method of diverting water from the foundation system, such as swales (sloped at 2%). Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the building foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 2% away from the building.

IRRIGATION / VEGETATION
As with all properties on, adjacent to, or with slopes, the application of water should be minimized. Plant materials such as ice plants or succulents should not be planted on 158
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 25
slopes. If and whenever possible, drought tolerant, deep rooted plant materials should be utilized on slopes, with California native vegetation being considered first.

UTILITY TRENCHES
All trenches should be backfilled with approved fill material, compacted to relative compaction of not less than 90 percent of maximum density. Care should be taken during backfilling to prevent utility line damage. The on-site soils may be used for backfilling utility trenches from one foot above the top of pipe to the surface, provided the material is free of organic matter and deleterious substances. Any soft and/or loose materials or fill encountered at a pipe invert should be removed and replaced with properly compacted fill or adequate bedding material. Imported soils for pipe bedding should consist of nonexpansive granular soils. The walls of temporary construction trenches may not be stable when excavated nearly vertically due to the potential for caving. Shoring of excavation walls or flattening of slopes will be required for temporary excavations deeper than 4 feet.

All work associated with trenches, excavations and shoring must conform to the State of California Safety Code.

PLAN REVIEW, OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
As foundation and earthwork plans are completed, Hamilton & Associates should be retained to provide plan review for intent of our recommendations. The review will enable us to modify our recommendations should the final design conditions not be as we understand them. During construction, we should provide field observation and testing to check that site preparation, grading, and foundation installation conform to the intent of our recommendations and to the project plans and specifications. As needed, during construction, we should be retained to consult on geotechnical questions, construction problems, and unanticipated conditions. This would allow us to develop supplemental recommendations as appropriate for the actual subsurface conditions encountered and the specific construction techniques. Furthermore, we would prepare a construction observation and testing report for the building department.

CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Ms. Yukiko Ogasawara for the proposed project at the subject site. The report has not been prepared for use by other parties and may not contain sufficient information for the purposes of other parties.

The Owner or their representatives are responsible for ensuring the information and recommendations contained in this report are brought to the attention of the project engineers and architects, incorporated into the project plans, and implemented by project contractors. This report should be named on project grading plans as a part of the project specifications.
159
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 26
We request and recommend notification should any of the following occur:

1. Final plans for site development indicate utilization of areas not originally proposed for construction.

2. Structural loading conditions vary from those utilized for evaluation and preparation of this report.

3. The site is not developed within 12 months following the date of this report.

4. Change of ownership of property occurs.

If changes or delays do occur, this office should be notified and provided with finalized plans of site development for our review to enable us to provide the necessary recommendations for additional work and/or updating of the report. Any charges for such review and necessary recommendations would be at the prevailing rate at the time of performing review work.

The findings contained in this report are based upon our evaluation and interpretation of the information obtained from the subsurface exploration performed and the results of laboratory testing and engineering analysis. As part of the engineering analysis, it had been assumed, and is expected, that the geotechnical conditions which exist across the area of study are similar to those encountered in the subsurface exploration. However, no warranty is expressed or implied as to the conditions at locations or depths other than those excavated. Should any conditions encountered during construction differ from those described herein, this office should be contacted immediately for recommendations prior to continuation of work.

Our findings and recommendations were obtained in accordance with generally accepted current professional principles and local practice in geotechnical engineering and reflect our best professional judgment. We make no other warranty, either express or implied.

These recommendations are, however, dependent on the above assumption of uniformity and upon proper quality control of construction. Geotechnical observations and testing should be provided on a continuous basis during temporary and foundation construction at the site to confirm design assumptions and to verify conformance with the intent of our recommendations. If parties other than Hamilton & Associates, Inc., are engaged to provide geotechnical services during construction they must be informed that they will be required to assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical phase of the project by concurring with the recommendations in this report or providing alternative recommendations.
160
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Page 27
This concludes our scope of services as described during our proposal dated September 26, 2023, however, this report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for the project. Any further geotechnical services that may be required of our office to respond to questions/comments of the controlling authorities after their review of the report will be performed on a time and expense basis as per our current fee schedule. We would not proceed with any response to report review comments/questions without authorization from your office.

We appreciate your business and hope that we can assist you during construction related services.
161
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 References

REFERENCES
Prior Site Reports
Hamilton and Associates, Inc. (2013), Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California, Project No. 13-1672, dated July 19, 2023.

Hamilton & Associates, Inc. (2014), Report of Deep Seepage Pit Percolation Testing, Tentative Parcel Map 72775 Lots 1 & 2, APN 7567-011-020, Tentatively 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California, Project No. 13-1672, dated May 29, 2014.

Wildan (2013/14), Approval Letter of Geotechnical / Geological Reports and OWTS Report, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California, dated October 23, 2013 (14).

Hamilton and Associates, Inc. (2021), Updated Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology Investigation, Proposed Residential Development 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California, Project No. 13-1675, dated November 8, 2021.

General and Local References
Anderson, J.L., 1987, The Flying Triangle landslide: Geologic, geomorphologic, and tectonic factors, in, Peter J. Fischer, editor, Geology of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay: Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., Field Trip Guidebook, Los Angeles, CA, June 7, 1987.

Coastline Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., August 9, 1995, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Residential Improvements, 33 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA, Project No. 1027C-075.

Coastline Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. 2004, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Residential Additions, APN 7567-011-018, 17 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California: Consultant’s Technical Report, dated November 10, 2004, Project No.2071C-024.

California Geological Survey, 2002/2011, Interactive probabilistic seismic hazards map:
http://conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rregional/pshamap//html. *Cleveland, G.B., 1976, Geology of the northeast part of the Palos Verdes Hills, Los Angeles County, California: Calif. Div. Mines and Geol. Map Sheet 2.*Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, Seismic Hazard Zones Special Map, San Pedro 7.5 Minute Quadrangle.

DeVries, G., 2004, Preliminary Engineering Investigation, Proposed Residential Addition, 17 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA: Consultant’s Technical Report, dated October 29, 2004, Project No. 1281-024.

Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1999, Geologic map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and vicinity:

Dibblee Foundation Map DF-70.

Ehlert, Keith W., Consulting Engineering Geologist, August 2, 1995, Geologic Investigation for Proposed Residential Improvements, 33 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA, Project No. 1027C-075
162
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 References
Ehlig, P.L., 1986, The Portuguese Bend Landslide: Its mechanism and a plan for its stabilization, in, P.L. Ehlig, compiler, Landslides and landslide mitigation in Southern California: Geol. Soc. Amer., Cordilleran Section, 82nd Annual Meeting.

Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc., 2010, Response to the Department of Public Works, County of Los Angeles, Geologic and Soils Engineering Review Sheets Dated August 6, 2008 and August 8, 2008, Grading Plan Check No. 0806110003; Proposed Residential Development, APZ: 7567-011-018, 17 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California: Consultant’s Technical Report, dated August 26, 2010, Project No.:
09-AA-003EGR.

Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A., Revised 2007, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist-Priolo earthquakes fault zoning act with index to earthquake fault zones map; California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Hamilton & Associates, Inc., Geotechnical and geologic investigation report, proposed swimming pool, garage, retaining walls, propane tank and cabana. 29 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California: Consultant’s Technical Report, dated March 11. 2013, Project No. 12-1644.

Haydon, W.D., 2007, Landslide Inventory Map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, Los Angeles County, California: Calif. Geol. Surv.

Jennings, Charles, 2010, “Fault Activity Map of California”: Online Keene, A.G, 1986, Flying Triangle Landslide, City of Rolling Hills, California, in, P.L. Ehlig, compiler, Landslides and Landslide Mitigation in Southern California: Geol. Soc.

Amer., Cordilleran Section, 82nd Annual Meeting.

Maurseth, Howe, Lockwood and Associates, 1970, Geology and Soils Investigation, Flying Triangle area, City of Rolling Hills, California: Consultants’ Technical Report, dated June 11, 1970, Project No. 4477-FG.Slosson/County of Los Angeles, 1986/7, Geologic Map of the Flying Triangle Landslide: Unpublished geologic map on file at County of Los Angeles Public Works: Scale 1”=100’. Note: This map is detailed in Flying Triangle area, but the investigator and date are not known with certainty.

Steiner, E., 2004, The Portuguese Bend Landslide, in, Palos Verdes Peninsula: Fabulous geology in a beautiful setting, A.R. Brown, editor: Los Angeles Basin Geol. Soc., Field Trip. June 26, 2004.

Treiman, J.J., and Lundberg, M.M., 1998b, Fault number 128b, Palos Verdes Fault Zone, Palos Verdes Hills section, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States:

U.S. Geol. Survey. Website, http//earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/faults.

United States Geological Survey, Java ground motion parameter calculator website:

Version 5.1.0., Work Order 02-3401.

Woodring, W.P., Bramlette, M.N., and Kew, W.S.W., 1946, Geology and Paleontology of the Palos Verdes Hills, California: U.S. Geol. Survey, Prof. Paper 207.

Woods, M. C., and Seiple, W. R., ed., 1995, “The Northridge, California Earthquake of January 17, 1994”, California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 116.

Ziony, J. I. ed., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles region – an earth science perspective: U.S. Geol. Surv. Professional Paper 1360. 163
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 References
Aerial Photographs
Date Flight/Frames
2-24-99 C134-37/206, 207
10-15-97 C117-36/135, 136
1-29-95 C102-36/4,5
6-9-93 C93-12/208,209
1-29-92 C85-8/35,36
1-7-88 19279,17980
1-27-86 E/363,364
5-12-79 FCLA-12/139, 140
3-17-78 78047/193,194
1-31-70 61-9/184,185
1-18-68 #4/55, 56
2-20-58 CAA-9/34, 35
8-31-54 19K/18, 19
164
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Appendix A

APPENDIX A
Plate A-1 Site Plan & Geologic Map
Plate A-2 Cross Section A-A’
Plate A-3 Cross Section B-B’
Plate A-4 Cross Section C-C’
Plate A-5 Cross Section D-D’
Plate A-6 Cross Section E-E’
Plate A-7 Los Angeles County Geologic Map
Plates B-1 through B-16 Logs of Test Pits & Borings
Plates C-1 and C-2 Consolidation Test Results
Plates D-1 through D-8 Direct Shear Test Results

LABORATORY TESTS
After samples were visually classified in the laboratory, a testing program that would provide data for our evaluation was established. The results are presented in the following sections.

MOISTURE CONTENT AND DENSITY TESTS
The undisturbed soil retained within the sampler rings was tested in the laboratory to determine in-place dry density and moisture content. The results are presented below:

Test Pit No. Depth
(feet bgs)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Moisture Content
(%)
TP-1 3.0 DS 14.4
TP-2 0.5 93.5 10.8
TP-2 2.0 69.5 12.7
TP-2 3.0 63.3 10.3
TP-3 1.0 83.3 13.5
TP-3 2.0 74.5 21.7
TP-4 1.0 84.9 12.5
TP-5 3.0 D.S. 9.0
TP-5 4.0 73.8 12.4
TP-6 3.0 82.4 8.8
TP-7 3.0 83.9 11.6
TP-8 4.5 80.9 13.8
TP-9 4.0 68.9 3.8
TP-10 3.0 46.0 14.5
165
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Appendix A
B-1 5.0 DS 12.9
B-1 10.0 107 13.0
B-1 15.0 105.5 15.7
B-1 20.0 98.4 15.9
B-1 30.0 98.3 15.2
B-1 40.0 94.2 21.6
B-1 50.0 105.1 21.4
B-1 59.0 92.8 22.6
B-2 5.0 98.8 20.3
B-2 10.0 104.1 11.1
B-2 20.0 103.7 16.8
B-2 30.0 79.3 41.1
B-2 40.0 105.2 17.6
B-2 50.0 96.6 25.3
B-2 59 83.4 11.2
DS = Disturbed Sample

CONSOLIDATION TESTS
One dimensional consolidation test were performed on selected samples of the bedrock to determine the settlement characteristics and effects when placed in contact with water.

The results of these tests are shown graphically on the appended “C” Plate.

DIRECT SHEAR TESTS
Direct shear and repeated shear tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed and remolded samples to determine the shear strength parameters of bedrock soil samples. The results of these tests are shown graphically on the appended “D” Plates.

MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST
The following maximum density test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D1557, Method A, using 5 equal layers, 25 blows each layer, 10-pound hammer, 18 inch drop in a 1/30 cubic foot mold. The results are as follows:

Test Pit No. Depth
(feet)
Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
Optimum
Moisture
Content (%)
Material
Classification
TP-1 0’-2’ 103.5 17.3 Clayey Silt

EXPANSION TEST
An expansion test was performed on a soil samples to determine the swell characteristics.

The expansion test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D4829, Expansion Index 166
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Appendix A
Test. The expansion sample was remolded to approximately 50 percent of saturation, subjected to 144 pounds per square foot surcharge load and submerged in water.

Location
Molded Dry
Density
(pcf)
Molded
Moist.

Content
(%)
Saturation
(%)
Expansion
Index
Expansion
Classification
TP-1 (0’-2’) 84.4 17.7 48.3 60 Moderate

CORROSIVITY TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed by Cal Land Engineering per guidelines of California 417 (Sulfate), California 422 (Chloride), and California 532 (pH and Resistivity test procedures on a representative sample of the on-Site soils. This test was intended to provide data for a preliminary assessment relative to the potential for concrete deterioration due to soil sulfate and metal deterioration due to pH, resistivity of the soil and chloride content. The test results are shown below:

SAMPLE

SULFATE

CONTENT
(% weight, dry soil)

CHLORIDE
(ppm) pH RESISTIVITY(ohms)
TP-6 (0-3’) 0.0050 113 7.81 730
167
LEGEND
Geologic Units
Qls – Lanslide Debris
Tmb – Basaltic Sills
Tma – Altamira Shale
Symbols
Strike and Dip of Bedding;
@40’ Indicates Depth
Measured in Boring
5 Plunging Anticline /
Syncline
Geologic Cross-Section
Location of Exploratory
Boring and Test Pit
B B’
Site plan based on plan prepared Bolton Engineering
Corp., dated December 18, 2023
TP-10
B-6
Tma
TP-6
23 7
14 18
12 A
Tma
Tma
TP-3
TP-2 TP-5
TP-7
TP-8
TP-9
TP-1
B-1
15 15
18 20
15 5
B-2
12 5 12
TP-10
5 TP-4
20 8
3 4 8 6
8 14
9 8
7 8
6 5
12 14
A’
B’
B
Tma
Tma
Qls Tma
?
?
Estimated Limits of
Landslide Scarp
Approximate Limit of Flying
Triangle Landside
?
?
@54’
@42’
@42’
@40’
@25’
@20’
@13’
@9’
@6’
@5’ 15
13 17
10 14
8 14
12 8
40 10
4 5
13 10
10 6
12 @52’
@27’
@25’
@19’
@16’
@13’
@8’
@3’
E’
D
D’
Inferred Fault Mapped By
Slosson
?
?
B-4
B-3
B-5
B-6
1170
1200
1300
C
C’
E
E’
Ogasawara Residence – 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills Estates, California 23-3282 A-1 May 2024
0 100’ 200’
Scale in Feet
(approx.)
Conceptual Fill
Keyway Limits
Shear Pin
Stabilization
Piles
168
Ogasawara Residence – 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills Estates, California 23-3282 A-2 May 2024
N 22° E
A
1180’
1120’
1060’
A’
1240’
Crest
Rd
1300’
1360’
1180’
1120’
1060’
1240’
1300’
1360’
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A’
Test Pit TP-2
(Projected 25’)
Test Pit
TP-9
(proj'd)
Test Pit
TP-1
Test Pit
TP-5
Boring
B-1
Dirt Road
Tma
Tmb
Tmb
Existing Grade Tmb
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
? ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Tma
Proposed
Grade
Proposed Residence
PL
PL
?
Proposed
Keyway/Benching
Colluvium
Colluvium
Proposed Grade (Fill)
Boring
B-5
Boring
B-2
0 60’ 120’
Scale in Feet
(approx.)
Buttress
Fill
169
A-3
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B-B’
B N 70° E
1180’
1120’
1060’
B’
1240’
Crest Rd
1300’
1360’
1180’
1120’
1060’
1240’
1300’
1360’
Test Pit TP-2
(proj'd)
Dirt Road
Tmb
Existing Grade
Test Pit TP-3
(proj'd)
Test Pit TP-6
(proj'd)
Test Pit TP-7
(proj'd)
Tma
?
?
?
PL
PL
Tmb
B-4
(proj'd)
23-3282
May 2024
Existing Grade
Colluvium
Proposed
Grade
Proposed Residence
with Basement
Ogasawara Residence – 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills Estates, California Tma
0 60’ 120’
Scale in Feet
(approx.)
Shear Pin
Stabilization Piles
Retaining Wall
170
A-4
C C’
1260’
1280’
1300’
1320’
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION C-C’
1260’
1280’
1300’
1320’
Proposed ADU
(Projected)
Existing Grade
Setbacks
Tma
Tma
PL
?
?
?
23-3282
May 2024
Proposed Guest
House
1340’ 1340’
1240’ 1240’
Colluvium
?
?
Ogasawara Residence – 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills Estates, California Proposed
Grade
Buttress
Fill
0 20’ 40’
Scale in Feet
(approx.)
171
A-5
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION D-D’
D D’
1200’
1220’
1240’
1260’
Proposed
Grade
Existing Grade
PL
1280’
1300’
1320’
1180’
Tma
Tma
Tma
?
?
?
?
Tma
1200’
1220’
1240’
1260’
1280’
1300’
1320’
1180’
23-3282
May 2024
Colluvium
Proposed Residence
W/ Basement
Ogasawara Residence – 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills Estates, California Pile-Supported Retaining Wall
to support any proposed infrastructure
adjacent to slopes
0 20’ 40’
Scale in Feet
(approx.)
172
A-6
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION E-E’
E E’
1180’
1220’
1260’
1180’
1220’
1260’
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
1300’ 1300’
Tma
Tma
23-3282
May 2024
Proposed Stable
Proposed
Pool
PL
Ogasawara Residence – 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills Estates, California Tma
?
?
1340’
Bend in Section
Colluvium Crest Road
PL
Proposed Grade
Buttress
Fill
1340’
0 40’ 80’
Scale in Feet
(approx.)
173

Schematic Local Geologic Map
Scale: 1”~200’
N
?
Flying Triangle Landslide
Landslide Scarp per Slosson/County
of Los Angeles (1986/7
Project: Ogasawara Residence
Project No. 23-3282 May 2024
Plate A-7
East Klondike Canyon

SYMBOLS OF MAJOR

GEOLOGICAL UNITS
Qols – Older Landslide
(Surmised)
Tmsh – Altamira Shale
Tmb -- Basalt
Revised from Slosson/County of Los Angeles (1986/7)
29 Crest Road East
17 Crest Road East
23 Crest Road East
C
174
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-1
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282

TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-1’.5”:SOIL:

Clayey Silt, slightly sandy, dark brown, bedrock fragments, loose, dry.

No. TP-1
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:

SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Test Pit Outline
Soil
Total Depth: 3’
Bedrock
-0’
1’.5”- 3’: BEDROCK:

Siltstone, diatomaceous, tan to gray, thinly bedded, well indurated, dry to slightly moist.

Bedding: N45W, 7 SW
175
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-2
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282

TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-1’.5: SOIL:

Clayey Silt, slightly sandy, dark brown, bedrock fragments, loose, dry.

No. TP-2
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:

SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Test Pit Outline
Soil
Total Depth: 4’
Bedrock
-0’
1’.5- 4’: BEDROCK:

Siltstone and Shale, diatomaceous, tan/brown to light gray, thinly bedded, locally hard-cemented, well indurated, slightly moist.

Bedding: E-W, 12 South
176
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-3
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282

TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-2’.9”:SOIL:

Silty Clay, dark brown, few scattered bedrock fragments, slight moist (upper) to very moist (lower), firm to stiff.

No. TP-3
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:

SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Test Pit Outline
Soil
Total Depth: 4’
Bedrock
-0’
2’.9”- 4’: BEDROCK:

Siltstone and Shale, diatomaceous, tan/brown to light gray, thinly bedded, locally hard-cemented, well indurated, slightly moist.

Bedding: N80W, 5 SW
177
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-4
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282

TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-1’.9”: SOIL:

Silty Clay, slightly sandy, dark brown, few small bedrock fragments, slightly moist, stiff.

No. TP-4
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:

SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Test Pit Outline
Soil
Total Depth: 3’
Bedrock
-0’
1’.9”- 3’: BEDROCK:

Siltstone, diatomaceous, tan to light gray, thinly bedded, well indurated, slightly moist.

Bedding: N50W, 12 SW
178
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-5
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282

TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-3’.5”: SOIL:

Silty Clay, slightly sandy, dark brown, few small bedrock fragments, slightly moist, stiff.

No. TP-5
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:

SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Test Pit Outline
Soil
Total Depth: 5’
Bedrock
-0’
3’.5”- 5’: BEDROCK:

Siltstone, tan, thinly bedded, well indurated, slightly moist.

Bedding: N37W, 20 SW
179
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-6
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282

TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-1’: SOIL:

Silty Clay, dark brown, few scattered bedrock fragments, dry to moist, firm.

No. TP-6
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:

SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Test Pit Outline
Soil
Total Depth: 3’
Bedrock
-0’
1’- 3’: BEDROCK:

Siltstone, diatomaceous, tan to light gray, thinly bedded, well indurated, slightly moist.

Bedding: N30W, 23 SW
180
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-7
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282

TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-1’.6”:SOIL:

Silty Clay, dark brown, few small scattered bedrock fragments, dry to moist, firm to stiff.

No. TP-7
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:

SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Test Pit Outline
Soil
Total Depth: 3’
Bedrock
-0’
1’.6”- 3’: BEDROCK:

Siltstone, diatomaceous, tan, thinly bedded, well indurated, slightly moist.

Bedding: N30E, 15 SE 1
N55E, 16 SE 2
2 1
181
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-8
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282

TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-3’: SOIL:

Silty Clay, dark brown, few small scattered bedrock fragments, dry to moist, firm to stiff.

No. TP-8
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:

SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Test Pit Outline
Soil
Total Depth: 4’.6”
Bedrock
-0’
3’- 4’: BEDROCK:

Siltstone, diatomaceous, tan, thinly bedded, well indurated, few hard cemented layers, slightly moist.

Bedding: N-S, 20W 1
N30W, 18SW 2
2 1
182
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-9
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282

TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-2’.6: SOIL:

Silty Clay, dark brown, few small scattered bedrock fragments, dry to moist, firm to stiff.

No. TP-9
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:

SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Test Pit Outline
Soil
Total Depth: 4’
Bedrock
-0’
2’.6”- 4’: BEDROCK:

Siltstone, diatomaceous, tan/brown to beige, thinly bedded, well indurated, slightly moist.

Bedding: N60W, 15 SW
183
North
EQUIPMENT: Track Mounted Excavator
PLATE B-10
LOGGED BY: AM/RK/EH
PROJECT: Ogasawara Residence, 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA PROJECT NO: 23-3282

TEST PIT LOG
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.
0-2’.6”: SOIL:

Silty Clay, dark brown, scattered small bedrock fragments, slightly moist to moist, firm to stiff.

No. TP-10
DATE: 4/5/13
DESCRIPTION:

SKETCH:
-10’
-5’
Soil Test Pit Outline
Total Depth: 3’.6”
Bedrock
-0’
2’.6”- 3’.6”: BEDROCK:

Siltstone, diatomaceous, tan/brown to beige, thinly bedded, well indurated, slightly moist.

Bedding: N55W, 5 SW
184
SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 1
Depth (Ft.)
Description
0-1': Soil (Colluvium):

Silty Clay, dark brown, bedrock fragments, loose, dry.
1'-60': Bedrock:

Siltstone, thinly bedded, beige/gray to tan/brown, diatomaceous, moist, well indurated.

BEDDING:
@ 3' N45W, 12SW

3.2 5
@ 8' E-W, 10S

3.5 10
@ 13' E-W, 6S

3.9 15 @ 15' N70W, 10SW *@ 15'-17' Very Fractured, Tight and Intact @ 19' N40W, 13NE

1.8 20
(Continued)
Project No. 23-3282
Plate B-11
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical and Geologic Engineering Investigation
23 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, California
Samples
U B
Drive
(Kip-Ft.)
185
SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 1 (cont.)
Depth (Ft.)
Description

1.8 20 Bedrock:

Siltstone, thinly bedded, beige/gray to tan/brown, diatomaceous, moist, well indurated.

BEDDING:
@ 22' E-W, 4S
25 @ 27' N45E, 5SE

4.2 30 @ N-S, 3W
@ 31'-34' sandy siltstone, brown, "baked" apperance, blocky fracture. @ 34'-48' Basalt:
dark gray to reddish brown, massive, fractured.
35 10.5 40
(Continued)
Project No. 23-3282
Plate B-12
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical and Geologic Engineering Investigation
23 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, California
Samples
Drive Energy
U B
(Kip-Ft.)
186
SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 1 (cont.)
Depth (Ft.)
Description

10.5 40 Bedrock:

Basalt, dark gray to reddish brown, massive, fractured.

BEDDING:
45 @ 48'-52' Siltstone:
sandy, brown, "baked" apperance.

17.5 50
@ 52'-56' Siltstone: @ 52' N70E, 10SE
light gray to brown, thinly bedded.
55 @ 56'-60' Siltstone:
sandy, "baked" apperance, blocky fracture.

17.9 60 End of Boring @ 60 Feet
Project No. 23-3282
Plate B-13
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical and Geologic Engineering Investigation
23 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, California
Samples
Drive Energy
U B
(Kip-Ft.)
187
SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 2
Depth (Ft.)
Description
0-4': Soil (Colluvium):

Silty Clay, dark brown, few bedrock fragments, loose, dry. 4'-60': Bedrock:

Siltstone, thinly bedded, light gray/tan/brown, diatomaceous, moist, well

3.5 5 indurated.

BEDDING: @ 5' E-W, 15S
@ 6' N85E, 17SE
@ 9' N45W, 14SW

1.8 10
@ 14' N50W, 13SW
15 3.2 20 @ 20' N45W, 10SW
(Continued)
Project No. 23-3282
Plate B-14
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical and Geologic Engineering Investigation
23 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, California
Samples
U B
Drive
(Kip-Ft.)
188
SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 2 (cont.)
Depth (Ft.)
Description

3.2 20 Bedrock:

Siltstone, thinly bedded, light gray/tan/brown, diatomaceous, moist, well indurated.

BEDDING:
@ 20' N45W, 10SW
25 @ 25' N30W, 8SW
@ 29'-38' Basalt:
dark gray to reddish brown, massive, fractured

4.6 30
35 38'-42' Siltstone:
sandy, brown, "baked" apperance.

8.8 40 @ N30W, 14SW
(Continued)
Project No. 23-3282
Plate B-15
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical and Geologic Engineering Investigation
23 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, California
Samples
Drive Energy
U B
(Kip-Ft.)
189
SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 2 (cont.)
Depth (Ft.)
Description

10.5 40 Bedrock:

Siltstone, sandy, brown, "baked" apperance.

BEDDING:
@ 42' N-S, 12W
@ 42'-55' Siltstone
beige/gray to tan/brown.
45 @ 47' N40E, 8NW

17.5 50
@ 54' N60W, 40SW
55 @ 55'-59' Basalt:
dark gray to reddish brown, massive, fractured.

8.8 60 End of Boring @ 60 Feet
Project No. 23-3282
Plate B-16
Hamilton & Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical and Geologic Engineering Investigation
23 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, California
Samples
Drive Energy
U B
(Kip-Ft.)
190
Test Specimen at In-Situ Moisture
Test Specimen Submerged

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00

8.00 9.00

10.00 11.00

12.00 0.1 1 10
Consolidation (Percent)
Pressure (Kips Per Square Foot)
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Geotechnical and GeologicEngineering Investigation
23 Crest Road East
Roliing Hills, California Plate
Project No.

C-1
23-3282

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TP-2 @ 0.5'
191
Test Specimen at In-Situ Moisture
Test Specimen Submerged

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00

8.00 9.00

10.00 11.00

12.00 0.1 1 10
Consolidation (Percent)
Pressure (Kips Per Square Foot)
HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Geotechnical and Geologic Engineering Investigation
23 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, California Plate
Project No.

C-2
23-3282

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TP-7 @ 3'
192

SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Siltstone samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.

The samples had a density of 64.5 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 40 % Cohesion = 400 psf
Friction Angle = 25 degrees
Based on Ultimate Strength
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-1

HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
TP-2 @ 2 Feet
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram

0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
193

SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Clayey Silt samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.

The samples had a density of 79.9 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 32.6 % Cohesion = 175 psf
Friction Angle = 25 degrees
Based on Ultimate Strength
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-2

HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
TP-4 @ 1 Foot
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram

0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
194

SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Siltstone samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.

The samples had a density of 65 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 41 % Cohesion = 350 psf
Friction Angle = 31 degrees
Based on 80% Peak
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-3

HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
TP-5 @ 5 Feet
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram

0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
195

SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Siltstone samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.

The samples had a density of 76.7 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 39.1 % Cohesion = 300 psf
Friction Angle = 27 degrees
Based on Ultimate Strength
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-4

HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
TP-8 @ 4.5 Feet
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram

0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
196

SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Bedrock samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.

The samples had a density of 90 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 38.1 % Cohesion = 450 psf
Friction Angle = 26 degrees
Based on Ultimate Strength
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-5

HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
Boring No. 1 @ 10 Feet
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram

0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
197

REPEATED SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Bedrock samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.

The samples had a density of 92 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 38.5 % Cohesion = 200 psf
Friction Angle = 21 degrees
Based on Ultimate Strength
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-5a

HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
Boring No. 1 @ 10 Feet
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram

0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
198

SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Bedrock samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.

The samples had a density of 85.9 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 36.3 % Cohesion = 300 psf
Friction Angle = 26 degrees
Based on Ultimate Strength
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-6

HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
Boring No. 2 @ 5 Feet
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram

0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
199

SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Bedrock samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.

The samples had a density of 92 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 38.3 % Cohesion = 300 psf
Friction Angle = 27 degrees
Based on Ultimate Strength
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-7

HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
Boring No. 2 @ 10 Feet
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram

0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
200

REPEATED SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Bedrock samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.

The samples had a density of 90 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 36.7 % Cohesion = 300 psf
Friction Angle = 25 degrees
Based on Ultimate Strength
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-7a

HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
Boring No. 2 @ 10 Feet
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram

0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
201

SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Bedrock samples were submerged for at least 24 hours.

The samples had a density of 93 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 38.3 % Cohesion = 350 psf
Friction Angle = 28 degrees
Based on Ultimate Strength
Project No. 23-3282
Plate D-8

HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Rolling Hills, California
23 Crest Road East
0 1
2 3
4 01234
Stress (kips/sq. ft.)
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
Boring No. 2 @ 20 Feet
0 1
2 3
4 012345
Stress (kips/sq. ft)
Horizontal Displacement (X 1/10 inch)
Stress - Displacement Diagram

0.5 Kip
1 Kips
… 2 Kips
202
Ogasawara Residence May 23, 2024
23-3282 Appendix B

APPENDIX B

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
203

1.782
160.00 lbs/ft2 800 600 400 200 0
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Scenario Circular- Global Static Group Cross Section A
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
204

1.209
160.00 lbs/ft2

0.15 800 600 400 200 0
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Scenario Circular- Global Seismic Group Cross Section A Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
205

1.940
160.00 lbs/ft2 800 600 400 200 0
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Scenario Wedge- Global Static Group Cross Section A
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
206

1.183
160.00 lbs/ft2

0.15 800 600 400 200 0
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Scenario Wedge- Global Seismic Group Cross Section A
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
207

1.775
160.00 lbs/ft2 400 300 200 100 0 -100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Scenario Circular- Upper Static Group Cross Section A
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
208

1.258
160.00 lbs/ft2

0.15 400 300 200 100 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Scenario Circular- Upper Seismic Group Cross Section A
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
209

2.054
160.00 lbs/ft2 400 300 200 100 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Scenario Wedge- Upper Static Group Cross Section A
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
210

1.351
160.00 lbs/ft2

0.15 400 300 200 100 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Scenario Wedge- Upper Seismic Group Cross Section A
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
211
Slide Analysis Information
Ogasawara Slope Stability
Project Summary
File Name: Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd
Slide Modeler Version: 9.008
Project Title: Ogaswara Residence
Analysis: Slope Stability
Author: KD
Company: Hamilton & Associates
Date Created: May 2024
Currently Open Scenarios
Group Name Scenario Name Global Minimum Compute Time
Cross Section A
Circular- Global Static
Bishop Simplified:

1.782070 00h:00m:01.56s
Circular- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:

1.209410 00h:00m:01.114s
Wedge- Global Static Bishop Simplified:

1.940020 00h:00m:00.510s
Wedge- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:

1.183430 00h:00m:00.544s
Circular- Upper Static Bishop Simplified:

1.774880 00h:00m:01.80s
Circular- Upper Seismic Bishop Simplified:

1.257560 00h:00m:01.145s
Wedge- Upper Static Bishop Simplified:

2.054370 00h:00m:00.539s
Wedge- Upper Seismic Bishop Simplified:

1.351110 00h:00m:00.513s
General Settings
Units of Measurement: Imperial Units
Time Units: days
Permeability Units: feet/second
Data Output: Standard
Failure Direction: Right to Left
Analysis Options
212
All Open Scenarios
Slices Type: Vertical
Analysis Methods Used
Bishop simplified
Number of slices: 50
Tolerance: 0.005
Maximum number of iterations: 75
Check malpha < 0.2: Yes
Create Interslice boundaries at intersections with
water tables and piezos: Yes
Initial trial value of FS: 1
Steffensen Iteration: Yes
Random Numbers
All Open Scenarios
Pseudo-random Seed: 10116
Random Number Generation Method: Park and Miller v.3
Surface Options
Cross Section A - Circular- Global Static
Surface Type: Circular
Search Method: Auto Refine Search
Divisions along slope: 20
Circles per division: 10
Number of iterations: 10
Divisions to use in next iteration: 50%
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
Cross Section A - Circular- Global Seismic
Surface Type: Circular
Search Method: Auto Refine Search
Divisions along slope: 20
Circles per division: 10
Number of iterations: 10
Divisions to use in next iteration: 50%
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
2/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
213
Cross Section A - Wedge- Global Static
Surface Type: Non-Circular Block Search
Number of Surfaces: 5000
Multiple Groups: Disabled
Pseudo-Random Surfaces: Enabled
Convex Surfaces Only: Disabled
Left Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 135
Left Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 135
Right Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 45
Right Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 45
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
Cross Section A - Wedge- Global Seismic
Surface Type: Non-Circular Block Search
Number of Surfaces: 5000
Multiple Groups: Disabled
Pseudo-Random Surfaces: Enabled
Convex Surfaces Only: Disabled
Left Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 135
Left Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 135
Right Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 45
Right Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 45
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
Cross Section A - Circular- Upper Static
Surface Type: Circular
Search Method: Auto Refine Search
Divisions along slope: 20
Circles per division: 10
Number of iterations: 10
Divisions to use in next iteration: 50%
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
Cross Section A - Circular- Upper Seismic
3/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
214
Surface Type: Circular
Search Method: Auto Refine Search
Divisions along slope: 20
Circles per division: 10
Number of iterations: 10
Divisions to use in next iteration: 50%
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
Cross Section A - Wedge- Upper Static
Surface Type: Non-Circular Block Search
Number of Surfaces: 5000
Multiple Groups: Disabled
Pseudo-Random Surfaces: Enabled
Convex Surfaces Only: Disabled
Left Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 135
Left Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 135
Right Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 45
Right Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 45
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
Cross Section A - Wedge- Upper Seismic
Surface Type: Non-Circular Block Search
Number of Surfaces: 5000
Multiple Groups: Disabled
Pseudo-Random Surfaces: Enabled
Convex Surfaces Only: Disabled
Left Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 135
Left Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 135
Right Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 45
Right Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 45
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
Seismic Loading
Cross Section A - Circular- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section A - Circular- Global Seismic
4/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
215
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Cross Section A - Wedge- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section A - Wedge- Global Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Cross Section A - Circular- Upper Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section A - Circular- Upper Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Cross Section A - Wedge- Upper Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section A - Wedge- Upper Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Loading
All Open Scenarios
 
Distribution: Constant
Magnitude [psf]: 160
Orientation: Normal to boundary
Materials
5/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
216
Fill/Nat
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 115
Cohesion [psf] 290
Friction Angle [deg] 20
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 400
Friction Angle [deg] 25
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Berock (fbc) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 550
Friction Angle [deg] 34
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock abc
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 200
Friction Angle [deg] 21
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Generalized Anisotropic Functions
6/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
217
Name: User Defined 1
Angle From Angle To Material
6 -90 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
12 6 Bedrock abc
90 12 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Name: User Defined 2
Angle From Angle To Material
6 -90 Berock (fbc) >25ft
12 6 Bedrock abc
90 12 Berock (fbc) >25ft
Materials In Use
Material
CircularGlobal
Static
CircularGlobal
Seismic
WedgeGlobal
Static
WedgeGlobal
Seismic
CircularUpper
Static
CircularUpper
Seismic
WedgeUpper
Static
WedgeUpper
Seismic
Fill/Nat
Bedrock (fbc)
<25ft
Berock (fbc)
>25ft
Bedrock
(Aniso) <25 ft
Bedrock
(Aniso) >25 ft
Bedrock abc
Global Minimums
Cross Section A - Circular- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.782070
Center: 112.478, 718.495
Radius: 597.737
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 167.881, 123.331
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 442.787, 220.313
Left Slope Intercept: 167.881 123.331
Right Slope Intercept: 442.787 227.671
Resisting Moment: 2.24428e+08 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.25937e+08 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 5181.06 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 274.906 ft
Surface Average Height: 18.8466 ft
Cross Section A - Circular- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
7/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
218
FS 1.209410
Center: 110.553, 720.732
Radius: 600.576
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 166.858, 122.802
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 442.787, 220.421
Left Slope Intercept: 166.858 122.802
Right Slope Intercept: 442.787 227.671
Resisting Moment: 2.18338e+08 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.80532e+08 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 5215.13 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 275.929 ft
Surface Average Height: 18.9002 ft
Cross Section A - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.940020
Axis Location: 309.399, 735.567
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 178.130, 128.633
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 716.185, 266.391
Resisting Moment: 6.33393e+08 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 3.26488e+08 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 19698 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 538.055 ft
Surface Average Height: 36.6097 ft
Cross Section A - Wedge- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.183430
Axis Location: 309.399, 735.567
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 178.130, 128.633
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 716.185, 266.391
Resisting Moment: 6.15423e+08 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 5.20035e+08 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 19698 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 538.055 ft
Surface Average Height: 36.6097 ft
Cross Section A - Circular- Upper Static
Method: bishop simplified
8/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
219
FS 1.774880
Center: 605.827, 323.269
Radius: 96.219
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 600.745, 227.184
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 679.676, 261.588
Left Slope Intercept: 600.745 231.336
Right Slope Intercept: 679.676 261.588
Resisting Moment: 5.91793e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 3.33427e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 850.774 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 78.9306 ft
Surface Average Height: 10.7788 ft
Cross Section A - Circular- Upper Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.257560
Center: 596.239, 366.044
Radius: 138.927
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 600.745, 227.190
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 690.091, 263.611
Left Slope Intercept: 600.745 231.336
Right Slope Intercept: 690.091 263.611
Resisting Moment: 8.87438e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 7.05684e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 919.34 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 89.346 ft
Surface Average Height: 10.2897 ft
Cross Section A - Wedge- Upper Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 2.054370
Axis Location: 621.888, 373.512
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 597.303, 227.184
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 724.199, 266.047
Resisting Moment: 2.35422e+07 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.14595e+07 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 2575.34 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 126.896 ft
Surface Average Height: 20.2948 ft
Cross Section A - Wedge- Upper Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
9/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
220
FS 1.351110
Axis Location: 624.132, 375.399
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 598.438, 227.184
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 727.287, 265.915
Resisting Moment: 1.88186e+07 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.39283e+07 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 2169.28 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 128.849 ft
Surface Average Height: 16.8358 ft
Global Minimum Coordinates
Cross Section A - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
178.13 128.633
191.209 115.554
662.497 212.703
716.185 266.391
Cross Section A - Wedge- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
178.13 128.633
191.209 115.554
662.497 212.703
716.185 266.391
Cross Section A - Wedge- Upper Static
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
597.303 227.184
605.805 218.682
694.931 236.78
724.199 266.047
Cross Section A - Wedge- Upper Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
598.438 227.184
602.181 223.441
704.681 243.309
727.287 265.915
Entity Information
10/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
221
Cross Section A
Shared Entities
Type Coordinates (x,y)
External Boundary
-0.05, -1.066
851.434, -1.066
851.434, 238.33
851.434, 266.41
851.434, 271.884
806.421, 270.259
758.35, 266.005
736.127, 265.536
711.656, 266.585
691.904, 263.963
673.901, 260.467
640.768, 249.348
603.184, 231.336
600.745, 231.336
600.745, 227.184
570.57, 227.184
570.57, 217.813
487.741, 217.813
457.468, 217.813
442.787, 217.813
442.787, 227.671
434.962, 227.671
434.962, 221.2
426.083, 218.527
405.564, 214.058
361.026, 199.951
333.062, 188.851
308.563, 174.926
293.85, 174.926
276.677, 167.685
249.857, 159.38
223.556, 150.555
186.7, 133.066
128.484, 102.951

79.066, 72.034

61.935, 62.425

47.245, 56.833

29.413, 52.743

17.346, 52.743
-0.05, 58.405
-0.05, 33.377
11/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
222
Material Boundary
-0.05, 33.377

14.663, 33.377

55.937, 33.61

78.928, 46.79
136.717, 84.312
186.643, 108.516
222.976, 126.571
301.398, 149.92
343.968, 167.351
378.987, 182.381
468.712, 199.759
543.985, 209.361
576.41, 214.739
585.937, 218.12
591.627, 221.789
598.532, 225.392
600.745, 227.184
600.745, 225.038
620.7, 225.038
620.7, 229.641
636.966, 229.641
636.966, 234.369
651.998, 234.369
651.998, 238.799
667.486, 238.799
667.486, 243.376
682.64, 243.376
682.64, 248.039
698.289, 248.039
698.289, 252.021
718.486, 252.021
718.486, 256.877
736.499, 256.877
736.499, 260.259
755.712, 260.259
755.712, 263.655
772.809, 263.655
772.809, 266.41
802.093, 266.41
851.434, 266.41
Material Boundary
-0.05, 58.405

12.36, 52.568

20.534, 49.299

31.875, 49.299

53.865, 49.892

71.429, 58.2
107.033, 83.122
153.456, 110.303
185.262, 128.105
240.097, 151.434
300.133, 170.158
347.133, 190.184
397.856, 209.275
417.961, 215.21
442.787, 217.813
12/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
223
Material Boundary
543.985, 209.361
586.652, 210.357
613.826, 210.357
658.317, 214.086
706.271, 225.009
745.434, 238.063
769.678, 241.04
798.033, 241.04
851.434, 238.33
Scenario-based Entities
13/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
224
Type
Coordin
ates
(x,y)
Circular
- Global
Static
Circular
- Global
Seismic
WedgeGlobal
Static
WedgeGlobal
Seismic
Circular
- Upper
Static
Circular
- Upper
Seismic
WedgeUpper
Static
WedgeUpper
Seismic
Distribut
ed Load
570.57,
217.813
487.741,
217.813
457.468,
217.813
442.787,
217.813
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:

Normal
to
boundar
yMagnit
ude:
160
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:

Normal
to
boundar
yMagnit
ude:
160
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Block
Search
Window
578.481,
184.198
739.895,
206.856
739.895,
262.963
578.265,
218.941
Block
Search
Window
185.959,

86.266
406.873,
136.755
406.873,
201.367
185.959,
130.863
Block
Search
Window
694.146,
220.218
833.398,
220.218
833.398,
268.966
693.512,
257.411
Block
Search
Window
582.917,
203.855
648.302,
203.855
648.302,
247.013
582.485,
220.039
14/14
Ogasawara Slope Stability Thursday, May 23, 2024
225

1.577 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Scenario Circular- Global Static Group Cross Section B
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
226

1.118 0.15 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Scenario Circular- Global Seismic Group Cross Section B Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
227

1.556 400 300 200 100 0 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Scenario Wedge- Global Static Group Cross Section B
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
228

1.102

0.15 400 300 200 100 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Scenario Wedge- Global Seismic Group Cross Section B
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
229
Slide Analysis Information
Ogasawara Slope Stability
Project Summary
File Name: Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd
Slide Modeler Version: 9.008
Project Title: Ogaswara Residence
Analysis: Slope Stability
Author: KD
Company: Hamilton & Associates
Date Created: May 2024
Currently Open Scenarios
Group Name Scenario Name Global Minimum Compute Time
Cross Section B
Circular- Global Static
Bishop Simplified:

1.577180 00h:00m:01.36s
Circular- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:

1.118300 00h:00m:01.240s
Wedge- Global Static Bishop Simplified:

1.555610 00h:00m:00.568s
Wedge- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:

1.101530 00h:00m:00.589s
General Settings
Units of Measurement: Imperial Units
Time Units: days
Permeability Units: feet/second
Data Output: Standard
Failure Direction: Right to Left
Analysis Options
All Open Scenarios
230
Slices Type: Vertical
Analysis Methods Used
Bishop simplified
Number of slices: 50
Tolerance: 0.005
Maximum number of iterations: 75
Check malpha < 0.2: Yes
Create Interslice boundaries at intersections with
water tables and piezos: Yes
Initial trial value of FS: 1
Steffensen Iteration: Yes
Random Numbers
All Open Scenarios
Pseudo-random Seed: 10116
Random Number Generation Method: Park and Miller v.3
Surface Options
Cross Section B - Wedge- Global Static
Surface Type: Non-Circular Block Search
Number of Surfaces: 5000
Multiple Groups: Disabled
Pseudo-Random Surfaces: Enabled
Convex Surfaces Only: Disabled
Left Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 135
Left Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 135
Right Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 45
Right Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 45
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
All other Scenarios
Surface Type: Circular
Search Method: Auto Refine Search
Divisions along slope: 20
Circles per division: 10
Number of iterations: 10
Divisions to use in next iteration: 50%
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
2/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
231
Seismic Loading
Cross Section B - Circular- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section B - Circular- Global Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Cross Section B - Wedge- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section B - Wedge- Global Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Materials
Fill/Nat
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 115
Cohesion [psf] 290
Friction Angle [deg] 20
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 400
Friction Angle [deg] 25
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Berock (fbc) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 550
Friction Angle [deg] 34
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
3/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
232
Bedrock (Aniso A) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso A) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock abc
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 200
Friction Angle [deg] 21
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso D) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso D) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso B) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso B) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Generalized Anisotropic Functions
4/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
233
Name: Aniso B <25ft
Angle From Angle To Material
9 -90 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
13 9 Bedrock abc
90 13 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Name: Aniso B >25ft
Angle From Angle To Material
9 -90 Berock (fbc) >25ft
13 9 Bedrock abc
90 13 Berock (fbc) >25ft
Materials In Use
Material Circular- Global
Static
Circular- Global
Seismic
Wedge- Global
Static
Wedge- Global
Seismic
Fill/Nat
Bedrock (fbc)
<25ft
Berock (fbc)
>25ft
Bedrock abc
Bedrock (Aniso
B) <25 ft
Bedrock (Aniso
B) >25 ft
Support
Shear Pin 1
Color
Support Type Pile/Micro Pile
Force Application Active
Out-of-Plane Spacing [ft] 10
Failure Mode Shear
Pile Shear Strength [lb] 200000
Force Direction Perpendicular to pile
Global Minimums
Cross Section B - Circular- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
5/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
234
FS 1.577180
Center: 52.357, 563.379
Radius: 429.130
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 148.390, 145.133
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 320.205, 228.103
Resisting Moment: 1.14611e+08 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 7.26686e+07 lb-ft
Active Support Moment: -7.05645e+06 lb-ft
Maximum Single Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Slice Area: 3618.57 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 171.815 ft
Surface Average Height: 21.0609 ft
Cross Section B - Circular- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.118300
Center: 53.146, 564.668
Radius: 430.209
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 148.420, 145.141
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 321.133, 228.122
Resisting Moment: 1.10755e+08 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 9.90388e+07 lb-ft
Active Support Moment: -7.09356e+06 lb-ft
Maximum Single Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Slice Area: 3670.13 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 172.713 ft
Surface Average Height: 21.2499 ft
Cross Section B - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.555610
Axis Location: 152.871, 356.489
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 149.724, 146.662
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 318.845, 228.075
Resisting Moment: 5.40327e+07 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 3.47341e+07 lb-ft
Active Support Moment: -2.89707e+06 lb-ft
Maximum Single Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Slice Area: 3666.54 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 169.12 ft
Surface Average Height: 21.6801 ft
Cross Section B - Wedge- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
6/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
235
FS 1.101530
Axis Location: 167.210, 397.239
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 146.257, 144.531
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 356.805, 228.852
Resisting Moment: 1.18209e+08 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.07314e+08 lb-ft
Active Support Moment: -4.57135e+06 lb-ft
Maximum Single Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Slice Area: 8105.54 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 210.548 ft
Surface Average Height: 38.4973 ft
Global Minimum Coordinates
Cross Section B - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
149.724 146.662
159.472 136.914
309.322 218.552
318.845 228.075
Cross Section B - Wedge- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
146.257 144.531
153.39 137.398
296.485 168.532
356.805 228.852
Entity Information
Cross Section B
Shared Entities
Type Coordinates (x,y)
7/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
236
External Boundary

0.86, -2.37
850.54, -2.305
850.382, 250.993
850.54, 275.581
850.54, 283.704
771.479, 279.913
737.093, 279.913
703.52, 275.581
668.592, 268.541
628.265, 261.485
479.623, 238.486
479.623, 231.364
296.625, 227.621
296.625, 229.479
252.053, 209.522
225.375, 199.033
199.087, 187.896
185.859, 180.413
172.046, 171.06
164.707, 164.585
148.463, 145.153
144.663, 144.081
138.545, 144.081
134.951, 145.61
127.837, 153.196

87.143, 168.548

32.314, 181.22

0.86, 189.505

0.86, 182.783

1.165, 162.605
Material Boundary
162.064, 152.67
187.034, 174.33
200.572, 183.055
221.33, 191.779
244.795, 201.105
269.464, 211.334
296.625, 223.905
296.625, 227.621
Material Boundary
703.52, 275.581
750.597, 275.581
811.367, 275.581
850.54, 275.581
Material Boundary

0.86, 182.783

34.916, 174.093

81.38, 162.059
116.143, 151.028
126.506, 144.343
134.862, 136.32
143.553, 134.315
152.913, 136.655
162.064, 152.67
8/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
237
Material Boundary

1.165, 162.605

66.216, 136.669
105.926, 118.919
142.629, 110.195
159.476, 113.805
174.701, 130.609
188.38, 147.307
206.407, 157.427
241.605, 176.38
284.574, 189.417
307.729, 198.954
345.43, 204.049
411.712, 204.714
462.789, 210.886
553.781, 226.844
617.96, 236.872
679.131, 243.557
753.626, 248.582
808.274, 250.115
850.382, 250.993
Scenario-based Entities
Type Coordinates
(x,y)
CircularGlobal Static
CircularGlobal
Seismic
WedgeGlobal Static
WedgeGlobal
Seismic
Block Search
Window
126.595,

98.475
239.253,

98.475
239.253,
187.829
126.595,
131.065
Block Search
Window
287.338,
126.949
619.831,
126.949
619.831,
228.224
287.338,
223.192
9/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
238

1.666
120.00 lbs/ft2
120.00 lbs/ft2 125 100 75 50 25 0 -25
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275
Scenario Circular- Global Static Group Cross Section C
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
239

1.288
120.00 lbs/ft2
120.00 lbs/ft2 250 0.15 200 150 100 50 0
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Circular- Global Seismic Group Cross Section C Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
240

1.524
120.00 lbs/ft2
120.00 lbs/ft2 200 150 100 50 0
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Wedge- Global Static Group Cross Section C
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
241

1.109
120.00 lbs/ft2
120.00 lbs/ft2

0.15 250 200 150 100 50 0
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Wedge- Global Seismic Group Cross Section C
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
242
Slide Analysis Information
Ogasawara Slope Stability
Project Summary
File Name: Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd
Slide Modeler Version: 9.008
Project Title: Ogaswara Residence
Analysis: Slope Stability
Author: KD
Company: Hamilton & Associates
Date Created: May 2024
Currently Open Scenarios
Group Name Scenario Name Global Minimum Compute Time
Cross Section C
Circular- Global Static
Bishop Simplified:

1.666370 00h:00m:01.631s
Circular- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:

1.287760 00h:00m:02.0s
Wedge- Global Static Bishop Simplified:

1.524060 00h:00m:00.659s
Wedge- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:

1.109170 00h:00m:00.541s
General Settings
Units of Measurement: Imperial Units
Time Units: days
Permeability Units: feet/second
Data Output: Standard
Failure Direction: Left to Right
Analysis Options
All Open Scenarios
243
Slices Type: Vertical
Analysis Methods Used
Bishop simplified
Number of slices: 50
Tolerance: 0.005
Maximum number of iterations: 75
Check malpha < 0.2: Yes
Create Interslice boundaries at intersections with
water tables and piezos: Yes
Initial trial value of FS: 1
Steffensen Iteration: Yes
Random Numbers
All Open Scenarios
Pseudo-random Seed: 10116
Random Number Generation Method: Park and Miller v.3
Surface Options
Cross Section C - Wedge- Global Static
Surface Type: Non-Circular Block Search
Number of Surfaces: 5000
Multiple Groups: Disabled
Pseudo-Random Surfaces: Enabled
Convex Surfaces Only: Disabled
Left Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 135
Left Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 135
Right Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 45
Right Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 45
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
All other Scenarios
Surface Type: Circular
Search Method: Auto Refine Search
Divisions along slope: 20
Circles per division: 10
Number of iterations: 10
Divisions to use in next iteration: 50%
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
2/10
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
244
Seismic Loading
Cross Section C - Circular- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section C - Circular- Global Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Cross Section C - Wedge- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section C - Wedge- Global Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Loading
All Open Scenarios
 
Distribution: Constant
Magnitude [psf]: 120
Orientation: Vertical
 
Distribution: Constant
Magnitude [psf]: 120
Orientation: Vertical
Materials
Fill/Nat
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 115
Cohesion [psf] 290
Friction Angle [deg] 20
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
3/10
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
245
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 400
Friction Angle [deg] 25
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Berock (fbc) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 550
Friction Angle [deg] 34
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso A) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso A) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock abc
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 200
Friction Angle [deg] 21
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso D) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso D) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso B) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
4/10
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
246
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso B) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso C)<25
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso C) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Generalized Anisotropic Functions
Name: Aniso A <25 ft
Angle From Angle To Material
6 -90 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
12 6 Bedrock abc
90 12 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Name: Aniso C <25ft
Angle From Angle To Material
-15 -90 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
0 -15 Bedrock abc
90 0 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Name: Aniso C> 25ft
Angle From Angle To Material
-15 -90 Berock (fbc) >25ft
0 -15 Bedrock abc
90 0 Berock (fbc) >25ft
Materials In Use
5/10
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
247
Material Circular- Global
Static
Circular- Global
Seismic
Wedge- Global
Static
Wedge- Global
Seismic
Fill/Nat
Bedrock (fbc)
<25ft
Berock (fbc)
>25ft
Bedrock (Aniso
A) <25 ft
Bedrock abc
Bedrock (Aniso
C)<25
Bedrock (Aniso
C) >25ft
Support
Shear Pin 1
Color
Support Type Pile/Micro Pile
Force Application Active
Out-of-Plane Spacing [ft] 10
Failure Mode Shear
Pile Shear Strength [lb] 200000
Force Direction Perpendicular to pile
Global Minimums
Cross Section C - Circular- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.666370
Center: 225.809, 59.559
Radius: 47.328
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 179.408, 50.243
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 235.783, 13.294
Resisting Moment: 2.67653e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.6062e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 598.178 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 56.3755 ft
Surface Average Height: 10.6106 ft
Cross Section C - Circular- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
6/10
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
248
FS 1.287760
Center: 258.916, 253.580
Radius: 241.416
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 89.783, 81.314
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 235.979, 13.257
Resisting Moment: 4.08282e+07 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 3.17048e+07 lb-ft
Active Support Moment: -4.55319e+06 lb-ft
Maximum Single Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Support Force: 20000 lb
Total Slice Area: 2258.14 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 146.196 ft
Surface Average Height: 15.446 ft
Cross Section C - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.524060
Axis Location: 224.297, 207.783
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 75.786, 81.516
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 236.204, 13.214
Resisting Moment: 5.70623e+07 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 3.74409e+07 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 4318.58 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 160.418 ft
Surface Average Height: 26.9208 ft
Cross Section C - Wedge- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.109170
Axis Location: 225.612, 218.694
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 68.809, 84.424
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 238.946, 12.689
Resisting Moment: 6.07811e+07 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 5.47988e+07 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 4579.35 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 170.137 ft
Surface Average Height: 26.9157 ft
Global Minimum Coordinates
Cross Section C - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
X Y

75.7857 81.5163
129.88 27.422
226.056 3.06597
236.204 13.2136
7/10
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
249
Cross Section C - Wedge- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
X Y

68.809 84.4243
125.735 27.4982
229.427 3.1705
238.946 12.6894
Entity Information
Cross Section C
Shared Entities
Type Coordinates (x,y)
External Boundary

0.423, 0.306
223.699, 0.0298297
245.088, 0.00337281
265.451, -0.0218143
280.154, -0.04
280.154, 21.9205
280.154, 26.083
269.263, 21.845
260.488, 17.137
252.622, 14.086
247.199, 13.104
239.685, 12.548
234.387, 13.561
228.036, 16.906
219.888, 23.026
215.86, 25.241
198.375, 36.31
178.602, 50.835
175.631, 50.835
165.511, 50.835
165.511, 53.94
163.441, 53.94
160.973, 53.94
154.599, 56.675
146.683, 61.17
142.989, 62.967
130.105, 69.634
124.572, 72.968
105.501, 76.581

98.557, 81.314

76.132, 81.314

71.665, 83.923

43.992, 88.78

0.423, 99.52

0.423, 96.667

0.423, 75.575
8/10
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
250
Material Boundary

0.423, 96.667

35.453, 87.777

77.654, 80.25

77.654, 78.548

86.208, 78.548

86.208, 76.418

95.923, 76.418

95.923, 73.198
105.253, 73.198
105.253, 75.469
115.866, 73.544
115.866, 71.726
118.848, 71.726
118.848, 69.186
121.869, 69.186
121.869, 67.114
125.89, 67.114
125.89, 64.092
129.652, 64.092
129.652, 61.137
134.75, 61.137
134.75, 58.262
140.374, 58.262
140.374, 55.267
145.63, 55.267
145.63, 52.259
160.973, 52.259
160.973, 53.94
Material Boundary
175.631, 50.835
187.807, 41.765
200.393, 31.999
217.409, 22.534
222.724, 18.09
228.166, 14.237
232.356, 12.359
235.872, 11.54
239.483, 11.396
247.911, 11.974
253.328, 13.079
258.399, 14.552
265.551, 17.153
276.039, 21.227
278.033, 21.877
280.154, 21.9205
Material Boundary

0.423, 75.575

7.22521, 73.8106

35.555, 66.462

77.404, 58.451
116.178, 49.205
132.715, 45.043
146.459, 39.7691
162.398, 31.6914
185.859, 19.802
196.869, 13.799
223.699, 0.0298297
236.99, 0.0298297
245.088, 0.00337281
9/10
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
251
Material Boundary 77.404, 58.451
132.715, 45.043
Material Boundary 185.859, 19.802
223.699, 0.0298297
Scenario-based Entities
Type Coordinates
(x,y)
CircularGlobal Static
CircularGlobal
Seismic
WedgeGlobal Static
WedgeGlobal
Seismic
Distributed
Load

78.9579,

80.7551

94.2687,

80.3105
Constant
DistributionOri
entation:

VerticalMagnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Creates
Excess Pore
Pressure: No
Constant
DistributionOri
entation:

VerticalMagnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Creates
Excess Pore
Pressure: No
Distributed
Load
165.511,

50.835
175.631,

50.835
178.602,

50.835
Constant
DistributionOri
entation:

VerticalMagnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Creates
Excess Pore
Pressure: No
Constant
DistributionOri
entation:

VerticalMagnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Creates
Excess Pore
Pressure: No
Block Search
Window

96.933, 21.553
131.324,

21.553
131.324, 66.76

96.933, 79.023
Block Search
Window
208.011,

28.541
208.011, 3.013
234.951, 3.013
234.951,

12.347
10/10
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
252

1.693
240.00 lbs/ft2 500 400 300 200 100 0
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Scenario Circular- Global Static Group Cross Section D
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
253

1.173
240.00 lbs/ft2

0.15 500 400 300 200 100 0
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Scenario Circular- Global Seismic Group Cross Section D Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
254

1.776
240.00 lbs/ft2 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Scenario Wedge- Global Static Group Cross Section D
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
255

1.275
240.00 lbs/ft2

0.15 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Scenario Wedge- Global Seismic Group Cross Section D
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
256
Slide Analysis Information
Ogasawara Slope Stability
Project Summary
File Name: Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd
Slide Modeler Version: 9.008
Project Title: Ogaswara Residence
Analysis: Slope Stability
Author: KD
Company: Hamilton & Associates
Date Created: May 2024
Currently Open Scenarios
Group Name Scenario Name Global Minimum Compute Time
Cross Section D
Circular- Global Static
Bishop Simplified:

1.692550 00h:00m:01.143s
Circular- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:

1.173100 00h:00m:01.530s
Wedge- Global Static Bishop Simplified:

1.775510 00h:00m:00.494s
Wedge- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:

1.274910 00h:00m:00.431s
General Settings
Units of Measurement: Imperial Units
Time Units: days
Permeability Units: feet/second
Data Output: Standard
Failure Direction: Left to Right
Analysis Options
All Open Scenarios
257
Slices Type: Vertical
Analysis Methods Used
Bishop simplified
Number of slices: 50
Tolerance: 0.005
Maximum number of iterations: 75
Check malpha < 0.2: Yes
Create Interslice boundaries at intersections with
water tables and piezos: Yes
Initial trial value of FS: 1
Steffensen Iteration: Yes
Random Numbers
All Open Scenarios
Pseudo-random Seed: 10116
Random Number Generation Method: Park and Miller v.3
Surface Options
Cross Section D - Wedge- Global Static
Surface Type: Non-Circular Block Search
Number of Surfaces: 5000
Multiple Groups: Disabled
Pseudo-Random Surfaces: Enabled
Convex Surfaces Only: Disabled
Left Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 135
Left Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 135
Right Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 45
Right Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 45
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
All other Scenarios
Surface Type: Circular
Search Method: Auto Refine Search
Divisions along slope: 20
Circles per division: 10
Number of iterations: 10
Divisions to use in next iteration: 50%
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
2/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
258
Seismic Loading
Cross Section D - Circular- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section D - Circular- Global Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Cross Section D - Wedge- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section D - Wedge- Global Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Loading
All Open Scenarios
 
Distribution: Constant
Magnitude [psf]: 240
Orientation: Vertical
Materials
Fill/Nat
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 115
Cohesion [psf] 290
Friction Angle [deg] 20
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 400
3/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
259
Friction Angle [deg] 25
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Berock (fbc) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 550
Friction Angle [deg] 34
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso A) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso A) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock abc
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 200
Friction Angle [deg] 21
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso D) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso D) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso B) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso B) >25 ft
4/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
260
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso C)<25
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso C) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso E) <25ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso E) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Generalized Anisotropic Functions
Name: Aniso D <25ft
Angle From Angle To Material
-13 -90 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
-6 -13 Bedrock abc
90 -6 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Name: Aniso D >25ft
Angle From Angle To Material
-13 -90 Berock (fbc) >25ft
-6 -13 Bedrock abc
90 -6 Berock (fbc) >25ft
Materials In Use
5/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
261
Material Circular- Global
Static
Circular- Global
Seismic
Wedge- Global
Static
Wedge- Global
Seismic
Fill/Nat
Bedrock (fbc)
<25ft
Berock (fbc)
>25ft
Bedrock abc
Bedrock (Aniso
D) <25 ft
Bedrock (Aniso
D) >25 ft
Global Minimums
Cross Section D - Circular- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.692550
Center: 324.838, 549.569
Radius: 533.299
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 22.716, 110.104
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 262.050, 19.980
Resisting Moment: 1.72676e+08 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.02021e+08 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 4377.28 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 239.334 ft
Surface Average Height: 18.2894 ft
Cross Section D - Circular- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.173100
Center: 326.793, 552.889
Radius: 537.123
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 22.748, 110.104
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 263.996, 19.449
Resisting Moment: 1.67679e+08 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.42937e+08 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 4394.47 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 241.247 ft
Surface Average Height: 18.2156 ft
Cross Section D - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
6/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
262
FS 1.775510
Axis Location: 245.909, 289.524
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 41.968, 110.104
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 267.080, 18.719
Resisting Moment: 9.14979e+07 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 5.15332e+07 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 4502.6 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 225.112 ft
Surface Average Height: 20.0015 ft
Cross Section D - Wedge- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.274910
Axis Location: 245.909, 289.524
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 41.968, 110.104
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 267.080, 18.719
Resisting Moment: 8.85262e+07 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 6.9437e+07 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 4502.6 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 225.112 ft
Surface Average Height: 20.0015 ft
Global Minimum Coordinates
Cross Section D - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
X Y

41.9679 110.104

77.4063 74.6656
255.921 7.55893
267.08 18.7188
Cross Section D - Wedge- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
X Y

41.9679 110.104

77.4063 74.6656
255.921 7.55893
267.08 18.7188
Entity Information
Cross Section D
Shared Entities
7/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
263
Type Coordinates (x,y)
External Boundary

0.673, 84.5458

0.673, -0.465
273.642, -0.465
289.286, -0.465
289.301, 14.7489
289.301, 20.671
285.159, 19.895
281.073, 19.275
276.124, 18.731
271.795, 18.592
266.628, 18.731
262.019, 19.988
254.851, 23.929
247.61, 28.481
240.387, 32.542
219.765, 43.675
206.945, 49.079
193.616, 54.11
108.904, 84.797

86.338, 94.112

67.697, 103.336

58.583, 106.688

58.583, 110.104

0.673, 110.104

0.673, 109.111
Material Boundary

0.673, 84.5458

32.219, 84.5458

68.259, 74.676

97.256, 67.067
139.082, 48.665
208.805, 25.05
242.041, 6.985
273.642, -0.465
Material Boundary

0.673, 109.111

39.047, 109.111

44.296, 109.111

44.296, 106.354

49.187, 106.354

49.187, 104.099

54.838, 104.099

54.838, 102.098

58.726, 102.098

72.946, 96.642

87.036, 89.342
145.203, 68.265
184.332, 54.649
225.293, 37.077
251.148, 21.789
258.523, 19.1952
267.948, 15.88
277.865, 14.7489
285.995, 14.7489
289.301, 14.7489
Scenario-based Entities
8/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
264
Type Coordinates
(x,y)
CircularGlobal Static
CircularGlobal
Seismic
WedgeGlobal Static
WedgeGlobal
Seismic
Distributed
Load

16.8367,
110.104

41.8874,
110.104
Constant
DistributionOri
entation:

VerticalMagnitu
de: 240
lbs/ft2Creates
Excess Pore
Pressure: No
Constant
DistributionOri
entation:

VerticalMagnitu
de: 240
lbs/ft2Creates
Excess Pore
Pressure: No
Block Search
Window

51.053, 69.893

88.417, 65.628

86.868, 92.146

51.053, 107.53
Block Search
Window
252.546, 0.838
280.721, 0.838
280.721,

17.834
252.546,

17.834
9/9
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
265

1.741
120.00 lbs/ft2 200 150 100 50 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Circular- Global Static Group Cross Section E
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
266

1.356
120.00 lbs/ft2

0.15 200 150 100 50 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Circular- Global Seismic Group Cross Section E Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
267

2.044
120.00 lbs/ft2 200 150 100 50 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Circular- Upper Static Group Cross Section E
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
268

1.491
120.00 lbs/ft2

0.15 200 150 100 50 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Circular- Upper Seismic Group Cross Section E
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
269

2.345
120.00 lbs/ft2 200 150 100 50 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Wedge- Upper Static Group Cross Section E
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
270

1.706
120.00 lbs/ft2

0.15 200 150 100 50 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Wedge- Upper Seismic Group Cross Section E
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
271

1.808 120.00 lbs/ft2 200 150 100 50 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Wedge- Global Static Group Cross Section E
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
272

1.401 120.00 lbs/ft2

0.15 200 150 100 50 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Scenario Wedge- Global Seismic Group Cross Section E
Company Hamilton & Associates Drawn By KD
File Name Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd Date May 2024
Project
Ogaswara Residence
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.008
273
Slide Analysis Information
Ogasawara Slope Stability
Project Summary
File Name: Ogasawara Slope Stability.slmd
Slide Modeler Version: 9.008
Project Title: Ogaswara Residence
Analysis: Slope Stability
Author: KD
Company: Hamilton & Associates
Date Created: May 2024
Currently Open Scenarios
Group Name Scenario Name Global Minimum Compute Time
Cross Section E
Circular- Global Static
Bishop Simplified:

1.740960 00h:00m:01.241s
Circular- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:

1.356050 00h:00m:01.646s
Circular- Upper Static Bishop Simplified:

2.044040 00h:00m:01.387s
Circular- Upper Seismic Bishop Simplified:

1.490620 00h:00m:01.465s
Wedge- Upper Static Bishop Simplified:

2.345000 00h:00m:00.577s
Wedge- Upper Seismic Bishop Simplified:

1.705630 00h:00m:00.733s
Wedge- Global Static Bishop Simplified:

1.808180 00h:00m:00.956s
Wedge- Global Seismic Bishop Simplified:

1.401250 00h:00m:00.638s
General Settings
Units of Measurement: Imperial Units
Time Units: days
Permeability Units: feet/second
Data Output: Standard
Failure Direction: Right to Left
Analysis Options
274
All Open Scenarios
Slices Type: Vertical
Analysis Methods Used
Bishop simplified
Number of slices: 50
Tolerance: 0.005
Maximum number of iterations: 75
Check malpha < 0.2: Yes
Create Interslice boundaries at intersections with
water tables and piezos: Yes
Initial trial value of FS: 1
Steffensen Iteration: Yes
Random Numbers
All Open Scenarios
Pseudo-random Seed: 10116
Random Number Generation Method: Park and Miller v.3
Surface Options
Cross Section E - Wedge- Upper Static
Surface Type: Non-Circular Block Search
Number of Surfaces: 5000
Multiple Groups: Disabled
Pseudo-Random Surfaces: Enabled
Convex Surfaces Only: Disabled
Left Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 135
Left Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 135
Right Projection Angle (Start Angle) [deg]: 45
Right Projection Angle (End Angle) [deg]: 45
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
All other Scenarios
2/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
275
Surface Type: Circular
Search Method: Auto Refine Search
Divisions along slope: 20
Circles per division: 10
Number of iterations: 10
Divisions to use in next iteration: 50%
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
Minimum Area: Not Defined
Minimum Weight: Not Defined
Seismic Loading
Cross Section E - Circular- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section E - Circular- Global Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Cross Section E - Circular- Upper Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section E - Circular- Upper Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Cross Section E - Wedge- Upper Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section E - Wedge- Upper Seismic
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Cross Section E - Wedge- Global Static
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Cross Section E - Wedge- Global Seismic
3/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
276
Advanced seismic analysis: No
Staged pseudostatic analysis: No
Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.15
Loading
All Open Scenarios
 
Distribution: Constant
Magnitude [psf]: 120
Orientation: Vertical
Materials
Fill/Nat
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 115
Cohesion [psf] 290
Friction Angle [deg] 20
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 400
Friction Angle [deg] 25
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Berock (fbc) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 550
Friction Angle [deg] 34
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso A) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso A) >25 ft
Color
4/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
277
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock abc
Color
Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Cohesion [psf] 200
Friction Angle [deg] 21
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso D) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso D) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso B) <25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso B) >25 ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso C)<25
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso C) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso E) <25ft
Color
5/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
278
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Bedrock (Aniso E) >25ft
Color
Strength Type Generalized Anisotropic
Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 125
Water Surface Assigned per scenario
Ru Value 0
Generalized Anisotropic Functions
Name: Aniso E <25ft
Angle From Angle To Material
5 -90 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
11 5 Berock (fbc) >25ft
90 11 Bedrock (fbc) <25ft
Name: Aniso E >25ft
Angle From Angle To Material
5 -90 Berock (fbc) >25ft
11 5 Bedrock abc
90 11 Berock (fbc) >25ft
Materials In Use
Material
CircularGlobal
Static
CircularGlobal
Seismic
CircularUpper
Static
CircularUpper
Seismic
WedgeUpper
Static
WedgeUpper
Seismic
WedgeGlobal
Static
WedgeGlobal
Seismic
Fill/Nat
Bedrock (fbc)
<25ft
Berock (fbc)
>25ft
Bedrock abc
Bedrock (Aniso
E) <25ft
Bedrock (Aniso
E) >25ft
Global Minimums
Cross Section E - Circular- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
6/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
279
FS 1.740960
Center: 48.558, 128.260
Radius: 50.451
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 42.923, 78.125
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 95.611, 110.059
Resisting Moment: 2.89199e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.66115e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 569.777 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 52.6884 ft
Surface Average Height: 10.8141 ft
Cross Section E - Circular- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.356050
Center: 44.719, 143.180
Radius: 65.150
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 42.822, 78.058
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 100.821, 110.059
Resisting Moment: 3.85405e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 2.84212e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 617.797 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 57.9994 ft
Surface Average Height: 10.6518 ft
Cross Section E - Circular- Upper Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 2.044040
Center: 129.899, 167.880
Radius: 57.826
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 129.089, 110.059
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 174.892, 131.555
Resisting Moment: 1.64348e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 804037 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 322.076 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 45.8027 ft
Surface Average Height: 7.03183 ft
Cross Section E - Circular- Upper Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
7/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
280
FS 1.490620
Center: 125.366, 190.760
Radius: 80.775
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 129.104, 110.071
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 180.316, 131.555
Left Slope Intercept: 129.104 113.478
Right Slope Intercept: 180.316 131.555
Resisting Moment: 2.49492e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.67375e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 365.009 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 51.2118 ft
Surface Average Height: 7.12745 ft
Cross Section E - Wedge- Upper Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 2.345000
Axis Location: 134.434, 178.268
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 127.199, 110.059
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 184.660, 131.555
Resisting Moment: 2.4086e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.02712e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 404.199 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 57.4613 ft
Surface Average Height: 7.03429 ft
Cross Section E - Wedge- Upper Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.705630
Axis Location: 134.434, 178.268
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 127.199, 110.059
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 184.660, 131.555
Resisting Moment: 2.37027e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 1.38968e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 404.199 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 57.4613 ft
Surface Average Height: 7.03429 ft
Cross Section E - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.808180
Axis Location: 41.973, 158.009
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 41.999, 78.058
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 105.950, 110.059
Resisting Moment: 5.47568e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 3.02829e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 723.638 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 63.9507 ft
Surface Average Height: 11.3156 ft
Cross Section E - Wedge- Global Seismic
8/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
281
Method: bishop simplified
FS 1.401250
Axis Location: 41.973, 158.009
Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 41.999, 78.058
Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 105.950, 110.059
Resisting Moment: 5.30989e+06 lb-ft
Driving Moment: 3.7894e+06 lb-ft
Total Slice Area: 723.638 ft2
Surface Horizontal Width: 63.9507 ft
Surface Average Height: 11.3156 ft
Global Minimum Coordinates
Cross Section E - Wedge- Upper Static
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
127.199 110.059
130.596 106.662
180.418 127.313
184.66 131.555
Cross Section E - Wedge- Upper Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
X Y
127.199 110.059
130.596 106.662
180.418 127.313
184.66 131.555
Cross Section E - Wedge- Global Static
Method: bishop simplified
X Y

41.9989 78.058

46.8675 73.1894

87.1654 91.2748
105.95 110.059
Cross Section E - Wedge- Global Seismic
Method: bishop simplified
X Y

41.9989 78.058

46.8675 73.1894

87.1654 91.2748
105.95 110.059
9/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
282
Entity Information
Cross Section E
Shared Entities
10/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
283
Type Coordinates (x,y)
External Boundary

0.591, 89.234

0.59323, 86.9802

0.613, 67

0.68, -0.712
369.342, -0.712
369.342, 125.422
369.342, 150.831
369.342, 153.223
329.277, 153.223
233.816, 140.471
217.983, 131.555
169.867, 131.555
129.104, 113.478
129.104, 110.059

98.6282, 110.059

87.53, 110.059

42.829, 78.058

41.334, 78.058

38.547, 78.058

22.732, 84.806
Material Boundary

0.59323, 86.9802

22.404, 82.845

39.449, 75.28

42.273, 75.28

45.5, 76.793

87.937, 106.851

98.6282, 110.059
Material Boundary
129.104, 110.059
129.104, 107.441
142.926, 107.441
142.926, 111.541
155.907, 111.541
155.907, 117.519
166.838, 117.519
166.838, 121.447
176.745, 121.447
176.745, 127.218
228.117, 127.218
228.117, 130.685
236.142, 130.685
236.142, 135.389
244.436, 135.389
244.436, 139.131
288.883, 144.796
330.041, 150.831
369.342, 150.831
Material Boundary

0.613, 67

16.19, 58

36.169, 51.236

50.973, 54.141

65.638, 63.272

93.031, 74.34
114.337, 80.428
207.898, 103.627
261.416, 117.709
369.342, 125.422
11/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
284
Scenario-based Entities
Type
Coordin
ates
(x,y)
Circular
- Global
Static
Circular
- Global
Seismic
Circular
- Upper
Static
Circular
- Upper
Seismic
WedgeUpper
Static
WedgeUpper
Seismic
WedgeGlobal
Static
WedgeGlobal
Seismic
Distribut
ed Load
178.258,
131.555
210.591,
131.555
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:

Vertical
Magnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Constant
Distributi
onOrient
ation:

Vertical
Magnitu
de: 120
lbs/ft2Cr
eates
Excess
Pore
Pressure
: No
Block
Search
Window
112.114,

75.608
159.989,

79.201
159.989,
122.156
112.088,
102.891
Block
Search
Window
177.347,

89.997
222.311,
100.33
222.311,
130.304
177.347,
130.304
12/12
Ogasawara Slope Stability Friday, May 24, 2024
285
Drawn: TMA
Job: 22323
C l i e n t :

Sheet OF 7
T i t l e : Date: October 2, 2024 Bolton Engineering Corp. Scale: AS SHOWN

SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS
23 CREST ROAD EAST
Prepared For:

Rolling Hills City Council
Prepared By: Bolton Engineering Corp
DATE: October 2, 2024
286
Drawn: TMA
Job: 22323
C l i e n t :

Sheet OF 7
T i t l e : Date: October 2, 2024 Bolton Engineering Corp. Scale: AS SHOWN Table of Contents:

1. Existing Conditions 2

2. Proposed Conditions 2

3. Design Considerations 2

4. Design 2
Plate 1 Schematic Diagram
Plate 2 Hydrology Exhibit
Plate 3 Cistern Detail
Plate 4 Hydrologic Map
Plate 5 Hydrologic Map
Plate 6 Runoff Coefficient Curve
Appendix Hydrocalc Computations
1 287
Drawn: TMA
Job: 22323
C l i e n t :

Sheet OF 7
T i t l e : Date: October 2, 2024 Bolton Engineering Corp. Scale: AS SHOWN

1. Existing Conditions:

The site is 7.8 acres, and is undeveloped. It is bounded by Crest Road to the north and existing single family residences to the west, east and south. The easterly and westerly properties are separated by water courses, which drain to Klondike Canyon.

Regionally, the site sits above, and drains toward, the Flying Triangle landslide.

2. Proposed Conditions:

The project proposes to develop approximately 2.4 acres of the upper portion of the site with a new residence, driveway, guest house and ADU, stable and corral, and pool and other ancillary elements. The proposed imperviously coverage is approximately 31% and is shown on Plate 2.

3. Design Considerations:

The City has directed the project to consider measures to mitigate the runoff from the property. Typically development projects, where mitigation of runoff due to the development is required, are designed to mitigate peak runoff due to priority given to not impacting flood control facilities downstream. However, in this case, it is our understanding that the principal concern is the volume of runoff due to concerns regarding that volume being directed to the landslide mass through fissures downstream.

The evaluation of the landslide and its causes are outside of the scope of our work; based on direction from the City the project proposes to mitigate its runoff through storage onsite of the difference in volume due to the development.

Previously, this property has had projects approved with mitigation of the 25 year storm; the City has asked, based on recent movement, that the project store the 50 year storm difference.

We have prepared Hydrocalc computations and have found the following volumes, in cubic feet, for the 25, 50 and 100 year storms:

4. Design:

On the basis of these calculations, the project proposes storage of 10,000 cubic feet. The project proposes to provide this in two, 10' diameter pipes as tanks (per manufacturer, these tanks allow for 76.05 cubic feet per linear foot of storage):

L required = 10,076cf/76.05 cf/lf
= 132.5'
L provided = 140'
V provided = 10,647 cf
As shown above, the provided tanks as designed will store the excess runoff from the 100 year storm. 2 288
Drawn: TMN
Job: 22311
C l i e n t :

Sheet OF 11
T i t l e : Bolton Engineering Corp. Date: Aug 14, 2024 25834 Narbonne Avenue Ste. 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Phone:(310) 325-5580
Fax: (310) 325-5581
Scale: AS SHOWN

YUKI OGASAWARA
452 S LORING AVENUE
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
LOS ANGELES CA 90024
J:\22324_Ogasawara\Hydrology Plans_ Report.dwg 10/2/2024 12:58:07 PM

STORMWATER RUNOFFSCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
3 PLATE 1
289
LEGEND
Drawn: TMN
Job: 22311
C l i e n t :

Sheet OF 11
T i t l e : Bolton Engineering Corp. Date: Aug 14, 2024 25834 Narbonne Avenue Ste. 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Phone:(310) 325-5580
Fax: (310) 325-5581
Scale: AS SHOWN

YUKI OGASAWARA
452 S LORING AVENUE
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
LOS ANGELES CA 90024
J:\22324_Ogasawara\Hydrology Plans_ Report.dwg 10/2/2024 12:58:27 PM

STORMWATER RUNOFFHYDROLOGY EXHIBIT
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )

GRAPHIC SCALE
80 0 80 160
80 ···
··········
4 PLATE 2
290
MAIN PAD: 70' (2)
Drawn: TMN
Job: 22311
C l i e n t :

Sheet OF 11
T i t l e : Bolton Engineering Corp. Date: Aug 14, 2024 25834 Narbonne Avenue Ste. 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Phone:(310) 325-5580
Fax: (310) 325-5581
Scale: AS SHOWN

YUKI OGASAWARA
452 S LORING AVENUE
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
LOS ANGELES CA 90024
J:\22324_Ogasawara\Hydrology Plans_ Report.dwg 10/2/2024 12:58:28 PM

STORMWATER RUNOFFCISTERN DETAILING
5 PLATE 3
291
Drawn: TMA
Job: 22323
C l i e n t :

Sheet OF 7
T i t l e : Date: October 2, 2024 Bolton Engineering Corp. Scale: AS SHOWN 6 PLATE 4
292
Drawn: TMA
Job: 22323
C l i e n t :

Sheet OF 7
T i t l e : Date: October 2, 2024 Bolton Engineering Corp. Scale: AS SHOWN 6 PLATE 5
293
Drawn: TMA
Job: 22323
C l i e n t :

Sheet OF 7
Date: October 2, 2024 T i t l e : Bolton Engineering Corp. Scale: AS SHOWN 7 PLATE 6
294
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - East LID.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID East
Area (ac) 1.26
Flow Path Length (ft) 400.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 0.9
Percent Impervious 0.39
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm
Fire Factor 0
LID True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.9 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.2867
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.4188
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.6064
Time of Concentration (min) 19.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.2191
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.2191
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.0404
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 1758.2916
295
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - West LID.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID West
Area (ac) 1.47
Flow Path Length (ft) 420.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 0.9
Percent Impervious 0.38
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm
Fire Factor 0
LID True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.9 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.2799
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.4124
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.5977
Time of Concentration (min) 20.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.2459
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.2459
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.0462
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 2013.9997
296
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - East_Existing 25 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID East Watershed
Area (ac) 1.26
Flow Path Length (ft) 400.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.01
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 25-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.39
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.6192
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8668
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8672
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.8618
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.8618
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.148
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 6448.5248
297
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - West_Existing 25 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID West Watershed
Area (ac) 1.47
Flow Path Length (ft) 420.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.01
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 25-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.39
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.6192
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8668
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8672
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.3388
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.3388
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.1727
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 7523.279
298
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - East_Proposed 25 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID East Watershed
Area (ac) 1.26
Flow Path Length (ft) 400.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.39
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 25-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.39
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.6192
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8668
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8798
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.9034
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.9034
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2491
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 10852.3858
299
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - West_Proposed 25 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID West Watershed
Area (ac) 1.47
Flow Path Length (ft) 420.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.38
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 25-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.39
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.6192
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8668
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8794
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.386
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.386
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2876
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 12525.9105
300
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - East_Existing 50 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID East Watershed
Area (ac) 1.26
Flow Path Length (ft) 400.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.01
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.9831
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8829
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8831
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.3193
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.3193
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.1865
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 8122.4359
301
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - West_Existing 50 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID West Watershed
Area (ac) 1.47
Flow Path Length (ft) 420.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.01
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.9831
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8829
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8831
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.8726
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.8726
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2175
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 9476.1752
302
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - East_Proposed 50 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID East Watershed
Area (ac) 1.26
Flow Path Length (ft) 400.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.39
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.9831
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8829
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8896
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.3437
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.3437
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2948
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 12839.6448
303
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - West_Proposed 50 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID West Watershed
Area (ac) 1.47
Flow Path Length (ft) 420.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.38
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.9831
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8829
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8894
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.9003
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.9003
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.3406
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 14834.759
304
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - East_Existing 100 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID East Watershed
Area (ac) 1.26
Flow Path Length (ft) 400.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.01
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 100-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (100-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.61
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.3471
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8921
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8921
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.7624
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.7624
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2294
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 9993.6221
305
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - West_Existing 100 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID West Watershed
Area (ac) 1.47
Flow Path Length (ft) 420.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.01
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 100-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (100-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.61
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.3471
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8921
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8921
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 4.3895
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 4.3895
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2677
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 11659.2258
306
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - East_Proposed 100 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID East Watershed
Area (ac) 1.26
Flow Path Length (ft) 400.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.39
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 100-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (100-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.61
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.3471
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8921
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8952
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.7751
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.7751
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.3432
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 14948.4571
307
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: J:/22324_Ogasawara/Hydrology/Ogasawara - West_Proposed 100 year.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Ogasawara
Subarea ID West Watershed
Area (ac) 1.47
Flow Path Length (ft) 420.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 5.0
Percent Impervious 0.38
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 100-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (100-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.61
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.3471
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8921
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8951
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 4.4039
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 4.4039
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.3969
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 17287.7445
308
23 Crest Road East - ZC 23-070 - Page 1 of 1
2615 Pacific Coast Highway #329
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
(310) 543-6635
[email protected]
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Account Number: 5007827
Ad Order Number: 0011695897
Customer's Reference/PO Number:

Publication: Daily Breeze
Publication Dates: 10/04/2024
Total Amount: $618.01
Payment Amount: $0.00
Amount Due: $618.01
Notice ID: v7e27EKscLtYj0JJcWiB
Invoice Text: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills will conduct a public hearing to be held on Monday, October 14, 2024, beginning at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, located at 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills CA 90274 , for the purpose of discussing the following project: 23 CREST ROAD EAST, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (LOT 132A-MS) ZONING CASE NO. 23-070: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NON-EXEMPT GRADING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 14,680-SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT, RETAINING WALLS EXCEEDING A HEIGHT OF 3 FEET (UP TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 5 FEET), DRIVEWAY WITH PORTIONS THAT EXCEED A WIDTH OF 20 FEET, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS; CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A STABLE, CORRAL, AND A GUEST HOUSE;

AND VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE STABLE, CORRAL, SWIMMING POOL, AND

RETAINING WALLS IN THE FRONT YARD, ALLOW A PORTION OF THE CORRAL

Members of the public are invited to provide comments in-person during the public 309
23 Crest Road East - ZC 23-070 - Page 1 of 1
Daily Breeze
2615 Pacific Coast Highway #329
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
(310) 543-6635
0011695897
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Los Angeles
I am a citizen of the United States and
a resident of the County aforesaid; I
am over the age of eighteen years, and
not party to or interested in the aboveentitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of Daily Breeze, a
newspaper of general circulation,
printed and published in the City of
Torrance*, County of Los Angeles, and
which newspaper has been adjudged a
newspaper of general circulation by the
Superior Court of County of Los
Angeles, State of California, under the
date of June 15, 1945, Decree No.

Pomo C-606. The notice, of which the
annexed is a printed copy (set in type
not smaller than nonpareil), has been
published in each regular and entire
issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following
dates, to wit:
10/04/2024
I certify (or declare) under the penalty
of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.

Dated at Hermosa Beach, California
On this 4th day of October, 2024.
______________________________
Signature
*Daily Breeze circulation includes the following
cities: Carson, Compton, Culver City, El
Segundo, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne,
Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale,
Lomita, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Manhattan
Beach, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Palos Verdes,
Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes
Estates, Redondo Beach, San Pedro, Santa
Monica, Torrance and Wilmington
310
CL_PBN_240812_PH_CC_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_F - Page 1 of 1 2615 Pacific Coast Highway #329
Torrance, California 90254
(310) 543-6635
[email protected]
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Account Number: 5007827
Ad Order Number: 0011684273
Customer's Reference/PO Number:

Publication: Daily Breeze
Publication Dates: 08/01/2024
Total Amount: $644.37
Payment Amount: $0.00
Amount Due: $644.37
Notice ID: tuuJtQ4GSEgJwUciiWwR
Invoice Text: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills will conduct a public hearing field trip visit starting at 7:30 AM on Monday, August 12, 2024, at the following property for the purpose of receiving public input regarding the following: 23 CREST ROAD EAST, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (LOT 132A-MS) ZONING CASE NO. 23-070: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NON-EXEMPT GRADING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 14,680-SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT, RETAINING WALLS EXCEEDING A HEIGHT OF 3 FEET (UP TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 5 FEET), DRIVEWAY WITH PORTIONS THAT EXCEED A WIDTH OF 20 FEET, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS; CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A STABLE, CORRAL, AND A GUEST HOUSE;

AND VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE STABLE, CORRAL, SWIMMING POOL, AND

RETAINING WALLS IN THE FRONT YARD, ALLOW A PORTION OF THE CORRAL

TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM AVERAGE HEIGHT OF TWO-AND-ONEHALF FEET, CONSTRUCT DECKS/PATIOS MORE THAN ONE FOOT ABOVE GRADE, AND ALLOW GRADING EXPORT (OGASAWARA) The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. The purpose of this field trip is to hold a public hearing on the site of the project to familiarize members of the City Council and interested parties with the location, topography, size, and scope of the project. Following the field trip, the City Council will reconvene to discuss the 311
CL_PBN_240812_PH_CC_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_F - Page 1 of 1 Daily Breeze
2615 Pacific Coast Highway #329
Torrance, California 90254
(310) 543-6635
0011684273
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)

Pomo C-606. The notice, of which the
annexed is a printed copy (set in type
not smaller than nonpareil), has been
published in each regular and entire
issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following
dates, to wit:
08/01/2024
I certify (or declare) under the penalty
of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.

Dated at Torrance, California
On this 1st day of August, 2024.
______________________________
Signature
*Daily Breeze circulation includes the following
cities: Carson, Compton, Culver City, El
Segundo, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne,
Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale,
Lomita, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Manhattan
Beach, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Palos Verdes,
Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes
Estates, Redondo Beach, San Pedro, Santa
Monica, Torrance and Wilmington
312
19 11
9 6
12 13
7 3
4 2
14 15
16 17
21 22
31 23
32 39
38 30
29 36
34 35
33 28
27 26
24 25
18 10
8 5
1 37
20 LEGEND

ABBREVIATIONS
Bolton Engineering Corp.

Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C1
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274

SHEET INDEX
SCALE: 1" = 40'

OVERALL SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 300'

VICINITY MAP
123456789
10 1112131415
161718
1920
21222324252627282930313233343536
373839

TYPICAL SECTION
CREST

ROAD EAST
313
Bolton Engineering Corp.

Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C2
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
SCALE: 1" = 40'

EXISTING CONDITIONS
CREST

ROAD EAST
314
LEGEND

ABBREVIATIONS
Bolton Engineering Corp.

Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C3
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
CREST

ROAD EAST
SCALE: 1" = 20'

PRELIMINARY CIVIL PLAN
315
Bolton Engineering Corp.

Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C4
SCALE: 1" = 20'

SECTION A-A
SCALE: 1" = 20'

SECTION B-B
SCALE: 1" = 20'

SECTION C-C
SCALE: 1" = 20'

SECTION D-D
SCALE: 1" = 20'

SECTION E-E
SCALE: 1" = 20'
SECTION B1-B1
316
TYPE A2-8 (Modified) MOW CURB
TYPE A1-6 (Modified)
Bolton Engineering Corp.

Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C5
317
70

CRORU DHSWK

AUHD RI )LOO AUHD RI CXW
LEGEND
Bolton Engineering Corp.

Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C3
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
CREST

ROAD EAST
SCALE: 1" = 20'

EARTHWORK COLOR EXHIBIT
318
1360
1355
1360
1340
1335
1345
1350
1330
1340
1335
1340
1345
1335
1350
1330
1355
1350
1345
1360
1365
1355
1340
1335
1350
1340
1345
1360
1355 1355
1345
1350
1360
1365
1360
1355
1350
1365
1365
1350
1370
1370
1345
1340
1335
1330
1340
1335
1310
1320
1315
1325
1320
1325
1330
1335
1330
1285
1290
1295
1300
1290
1290
1285
1280
1270
12651295 1290 1285 1280
1310
1305
1300
1295 1315
1320
1325
1320
1330
1310
1305
1300
1315
1300
1290
1295
1280
1285
1290
1285
1280
1275
1270
1265
1260
1255
1260
1255
1265
1275
1265
1270
1265 1255 1250
1245
1240
1235
12201225 1230
1215 1205 1210 1200
1205
1200
1195
1190
1185
1230
1225
1220
1210
1185
1180
1215
1205
1200
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1210
1215
1205
1200
1270
1260
1255
1265
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1275
1270
1260
1255
1265
1250
1245
1295
1290
1285
1280
1300
1275
1270
1265
1215
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1260 1255 1250
1245
128512801275 1265 12701250
1245 1235 12401260 1255
1230 1225
1220
1215
1185
1180 1195
1190
1175
1170
1165 1160 1155
1205
1200
1210
1210
1185
1195
1190
1205
1200
1145
1140
1135
1130
1125
1210
1215
1220
1225
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1205
1270
1280
1275
1265
1250
1245
1260
1255
1240
1235
1230
1310 1315
1305
1320
1325
1290
1295
1300
1280
1285
1290
1305
1300
1310
1295
1245
1250
1255
1260
1265
1270
1275
1285
1280
1290
1265
1270
1275
1295
1300
1255
1260
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1200
1210
1215
1220
1205
1280
1285
1290
1275
1265
1270
1120
1135
1125
1130 1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1145
1140
1150 1185 1180
1195
1190
1175 1170 1165 1160 11551200 1210 1205
1145
1140
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1260
1255
1250
1245
1270
1265
1280
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E

C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E
1310
1305 1300
1295
x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x
x x x x
x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:

SIDE YARD
SETBACK 35' SIDE YARD SETBACK
35'
100'

SIDE YARD

SETBACK

FRONT YARD

SETBACK

SIDE YARD

SETBACK
35'
25'

SIDE YARD

EASEMENT
50'

FRONT YARD

EASEMENT
25'

SIDE YARD
EASEMENT 25' SIDE YARD EASEMENT
26'
62'
15'
15'
93'-2"
67'-3"
7% Slope First 20' Water Feature
193'-5" Garage Site Planning Changelog Main House -Finish floor at 1293’ (Previous 1291’) -Apex at 1288’ (Previous 1286’) -Building footprint moved 12’-5” North and 4’-6” East -Pool footprint angled perpendicular to west property line (previously parallel with main house west wing) -Building GSF incl. Basement 21,920 sf (Previous 20,940 sf) Guest House -Finish floor at 1293’ (Previous 1291’) -Building footprint moved 16’ North and 4’ West -Southeast building corner from property line 51’-3” (Previous 39’-9”) -Southeast building corner does not require fill grading (Previously required fill grading) ADU -Finish floor at 1319’ (Previous 1320’) -Building footprint moved 2’-6” North and 0’-8”’ West -Northeast building corner from property line 38’-8” (Previous 37’-5”) -Building footprint 38’-4” x 18’-4” (Previous 36’-0” x 16’-0”) -Building GSF 700 sf (Previous 576 sf) Stable -Finish floor at 1316’ (Previous 1314’) -Building southwest corner 62'4" from the western property line and 207'11" from the north east corner of 17 Crest Road East's nearest building. (Previous southwest building corner 39'8" from the western property line and 185'7" from the north east corner of 17 Crest Road East's nearest building) -Building footprint 58’-10” x 20’-10” (Previous 70’’-0” x 27’-6”) -Building GSF 1,225 sf (Previous 1,295 sf) -Office space, closet space, and full bath are omitted (Previously included) Civil -Total grading 28,725 cy (Previous 28,930 cy) -Total Structure 18,457 sf (Previous 17,184 sf) -Total disturbed area 87,920 sf (Previous 92,460 sf) -Total flatwork 18,715 sf (Previous 20,520 sf) -Primary driveway 13,480 sf (Previous 16,100 sf) -Paved walks, patio areas 2,675 sf (Previous 4,010 sf) -Pool decking 1,120 sf (Previous 410 sf) 319
1360
1355
1360
1340
1335
1345
1350
1330
1340
1335
1340
1345
1335
1350
1330
1355
1350
1345
1360
1365
1355
1340
1335
1350
1340
1345
1360
1355 1355
1345
1350
1360
1365
1360
1355
1350
1365
1365
1350
1370
1370
1345
1340
1335
1330
1340
1335
1310
1320
1315
1325
1320
1325
1330
1335
1330
1285
1290
1295
1300
1290
1290
1285
1280
1270
12651295 1290 1285 1280
1310
1305
1300
1295 1315
1320
1325
1320
1330
1310
1305
1300
1315
1300
1290
1295
1280
1285
1290
1285
1280
1275
1270
1265
1260
1255
1260
1255
1265
1275
1265
1270
1265 1255 1250
1245
1240
1235
12201225 1230
1215 1205 1210 1200
1205
1200
1195
1190
1185
1230
1225
1220
1210
1185
1180
1215
1205
1200
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1210
1215
1205
1200
1270
1260
1255
1265
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1275
1270
1260
1255
1265
1250
1245
1295
1290
1285
1280
1300
1275
1270
1265
1215
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1260 1255 1250
1245
128512801275 1265 12701250
1245 1235 12401260 1255
1230 1225
1220
1215
1185
1180 1195
1190
1175
1170
1165 1160 1155
1205
1200
1210
1210
1185
1195
1190
1205
1200
1145
1140
1135
1130
1125
1210
1215
1220
1225
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1205
1270
1280
1275
1265
1250
1245
1260
1255
1240
1235
1230
1310 1315
1305
1320
1325
1290
1295
1300
1280
1285
1290
1305
1300
1310
1295
1245
1250
1255
1260
1265
1270
1275
1285
1280
1290
1265
1270
1275
1295
1300
1255
1260
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1200
1210
1215
1220
1205
1280
1285
1290
1275
1265
1270
1120
1135
1125
1130 1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1145
1140
1150 1185 1180
1195
1190
1175 1170 1165 1160 11551200 1210 1205
1145
1140
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1260
1255
1250
1245
1270
1265
1280
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E

SIDE YARD
SETBACK 35' SIDE YARD SETBACK
35'
100'

SIDE YARD

SETBACK

FRONT YARD

SETBACK

SIDE YARD

SETBACK
35'
25'

SIDE YARD

EASEMENT
50'

FRONT YARD

EASEMENT
25'

SIDE YARD
EASEMENT 25' SIDE YARD EASEMENT
26'
62'
15'
15'
93'-2"
67'-3"
7% Slope First 20' Water Feature
193'-5" Garage Site Planning Changelog Main House -Finish floor at 1293’ (Previous 1291’) -Apex at 1288’ (Previous 1286’) -Building footprint moved 12’-5” North and 4’-6” East -Pool footprint angled perpendicular to west property line (previously parallel with main house west wing) -Building GSF incl. Basement 21,920 sf (Previous 20,940 sf) Guest House -Finish floor at 1293’ (Previous 1291’) -Building footprint moved 16’ North and 4’ West -Southeast building corner from property line 51’-3” (Previous 39’-9”) -Southeast building corner does not require fill grading (Previously required fill grading) ADU -Finish floor at 1319’ (Previous 1320’) -Building footprint moved 2’-6” North and 0’-8”’ West -Northeast building corner from property line 38’-8” (Previous 37’-5”) -Building footprint 38’-4” x 18’-4” (Previous 36’-0” x 16’-0”) -Building GSF 700 sf (Previous 576 sf) Stable -Finish floor at 1316’ (Previous 1314’) -Building southwest corner 62'4" from the western property line and 207'11" from the north east corner of 17 Crest Road East's nearest building. (Previous southwest building corner 39'8" from the western property line and 185'7" from the north east corner of 17 Crest Road East's nearest building) -Building footprint 58’-10” x 20’-10” (Previous 70’’-0” x 27’-6”) -Building GSF 1,225 sf (Previous 1,295 sf) -Office space, closet space, and full bath are omitted (Previously included) Civil -Total grading 28,725 cy (Previous 28,930 cy) -Total Structure 18,457 sf (Previous 17,184 sf) -Total disturbed area 87,920 sf (Previous 92,460 sf) -Total flatwork 18,715 sf (Previous 20,520 sf) -Primary driveway 13,480 sf (Previous 16,100 sf) -Paved walks, patio areas 2,675 sf (Previous 4,010 sf) -Pool decking 1,120 sf (Previous 410 sf) 320
1360
1355
1360
1340
1335
1345
1350
1330
1340
1335
1340
1345
1335
1350
1330
1355
1350
1345
1360
1365
1355
1340
1335
1350
1340
1345
1360
1355 1355
1345
1350
1360
1365
1360
1355
1350
1365
1365
1350
1370
1370
1345
1340
1335
1330
1340
1335
1310
1320
1315
1325
1320
1325
1330
1335
1330
1285
1290
1295
1300
1290
1290
1285
1280
1270
12651295 1290 1285 1280
1310
1305
1300
1295 1315
1320
1325
1320
1330
1310
1305
1300
1315
1300
1290
1295
1280
1285
1290
1285
1280
1275
1270
1265
1260
1255
1260
1255
1265
1275
1265
1270
1265 1255 1250
1245
1240
1235
12201225 1230
1215 1205 1210 1200
1205
1200
1195
1190
1185
1230
1225
1220
1210
1185
1180
1215
1205
1200
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1210
1215
1205
1200
1270
1260
1255
1265
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1275
1270
1260
1255
1265
1250
1245
1295
1290
1285
1280
1300
1275
1270
1265
1215
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1260 1255 1250
1245
128512801275 1265 12701250
1245 1235 12401260 1255
1230 1225
1220
1215
1185
1180 1195
1190
1175
1170
1165 1160 1155
1205
1200
1210
1210
1185
1195
1190
1205
1200
1145
1140
1135
1130
1125
1210
1215
1220
1225
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1205
1270
1280
1275
1265
1250
1245
1260
1255
1240
1235
1230
1310 1315
1305
1320
1325
1290
1295
1300
1280
1285
1290
1305
1300
1310
1295
1245
1250
1255
1260
1265
1270
1275
1285
1280
1290
1265
1270
1275
1295
1300
1255
1260
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1200
1210
1215
1220
1205
1280
1285
1290
1275
1265
1270
1120
1135
1125
1130 1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1145
1140
1150 1185 1180
1195
1190
1175 1170 1165 1160 11551200 1210 1205
1145
1140
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1260
1255
1250
1245
1270
1265
1280
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E 1293'
1310
1305 1300
1295
x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:

SIDE YARD
SETBACK 35' SIDE YARD SETBACK
35'
100'

SIDE YARD

SETBACK

FRONT YARD

SETBACK

SIDE YARD

SETBACK
35'
25'

SIDE YARD

EASEMENT
50'

FRONT YARD

EASEMENT
25'

SIDE YARD
EASEMENT 25' SIDE YARD EASEMENT
26'
62'
15'
15'
93'-2"
67'-3"
7% Slope First 20' Water Feature
193'-5" Garage Site Planning Changelog Main House -Building footprint moved 9’-5” North and 3’-5” West. -Southwest building corner from property line 57-9” (Previous 65’-9”) -Southeast building corner from property line 100'-11" (Previous 100'-1") -Building east wing rotated clockwise 5 deg. -Pool deck area 1,100 sf (Previous 1,500 sf) -All basement area under covered porch has been removed. -Basement area 7,428 sf (Previous 7,610 sf) Guest House -Building footprint rotated counterclockwise 12 deg. -Southeast building corner from property line 55’-1” (Previous 51’-3”) Civil -Total grading 28,725 cy (Previous 28,930 cy) -Total Structure 18,457 sf (Previous 17,184 sf) -Total disturbed area 87,920 sf (Previous 92,460 sf) -Total flatwork 18,715 sf (Previous 20,520 sf) -Primary driveway 13,480 sf (Previous 16,100 sf) -Paved walks, patio areas 2,675 sf (Previous 4,010 sf) -Pool decking 1,120 sf (Previous 410 sf) Site -Mound height 1330’ (Previous 1335’) 57'-9"
51'-3"
100'-11"
100'-1"
321
127(6
'DWH

6FDOH

'UDZQ

&KHFNHG

&23<5,*+7(6&+(5*81(:$5'(1$$5&+,7(&785(,1&
2:1(5
7+(6('5$:,1*6$1'63(&,),&$7,216$5(7+(3523(57<2)(6&+(5*81(:$5'(1$$5&+,7(&785(,1& 1R ,VVXDQFH 'DWH
6LOYHU/DNH%RXOHYDUG
/RV$QJHOHV&$

7HO

)D[

123$577+(5(2)6+$//%(&23,('2586(',1&211(&7,21:,7+$1<:25.27+(57+$17+(63(&,),('352-(&7:+,&+7+(<+$9(%((135($35(':,7+287:5,77(1&216(172)(6&+(5*81(:$5'(1$$5&+,7(&785(,1& *(1(5$/&2175$&725
(VFKHU
*XQH:DUGHQD
$UFKLWHFWXUH
67$036
$5&+,7(&72)5(&25'
6758&785$/(1*,1((5
&,9,/(1*,1((5
0(3(1*,1((5/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7
*
$V6KRZQ'5:&+.
&RYHU6KHHW
7HUUHPRWR
*OHQGDOH%OYG
/RV$QJHOHV&$

3$(
&HQWHU'UWK)OU
/RV$QJHOHV&$

%ROWRQ(QJLQHHULQJ&RUS
1DUERQQH$YH6WH
/RPLWD&$
1RXV(QJLQHHULQJ
(DJOH5RFN%OYG
/RV$QJHOHV&$

7%'
6WUHHWQDPH6W
/RV$QJHOHV&$
<XNLNR2JDVDZDUD
)O\LQJ0DQH/Q
5ROOLQJ+LOOV&$

2JDVDZDUD
5HVLGHQFH
&UHVW5RDG
5ROOLQJ+LOOV&$

&LW\&RXQFLO
X###
X#
X-###
X#
A
B
C
D
SCALE:
'UDZLQJ7LWOH X#
'UDZLQJ,QGH[
*HQHUDO
* &RYHU6KHHW* 6XUYH\* 6LWH3KRWRV* /DQG8VH7DEOHV* 6LWH3ODQQLQJ'LDJUDPV* 9LHZ&RUULGRU'LDJUDPV &LYLO& 2YHUDOO6LWH3ODQ& ([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV& 3UHOLP*UDGLQJ3ODQ& 6LWH6HFWLRQV& &LYLO'HWDLOV& (DUWKZRUN&RORU([KLELW :DWHU0DQDJHPHQW
: 2QVLWH:DVWHZDWHU6\VWHP:5 :DWHU5HVXVH6FKHPDWLF'HVLJQ /DQGVFDSH
/ &RQFHSWXDO/DQGVFDSH3ODQ/ ([LVWLQJDQG3URSRVHG7UHH3ODQ/ /DQGVFDSH'HWDLOV/ /DQGVFDSH'HWDLOV/ 3ODQWLQJ=RQH'LDJUDP/ &RQFHSWXDO3ODQW,PDJHV/ &RQFHSWXDO3ODQW,PDJHV $UFKLWHFWXUDO$6 $UFKLWHFWXUDO6LWH3ODQ$ %DVHPHQW3ODQ2YHUDOO$ )LUVW)ORRU3ODQ2YHUDOO$ 5RRI3ODQ2YHUDOO$ %DVHPHQW3ODQ(QODUJHG$ )LUVW)ORRU3ODQ(QODUJHG(DVW$ )LUVW)ORRU3ODQ(QODUJHG&HQWUDO$ )LUVW)ORRU3ODQ(QODUJHG:HVW$ 0DLQ+RXVH(OHYDWLRQV$ 6WDEOH3ODQVDQG(OHYDWLRQV$ $'83ODQVDQG(OHYDWLRQV$ *XHVW+RXVH3ODQVDQG(OHYDWLRQV 3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
&RQVWUXFWLRQRIDQHZEHGURRPEDWKURRPSRZGHUURRPUDQFKVW\OHKRXVHZLWKEDVHPHQWDQGSRROJXHVWKRXVHPL[HGXVH VWDEOH
ZLWKFRUUDOWDFNDQGRIILFHDGPLQVSDFH
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
DQGWKH&LW\RI5ROOLQJ+LOOVUHYLHZFULWHULDVRWKDWSUHH[LVWLQJDSSURYHGVWUDWHJLHVIRU ZDWHUPDQDJHPHQW
VHQVLWLYHWRGRZQKLOOSURSHUWLHVLQWKHUXQRII]RQHRI&UHVW5G( PLQLPDOJUDGLQJDQGYLHZSUHVHUYDWLRQZHUH
FHQWUDOWRWKHGHVLJQSURFHVVDQGDUHUHIOHFWHGLQWKLVGHVLJQSURSRVDOIRU&UHVW5RDG(DVW 3URMHFW'LUHFWRU\
2:1(5

<XNLNR2JDVDZDUD
)O\LQJ0DQH/Q
5ROOLQJ+LOOV&$

7HO

$5&+,7(&7

ƐĐŚĞƌ'ƵŶĞtĂƌĚĞŶĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ
ϴϭϱ^ŝůǀĞƌ>ĂŬĞŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ
>ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ͕ϵϬϬϮϲ
ĂĚŵŝŶΛĞŐĂƌĐŚ͘ŶĞƚ
KĨĨŝĐĞ͗ϯϮϯͲϲϲϱͲϵϭϬϬ
&Ăǆ͗ϯϮϯͲϲϲϱͲϵϭϬϯ
&,9,/(1*,1((5

'DQ%ROWRQ%ROWRQ(QJLQHHULQJ
1DUERQQH$YHQXH
/RPLWD&$

7HO

)D[

GEROWRQ#EROWRQHQJLQHHULQJFRP
/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7'DYLG*RGVKDOO .DVH\7RRPH\
7HUUHPRWR
*OHQGDOH%OYG
/RV$QJHOHV&$

7HO

$SSOLFDEOH&RGHV
5+&$%XLOGLQJ5HJXODWLRQV
5+&DOLIRUQLD&RGHRI2UGLQDQFHV

&DOLIRUQLD+LVWRULF%XLOGLQJ&RGH
&DOLIRUQLD5HVLGHQWLDO&RGH
9ROXPHDQG

&DOLIRUQLD(OHFWULFDO&RGH
&DOLIRUQLD0HFKDQLFDO&RGH
&DOLIRUQLD3OXPELQJ&RGH
&DOLIRUQLD(QHUJ\&RGH
&DOLIRUQLD*UHHQ%XLOGLQJ6WDQGDUGV&RGH/RV$QJHOHV%XLOGLQJ&RGH 2*$6$:$5$5(6,'(1&(
&5(6752$'($67
52//,1*+,//6&$

&LW\0DS
6\PEROV
'UDZLQJ
,'1XPEHU
'UDZLQJ
,'1XPEHU
6KHHW1XPEHU
'UDZLQJ7LWOH7DJ
6HFWLRQ7DJ
'UDZLQJ
,'1XPEHU
6KHHW1XPEHU
&DOORXW7DJ
'UDZLQJ
,'1XPEHU
6KHHW1XPEHU,QWHULRU(OHYDWLRQ7DJ
/HYHO,'/HYHO(OHYDWLRQ
(OHYDWLRQ/HYHO7DJ
'UDZLQJ
,'1XPEHU
6KHHW1XPEHU
%XLOGLQJ(OHYDWLRQ7DJ
X#
X###
*ULG,'
*ULGOLQH7DJ
5RRP1DPH
5RRP7DJ
5RRP
100
5RRP,'1XPEHU
:LQGRZ7DJ
X##
:LQGRZ,'
D###
'RRU7DJ
'RRU,'
$EEUHYLDWLRQV
$ERYH)LQLVK)ORRU$W
%RWWRPRI
;
%RWWRPRI:DOO
&HQWHU/LQH&RQFUHWH
(TXDO([LVWLQJ
)LQLVK)ORRU)LQLVK6XUIDFH
+HLJKW
,QWHULRU
1RQ5DWHG
6TXDUH)HHW
7R%H'HWHUPLQHG7RSRI
;
7RSRI:DOO7\SLFDO
8QOHVV1RWHG2WKHUZLVH
:LWK
9HULI\,Q)LHOG
$))
#
%2%:
&/&21&
(4(4)))6+7
,17
15 6)
7%'727:7<3
812
:
9,)
&,7<&281&,/5(9,(:

322
127(6
'DWH

6FDOH

'UDZQ

&KHFNHG

6FDOH

'UDZQ

&KHFNHG

6FDOH

'UDZQ

&KHFNHG

Scale:

Drawn:

Checked:

OWNER
THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC.

No. Issuance Date
815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC.

GENERAL CONTRACTOR
Escher
GuneWardena
Architecture
STAMPS

ARCHITECT OF RECORD

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

CIVIL ENGINEER

MEP ENGINEERLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
G105
As ShownDRWCHK2024/10/14
Site Planning
Diagrams
Terremoto
3401 Glendale Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90039PAE
6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Bolton Engineering Corp.
25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210
Lomita, CA 90717Nous Engineering
5050 Eagle Rock Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90041
TBD
### Streetname St.

Los Angeles, CA #####
Yukiko Ogasawara
3 Flying Mane Ln
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Ogasawara
Residence
23 Crest Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
10/14/24 City Council
326
NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:

COPYRIGHT © ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. OWNER THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. No. Date Issuance 815 Silver Lake Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: 323 665 9100
Fax: 323 665 9103
NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREAPRED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF ESCHER GUNEWARDENA ARCHITECTURE, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR Escher GuneWardena
Architecture STAMPS ARCHITECT OF RECORD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER MEP ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT G106 As Shown DRW CHK 2024/10/14 View Corridor Diagrams Terremoto 3401 Glendale Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90039 PAE 6060 Center Dr, 10th Flr Los Angeles, CA 90045 Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave, Ste 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Nous Engineering 5050 Eagle Rock Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90041 TBD ### Streetname St. Los Angeles, CA ##### Yukiko Ogasawara 3 Flying Mane Ln Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ogasawara Residence 23 Crest Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 10/14/24 City Council NTS Proposed Site Section 2 NTS 2017 Approved Site Section 1 327
1360
1355
1360
1340
1335
1345
1350
1330
1340
1335
1340
1345
1335
1350
1330
1355
1350
1345
1360
1365
1355
1340
1335
1350
1340
1345
1360
1355 1355
1345
1350
1360
1365
1360
1355
1350
1365
1365
1350
1370
1370
1345
1340
1335
1330
1340
1335
1310
1320
1315
1325
1320
1325
1330
1335
1330
1285
1290
1295
1300
1290
1290
1285
1280
1270
12651295 1290 1285 1280
1310
1305
1300
1295 1315
1320
1325
1320
1330
1310
1305
1300
1315
1300
1290
1295
1280
1285
1290
1285
1280
1275
1270
1265
1260
1255
1260
1255
1265
1275
1265
1270
1265 1255 1250
1245
1240
1235
12201225 1230
1215 1205 1210 1200
1205
1200
1195
1190
1185
1230
1225
1220
1210
1185
1180
1215
1205
1200
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1210
1215
1205
1200
1270
1260
1255
1265
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1275
1270
1260
1255
1265
1250
1245
1295
1290
1285
1280
1300
1275
1270
1265
1215
1240
1235
1230
1225
1220
1260 1255 1250
1245
128512801275 1265 12701250
1245 1235 12401260 1255
1230 1225
1220
1215
1185
1180 1195
1190
1175
1170
1165 1160 1155
1205
1200
1210
1210
1185
1195
1190
1205
1200
1145
1140
1135
1130
1125
1210
1215
1220
1225
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1205
1270
1280
1275
1265
1250
1245
1260
1255
1240
1235
1230
1310 1315
1305
1320
1325
1290
1295
1300
1280
1285
1290
1305
1300
1310
1295
1245
1250
1255
1260
1265
1270
1275
1285
1280
1290
1265
1270
1275
1295
1300
1255
1260
1250
1245
1240
1235
1230
1225
1200
1210
1215
1220
1205
1280
1285
1290
1275
1265
1270
1120
1135
1125
1130 1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1145
1140
1150 1185 1180
1195
1190
1175 1170 1165 1160 11551200 1210 1205
1145
1140
1150
1185
1180
1195
1190
1175
1170
1165
1160
1155
1260
1255
1250
1245
1270
1265
1280
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x
x x x x x x
x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E
C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E C/E 1293'
1310
1305 1300
1295
x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x

99.16 127.68
374.90
330.37
50 233.57
221.36
S. 71° 40' 40" E.
216.10 S. 18° 19' 20" W.
650.16 S. 42° 41' 40" W.

CREST ROAD EAST NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:

SIDE YARD
SETBACK 35' SIDE YARD SETBACK
35'
100'

SIDE YARD

SETBACK

FRONT YARD

SETBACK

SIDE YARD

SETBACK
35'
25'

SIDE YARD

EASEMENT
50'

FRONT YARD

EASEMENT
25'

SIDE YARD
EASEMENT 25' SIDE YARD EASEMENT
26'
62'
15'
15'
93'-2"
67'-3"
7% Slope First 20' Water Feature
193'-5" Garage
57'-9"
100'-1"
328
UP UP Storage 116 1390 sf Storage 115 203 sf Storage 104 1091 sf Atrium 106 Den 105 Theater 107 Bar 109 Wine 111 Elev. 114 Vest. 112 Pwd 113 Mechanical 108 Meditation 101 22'-5
1 2
" 24'-2"
36'-4" 14'
10'-3"
68'-7
1 2
"
55'-7
7 8
"
3'-3
1 2
" Vestibule 102 Music 102 Bas. Exit 110
53'-11
1 2
"
51'-8
1 2
"
9'-8"
27'-3"
17'-10"
21'-3
3 8
"
33'-1
7 8
" 85'-3"
7'
7'-8"
6'-11" NOTES Date: Scale: Drawn: Checked:

ABBREVIATIONS
Bolton Engineering Corp.

Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C1
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274

SHEET INDEX
SCALE: 1" = 40'

OVERALL SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 300'

VICINITY MAP
123456789
10 1112131415
161718
1920
21222324252627282930313233343536
373839

TYPICAL SECTION
CREST

ROAD EAST
10/14/24
340
Bolton Engineering Corp.

Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C2
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
SCALE: 1" = 40'

EXISTING CONDITIONS
CREST

ROAD EAST
10/14/24
341
LEGEND

ABBREVIATIONS
Bolton Engineering Corp.

Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C3
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
CREST

ROAD EAST
SCALE: 1" = 20'

PRELIMINARY CIVIL PLAN
100 YEAR STORM 100 YEAR STORM 10/14/24
342
Bolton Engineering Corp.

Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581 C4 SCALE: 1" = 20' SECTION A-A SCALE: 1" = 20' SECTION B-B SCALE: 1" = 20' SECTION C-C SCALE: 1" = 20' SECTION D-D SCALE: 1" = 20' SECTION E-E SCALE: 1" = 20' SECTION B1-B1 10/14/24 343
TYPE A2-8 (Modified) MOW CURB
TYPE A1-6 (Modified)
Bolton Engineering Corp.

Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C5
70' LONG
10/14/24
344
70

CRORU DHSWK

AUHD RI )LOO AUHD RI CXW
LEGEND
Bolton Engineering Corp.

Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
C3
23 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
CREST

ROAD EAST
SCALE: 1" = 20'

EARTHWORK COLOR EXHIBIT
10/14/24
6 345
STABLE
ADU
GUEST
HOUSE

MAIN HOUSE
=ʇ̜ʆʆ
cXX
J&\tX
CJcJ

CITY COUNCIL
10/14/24
346
STABLE
ADU
GUEST
HOUSE

MAIN HOUSE
=ʇ̜ʆʇ
cXX
J&\tX
CJcJ

CITY COUNCIL
10/14/24
347
L1.50
TERRE

OGASAWARA
MOTO
1 SITE SECTION ABOVE HOUSE2 SITE SECTION BELOW HOUSE
SEE 2/L1.50

MATCHLINE

MATCHLINE
SEE 1/L1.50

CITY COUNCIL
10/14/24
348
=ʈ̜ʆʆ
cXX
J&\tX
CJcJ
1 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY 2 COBBLESTONE DRIVEWAY 3 DRY STACK STONE RETAINING WALL 5 PT TIMBER STEPS SECTION 6 PT TIMBER STEPS CLOSE-UP
4 STONE VENEERED RETAINING WALL
8 HANDRAIL AT RAMPS 9 CONCRETE STEPS
7 PT TIMBER TRAIL SECTION

CITY COUNCIL
10/14/24
349
=ʈ̜ʆʇ
cXX
J&\tX
CJcJ
2 TREE PLANTING 3 HILLSIDE TREE PLANTING
4 BIOSWALE DETAIL 5 SHRUB PLANTING 6 PERENNIAL PLANTING 1 WATER FEATURE

CITY COUNCIL
10/14/24
350
STABLE
ADU
GUEST
HOUSE

MAIN HOUSE
=ʉ̜ʆʆ
cXX
J&\tX
CJcJ
MATRIX 1: NATIVE MEADOW
24,000 SQ FT = 2,780 PLANTS
(200) ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM (L) (600) BACCHARIS PILULARIS (L) (200) BOUTELOUA GRACILIS (L)(100) CEANOTHUS 'SKYLARK' (M)(600) CEANOTHUS 'YANKEE POINT' (L) (400) FESTUCA CALIFORNICA (L) (30) HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA (L)(250) LAVANDULA DENTATA (L) (200) LUPINUS SUCCULENTUS (L)(200) SALVIA SPATHACEA (L) MATRIX 2: NATIVE GARDEN
20,000 SQ FT = 2,480 PLANTS
(150) AGAVE VILMORINIANA (VL)(300) DUDLEYA LANCEOLATA (VL)(25) OPUNTIA FICUS-INDICA (VL) (150) ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM (L) (250) BACCHARIS PILULARIS (L)(25) CEANOTHUS 'RAY HARTMAN’ (L)(300) CEANOTHUS 'YANKEE POINT' (L) (150) DICHELOSTEMMA CAPITATUM (VL) (150) ESCHSCHOLZIA CALIFORNICA (VL) (200) FESTUCA CALIFORNICA (L) (30) HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA (L)(150) LAVANDULA DENTATA (L)(150) LUPINUS SUCCULENTUS (L)(300) OLEA EUROPAEA 'LITTLE OLLIE' (L) (150) SALVIA SPATHACEA (L) MATRIX 3: NATIVE CHAPARRAL
21,000 SQ FT = 2,500 PLANTS
(200) ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA (VL) (150) ASCLEPIAS FASCICULARIS (VL) (150) CALOCHORTUS CATALINAE (VL) (150) ENCELIA CALIFORNICA (VL) (200) ERIOGONUM FASICULATUM (VL)(200) ERIOGONUM PARVIFOLIUM (VL)(30) HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA (L)(150) ISOMERIS ARBOREA (VL)(150) LOTUS SCOPARIUS (VL)(200) MIMULUS AURANTIACUS (VL)(300) RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA (VL)(200) SALVIA APIANA (VL)(200) SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA (VL)(200) SALVIA MELLIFERA (VL)(50) SAMBUCUS MEXICANA (VL) (5) LYONOTHAMNUS FLORIBUNDUS
Max Height - 20'Max Width - 12'
(6) QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA
Max Height - 30'Max Width - 30'
(4) CERCIS CANADENSIS 'FOREST PANSY'
Max Height - 12'Max Width - 12'

EXISTING TREE

CITY COUNCIL
10/14/24
351
=ʉ̜ʆʇ
cXX
J&\tX
CJcJ
MAX HEIGHT: 20'
MAX WIDTH: 12'
MAX HEIGHT: 30'
MAX WIDTH: 30'
MAX HEIGHT: 12'
MAX WIDTH: 12'

CITY COUNCIL
10/14/24
352
=ʉ̜ʆʈ
cXX
J&\tX
CJcJ
MAX HEIGHT: 2'

CITY COUNCIL
10/14/24
353
James and Ann Bellis
Quail Ridge Rd. South
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
1 October 14, 2024
City of Rolling Hills
City Council
2 Portuguese Bend Rd.

Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Cc Rolling Hills Community Association
1 Portuguese Bend Rd.

Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear City of Rolling Hills:

Again, this letter requests that the City of Rolling Hills agendize and enact a moratorium on development of land and on removal large trees (greater than 3” diameter) until the City can adequately address geotechnical and hydrologic conditions and risks for land in Rolling Hills above the Greater Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex. For the purposes of this letter, “development” is considered demolition, grading, excavating, earthworks, and non-emergency construction of new structures. This letter opposes the development of 23 Crest Rd.

Pursuant to Government Code section 66300, subdivision (b)(1)(B)(ii), a city cannot enforce a moratorium that would limit housing development until it has submitted the ordinance to and received approval from HCD. Conditions for imposing a moratorium, or similar restrictions on housing development, must demonstrate “an imminent threat to the health and safety of persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium” (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(B)(i)). The City and its elected and appointed officials can demonstrate and know that there is an imminent threat to the Rolling Hills residents living in the vicinity of the Greater Portuguese Landslide Complex.

I continue to submit this same letter. I am now the squeaky wheel that is being ignored. I ask the City Council and City Manager, “Why is this moratorium item not getting agendized?” If the City agendizes this moratorium item and votes “no,” then that is the final decision, and the residents will confidently know where the City stands on the landslide issue. If the City votes “yes” to enact a moratorium, the residents will see that the City is being prudent and not trying to add to an already existing problem. It is beyond my mental capacity how a City Council can confidently approve the development of new structures in an active land slide area with no utilities or in areas under the threat of utility abandonment. City approval of these development projects is not only hazardous for the construction workers of the development, but hazardous to the families who eventually live in the structures, and hazardous to those who own property and structures around 354
James and Ann Bellis
Quail Ridge Rd. South
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
2 the new development. Until the City can prove that development is safe and not adding to a continuing landslide issue, should the moratorium be lifted.

With regards to 23 Crest Rd: development of a vacant parcel resulting in more impervious surfaces does not “help” keep water from penetrating a landslide slip layer; impervious surfaces just divert water, resulting in more heavily saturated neighboring areas. Trees however, do maintain water in the upper layers of the earth, preventing water from reaching down into landslide slip layers. This is the reason for a moratorium on development and removal of 3+ inch trees.

I AGAIN REQUEST, THE CITY AGENDIZE A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT AND REMOVAL OF 3+ INCH DIAMETER TREES, PUBLICALLY DISCUSS THE ITEM, AND VOTE ON THE ITEM.

Sincerely,
James and Ann Bellis
Quail Ridge Rd. S., Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Enclosed
Table of Figures
Figure 1: September 9, 2024 Crack between 3 and 5 Quail Ridge Rd. S. .............................................. 3 Figure 2: September 9, 2024 Crack and movement on Quail Ridge Rd. S. ............................................ 3 Figure 3: September 24th, 2024 Showing Expanding Crack and vertical movement ........................ 4 Figure 4: September 29, 2024 showing crack widening and vertical movement............................... 5 Figure 5:September 29, 2024 showing crack all the way through property and damaging fence ....... 5 Figure 6: September 30, 2024 Crack running through retaining wall................................................ 6 Figure 7: Greater Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex Overview Map........................................... 7 Figure 8: Proposed Rolling Hills Moratorium Area........................................................................... 8 355
James and Ann Bellis
Quail Ridge Rd. South
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
3 Figure 1: September 9, 2024 Crack between 3 and 5 Quail Ridge Rd. S.

Figure 2: September 9, 2024 Crack and movement on Quail Ridge Rd. S. 356
James and Ann Bellis
Quail Ridge Rd. South
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
4 Figure 3: September 24th, 2024 Showing Expanding Crack and vertical movement 357
James and Ann Bellis
Quail Ridge Rd. South
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
5 Figure 5:September 29, 2024 showing crack all the way through property and damaging fence Figure 4: September 29, 2024 showing crack widening and vertical movement 358
James and Ann Bellis
Quail Ridge Rd. South
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
6 Figure 6: September 30, 2024 Crack running through retaining wall 359
James and Ann Bellis
Quail Ridge Rd. South
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
7 Figure 7: Greater Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex Overview Map 360
James and Ann Bellis
Quail Ridge Rd. South
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
8 Figure 8: Proposed Rolling Hills Moratorium Area
361
Alfred Visco Statement At Rolling Hills 10-14-24 City Council Meeting Re: 23 Crest Road East Development Project
It must be kept in mind that this Project is quite frankly massive in scope both in the structural and flatwork coverage of 36, 590 sq. ft. (.84 acres) and the disturbed area of 87,770 sq. ft. (2.015 acres).

Pg. 83.

Under the heading of Environmental Determination the following statement is set forth: “ Assertions that this Project will have some different or dispositive impact on land movement issues in the City is not supported by any technical evidence...”. Pg. 50. Unfortunately this is a prime example of not finding what you are not looking for.

The Hamilton and Associations cover letter is dated May 23, 2024 and is entitled Geotechnical and Geological Report Update. Pg. 124. Thus on its face it does not and can not take into consideration the recent land movement in Rolling Hills which commenced in approximately June /July 2024 and of course the GS survey reports published commencing on September 14, 2024. Nor does it take into consideration the recent geological reports and studies set forth in Rancho Palos Verdes city council meetings since May 2024. Delving into the actual HA report it even becomes less supportive of the foregoing environmental determination. For example, all of the geotechnical and geologic engineering investigation on the subject site were performed in 2013 and 2014. Pg. 129.

As set forth in the HA report the Flying Triangle landslide is purportedly located within 230 feet west of the west site margin and about 425 feet southwest of the proposed site development. Pg. 137.

There is no analysis done, of course, to determine if in fact this statement is currently accurate. The more recent RPV reports bring into question what has been historically viewed as the outer limits of the reactivated landslide areas and waive a red flag as to the accuracy of the Flying Triangle landslide location as reported decades ago, especially when coupled with the new Rolling Hills land movement.

The HA report goes on to state that the maximum depth of the Flying Triangle landslide slide mass is enigmatic. Some have indicated it is 76 feet deep while others concluded it could be as much as 450 feet below the ground surface. Pg. 137. Yet the deepest boring conducted on the site was only 59 feet. Pg. 129.

The only logical conclusion one can and should draw from all of the foregoing is that the HA report is inadequate and does not support the assertion that the Project will not have an impact on land movement. The City Council should not approve the Project and direct that a new geotechnical and geological report be prepared based on current and adequate geotechnical and geologic engineering investigations.
362
Agenda Item No.: 12.A
Mtg. Date: 10/14/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO

CITY MANAGER
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE CITY HALL ADA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING'S INC. (PAE) REQUEST

FOR ADDITIONAL BUDGET TO COMPLETE RESPONSES TO PLAN
REVIEW COMMENTS; ADOPT BY RESOLUTION NO. 1379
AUTHORIZING A FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 BUDGET MODIFICATION TO APPROPRIATE $4,000.00 IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND

FUNDED FROM A TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES

AND APPROVE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH PAE COVERING ADDITIONAL SERVICES FOR

THE CITY HALL ADA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
DATE: October 14, 2024
BACKGROUND:

On May 31, 2023, the City Hall ADA Improvement project plans were re-submitted to Los Angeles County Building & Safety (LACBS) after addressing initial plan review comments. The expectation was that reviews and approvals by LACBS would be completed in July 2023 and ready to solicit construction bids in late summer.

On June 26, 2023, staff presented an update on the status of the City Hall ADA Improvement project to the City Council. Due to a backlog at LACBS, as well as coordination with other County departments requiring project review, the plan check continued through November 2023.

On November 9, 2023, the City received notification from Pacific Architecture and Engineering (PAE) that LACBS had returned plan review comments requesting ADA upgrades/grading in the parking lot and path of travel to the sidewalk at Palos Verdes Drive North, additional structural details, and some other minor comments. PAE also informed staff that the Los Angeles County Health and Fire Departments required payment of fees for their portion of the plan check before documents could be finalized. While LACBS can waive review fees for public projects, the other departments cannot.
363
PAE notified the City that the plan review comments required additional design work outside the existing project scope; therefore, additional budget is required to complete the improvement plans for this project. Staff requested and received a comprehensive itemized cost to complete the additional service requests covering plan completion through LACBS approval. This additional service request is attached.

On January 9, 2024, City Staff met with PAE to discuss the additional costs addressing LACBS comments. The City also contacted LACBS to discuss several plan review comments and determine if any of the requested ADA improvements would be required for the City Hall Improvement project or could be waived/deferred.

At the January 22, 2024, City Council meeting, City Staff updated the Council on the project and presented a list of eight additions to the scope from PAE. Based on internal discussion as well as information provided by LACBS staff, the recommendation included removing three of the proposed scope changes. Two of these were specific to the preparation of the ADA Parking layout ($3,000) and preparation of the path of travel ($4,000) per plan check comments. The City Council voted 4/1, with Councilmember Black dissenting, to approve five additions to the scope of work at a not-to-exceed amount of $11,500.

At the February 12, 2024, City Council meeting, the Council voted 4/1, with Councilmember Black dissenting, to approve Resolution No. 1356 authorizing a budget modification for the $11,500.

DISCUSSION:

On July 29, 2024, LACBS Senior Civil Engineer Mike Dorta visited the City Hall campus to inspect plan check comments that conflicted with previous communications made to City Staff.

The previous miscommunication had led to a finding that the City could enact changes to the ADA parking and path of travel at a later time. This, in turn, led to the January 22 staff recommendation not to include those line items in the proposed scope of work.

During the visit and a subsequent email on July 31, 2024 to PAE, Mr. Dorta stated, "...Originally I believed the City Hall scope of work was solely for the purpose of adding ADA restrooms. In that case there is an exception in the code for removing ADA barriers. But since the scope of work includes further tenant improvements to other areas/items in the City Hall, and the valuation is well over $200k, there is no exception to providing a fully compliant ADA parking space and path of travel to the entrance..."
During the month of August, staff discussed resolving this issue with PAE and LACBS. As originally presented on January 22, 2024, the proposed cost to complete both requirements totaled $7,000. On August 27, 2024, PAE sent an Additional Services proposal for the scope of work necessary to complete these final two requirements at a discounted rate of $4,000.

The Scope of work includes:

Examine survey for existing grade for compliance
Include in the scope of work correction of Cross Slope at one square foot of area from root upheaval
Addition of Van-accessible parking striping on drawing detail 364
Addition of Van-accessible parking striping on the site plan Addition of (1) Signage detail showing graphics of the required sign Addition of (1) Footing detail for the new signpost
Striping for the path of travel area
Revision showing the compliant path of travel on-site plan Specifications revision for sign, post, grading, paint
Revision of Scope of Work Description
Revision of Sheet Index
Additional plan check time
The City Hall ADA Improvement Project plans are nearly complete but require these final modifications to gain approval from LACBS. Staff is requesting approval of the additional scope and adoption of the budget amendment in Resolution No.1379.

At the September 9, 2024 City Council meeting, the City Council present voted to continue this item to the next meeting with a full council present.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Council action is required to amend the budget and increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund by $4,000 through a transfer from available General Fund Reserves. The use of General Fund Reserves is consistent with City policy.

Total Cost for PAE through the 5th Amendment would be a not-to-exceed amount of $211,723.01.

NOTE:

This not-to-exceed total includes services outside the design scope of the City Hall ADA Improvement Project. The not-to-exceed total includes:
$4,096.43 (part of Amendment No. 1) was for the evaluation of the existing emergency generator and providing recommendations
$58,897.01 (Amendment No. 2) was for a Solar Power System, of which only $28,286.63 of this budget was used before the project was put on hold as the City evaluated other options
$20,293 of the $96,485 budget (Amendment No. 3) remains unused/allocated for bid phase support and Construction Administration support.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file. Approve as presented.

ATTACHMENTS:

ResolutionNo1379_CityHallADA_PAE_BudgetAmendment_F.pdf
CA_AGR_240909_PAE_5thAmendment_F.pdf
CA_AGR_240827_PAE_5A_ScopeChange_Proposal.pdf
CL_AGN_240909_CC_Item12A_PublicComment01.pdf
365
RESOLUTION NO. 1379

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS. CALIFORNIA
AUTHORIZING A FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025

BUDGET MODIFICATION TO APPROPRIATE
$4,000.00 IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND

FUNDED BY A TRANSFER FROM AVAILABLE

GENERAL FUND RESERVES FOR ADDITIONAL

DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FROM

PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING,
INC. FOR ADA IMPROVEMENT DESIGN AT CITY

HALL CAMPUS

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA,

DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals.

B. On February 22, 2021, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a First Amendment to expand the scope of work in the Agreement, clarify the term, and increase the cost for the CONSULTANT to provide engineering services for the replacement of the generator at City Hall (the “First Amendment”).

C. On June 28, 2021, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Second Amendment to expand the scope of work and increase the cost for CONSULTANT to provide engineering services for (1) the installation of a photovoltaic system per the General Assessment Report dated April 18, 2019 and (2) upgrades needed for existing structure which houses the generator (the “Second Amendment”).

D. On May 9, 2022 the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Third Amendment to expand the scope of work and increase the cost for CONSULTANT to provide further architectural and engineering design services and to prepare ADA improvement plans for the City.

E. On February 12, 2024 the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Fourth Amendment to clarify the scope of work and increase the cost for CONSULTANT to provide further architectural and engineering design services and to prepare ADA improvement plans for the City.
366
F. To meet additional requirements from the Los Angeles County Building and Safety plan check process, the CITY must provide a path of travel to the building before any final approvals.

G. The City desires to appropriate $4,000.00 in the Capital Projects Fund funded from a transfer of General Fund reserves to additionally fund the Fifth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. attached as Exhibit “A.” Section 2. The sum of four thousand dollars ($4,000.00) is hereby appropriated in the Capital Projects Fund to further fund the Fifth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc.

Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book or original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of September, 2024 ______________________________

LEAH MIRSCH
MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________

CHRISTIAN HORVATH

CITY CLERK
367

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
The foregoing Resolution No. 1379 entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS. CALIFORNIA
AUTHORIZING A FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025

BUDGET MODIFICATION TO APPROPRIATE
$4,000.00 IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND

FUNDED BY A TRANSFER FROM AVAILABLE

GENERAL FUND RESERVES FOR ADDITIONAL

DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FROM

PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING,
INC. FOR ADA IMPROVEMENT DESIGN AT CITY

HALL CAMPUS
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 9th day of September 2024, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________

CHRISTIAN HORVATH

CITY CLERK
368
Exhibit A
369

FIFTH AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT (“Fourth Amendment”) is made and entered into this 9th day of September 2024 in the City of Rolling Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California, by and between the CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, a California municipal corporation (hereinafter the “CITY”), and Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc., a California corporation (hereinafter the “CONSULTANT”).

RECITALS:

A. On February 24, 2020, the CITY entered into a Professional Services Agreement with CONSULTANT (“Agreement”) for architectural and engineering design services to prepare ADA improvement plans for the CITY; and
B. On February 22, 2021, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a First Amendment to expand the scope of work in the Agreement, clarify the term, and increase the cost for the CONSULTANT to provide engineering services for the replacement of the generator at City Hall (the “First Amendment”); and C. On June 28, 2021, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Second Amendment to expand the scope of work and increase the cost for CONSULTANT to provide engineering services for (1) the installation of a photovoltaic system per the General Assessment Report dated April 18, 2019 and (2) upgrades needed for existing structure which houses the generator (the “Second Amendment”); and
D. On May 9, 2022 the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Third Amendment to expand the scope of work and increase the cost for CONSULTANT to provide further architectural and engineering design services and to prepare ADA improvement plans for the City; and
E. On February 12, 2024 the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Fourth Amendment to expand the scope of work and increase the cost for CONSULTANT to provide further architectural and engineering design services and to prepare ADA improvement plans for the City; and
D. CITY and CONSULTANT now desire to amend the Agreement a fifth time (the “Fifth Amendment”) to clarify the remaining scope of work and increase the cost by $4,000.00 so that CONSULTANT may provide services for the CITY; and
E. CONSULTANT is well qualified by reason of education, training, and experience to perform such services; and
370
F. CONSULTANT is willing to render such professional services as hereinafter defined.

Now, therefore, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, CITY hereby engages CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT agrees to perform the services set forth in this Fourth Amendment.

1. CITY and CONSULTANT agree to supplement Exhibit A (Scope of Work) that was attached to the First Amendment, Exhibit A (Scope of Work – Supplemental) that was attached to the Second Amendment, Exhibit A (Scope of Work - Supplemental) that was attached to the Third Amendment and Exhibit A (Scope of Work - Supplemental) that was attached to the Fourth Amendment with Exhibit A (Scope of Work – Supplemental) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference to this Fifth Amendment.

2. Paragraph 3 (COST) of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

3. COST
The CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT for the services required by this Agreement on a Time and Materials basis in an amount not to exceed $4,000 for the scope of services identified by this Fifth Amendment, $11,500 for the scope of services identified by the Fourth Amendment, $96,485.00 for the scope of services identified by the Third Amendment, $58,897.42 for the scope of services identified by the Second Amendment, and $40,840.59 for the scope of services identified by the First Amendment. Now, the current amended and increased not to exceed amount is $211,723.01. This not to exceed amount includes all expenses, consisting of all incidental blueprinting, photography, travel, attendance at meetings, and miscellaneous costs, estimated to be accrued during that period. It also includes any escalation or inflation factors anticipated. Any increase in Agreement cost or scope of work shall be by express written amendment approved by the CITY and CONSULTANT.

3. All terms and conditions of the Agreement not amended by the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Third Amendment, the Fourth Amendment or this Fifth Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Third Amendment on the date and year first above written.
371

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PACIFIC ARCHITECTURE AND
ENGINEERING, INC.

CITY MANAGER: PRINCIPAL PROJECT MANAGER
__________________________ __________________________
KARINA BAÑALES JUN FUJITA HALL

ATTEST:
__________________________

CHRISTIAN HORVATH

CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________

PATRICK DONEGAN

CITY ATTORNEY
372

EXHIBIT A
Scope of Work - Supplemental
373
Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc.
1137 Second St, Suite 214
Santa Monica, CA 90403
(310)424-9658
August 27, 2024
Subject: Proposal for for Rolling Hills ADA Improvement_ Additional Services 2 Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc., is pleased to submit this proposal for engineering services for improvements for the ADA improvements at City Hall. Our understanding of the scope of work is described below.

Scope of Work:

Examine survey for existing grade for compliance
Include in scope of work correction of Cross Slope at one square foot of area from root upheaval Addition of Van accessible parking striping on drawing detail Addition of Van accessible parking striping on site plan Addition of (1) Signage detail showing graphics of required sign Addition of (1) Footing detail for new sign post
Striping for path of travel area
Revision showing compliant path of travel on site plan
Specifications revision for sign, post, grading, paint
Revision of Scope of Work Description
Revision of Sheet Index
Additional plan check time
Amendment Fee
$4,000
We appreciate the opportunity to offer this proposal. If you have any questions please contact me for any further information you may need at (310)405-3878 or [email protected] Sincerely,
Jun Fujita Hall, AIA, LEED AP BD & C, Lic#C 30954
Principal Project Manager, Pacific Architecture and Engineering, Inc. 310-405-3878
[email protected]
Required note: Architects are licensed and regulated by the California Architects Board located at 2420 Del Paso Road, Suite 105, Sacramento, CA 95834
374
September 9, 2024
Rolling Hills City Council
2 Portuguese Bend Road,
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Esteemed Members of the Rolling Hills City Council, As the Women’s Community Club of Rolling Hills, we are thrilled to see the ongoing improvements at City Hall. The progress is a testament to the care and dedication that our city officials put into enhancing our community spaces.

We understand that our suggestions come very late in your project. But with our recent success at our events, we have realized the need is great for a larger area for the City and Clubs to host resident gatherings and meetings, such as holiday parties, Block Captain meetings, neighborhood meetings, etc.

Towards this end, we respectfully submit the following minor modifications to the existing plan, which would provide an improved functional space for meetings and events:

1. Flip the locations of the kitchen and the smaller meeting room adjacent to it, for better connectivity to council chambers.

2. Install bi-fold door panels between the council chambers and the small meeting room to create a flexible and adaptable space.

3. Add a separate entrance at the front of the large meeting room to ensure that the movement of attendees does not disturb the City’s daily activities.

4. Create an accessible outdoor deck with bi-fold windows, allowing for an indoor-outdoor flow and providing additional event space.

The Women’s Club fully supports the City’s efforts to educate residents and host events throughout the year. These minor improvements would make it easier for the City and Clubs to continuously achieve these goals.

The Women’s Club greatly appreciates all that you do for Rolling Hills, and we would be happy to assist in any way possible to make these changes a reality. Thank you for your continued commitment to our beautiful city.

Warm regards,
Melissa McNabb
President, Women’s Community Club of Rolling Hills
375
Agenda Item No.: 13.A
Mtg. Date: 10/14/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROBERT SAMARIO, FINANCE DIRECTOR
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE PRELIMINARY YEAR END RESULTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024
DATE: October 14, 2024
BACKGROUND:

Each quarter, Finance staff prepares a report on the status of revenues and expenditures in relation to the amended budget for all funds. During the year, these reports are helpful in identifying any negative trends that may require correct measures. The current report covers the full fiscal year's results of operation. Since the numbers are close to final, its purpose is to provide Council with a preliminary view of the financial results of operations in the context of budgetary expectations. Given the previous quarterly reporting that has been provided, plus the reports presented to Council and the public in connection with the development and adoption of the fiscal year 2024/25 budget, there should be few surprises.

Note that the amounts contained in this report are still subject to change and thus still considered to be preliminary. Final numbers will be presented when the audit is completed.

DISCUSSION:

The City's primary fund is the General Fund which accounts for most of the City's ongoing services, including administration, planning, finance, law enforcement, emergency preparedness, and maintenance of City facilities. These services are funded primarily from unrestricted tax revenues. The City also maintains several Special Revenue Funds to account for various revenues that are each restricted to specified purposes. This category includes several transportation-related funds that account of various County-wide sales tax measures, including Proposition A, Proposition C, Measure R and Measure M. Major capital improvement projects are tracked and accounted for in the Capital Projects Fund and, for projects funded by federal disaster grants, in the CalOES Fund. Finally, refuse services provided to City residents are accounted for in the Refuse Enterprise Fund.

Attached to this report is a detailed written narrative for all City funds. In addition, several 376
attachments are included with this staff report providing detailed information about each of the City's funds, with the focus being on the General Fund.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 01 - CL_AGN_241014_CC_FY23-24_YearEnd_NarrativeAnalysis.pdf Attachment 02 - CL_AGN_241014_CC_FY23-24_YearEnd_BudgetSummary.pdf Attachment 03 - CL_AGN_241014_CC_FY23-24_YearEnd_GeneralFund_Revenues.pdf Attachment 04- CL_AGN_241014_CC_FY23-24_YearEnd_GF_ExpendituresByDept.pdf Attachment 05 - CL_AGN_241014_CC_FY23-24_YearEnd_GF_Expenditures_Details.pdf Attachment 06 - CL_AGN_241014_CC_FY23-
24_YearEnd_GF_BudgetAmendments_ReserveStatus.pdf
Attachment 07 - CL_AGN_241014_CC_FY23-24_YearEnd_OtherCityFunds.pdf 377
Attachment 1

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Preliminary Year-End Result
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024

OVERVIEW
The analysis below provides a comparison of actual revenues and expenditures to the amended budget through June 30, 2024. Note that the year-end results are still preliminary and thus are subject to change; however, the amounts reported provided a good sense of the final results.

The largest and most important fund is the General Fund, which is where the traditional and ongoing services provided to the community are accounted for, including public safety, building/planning, emergency preparedness, and city administration.

However, the City has a number of other funds that account for other important activities, programs, and services. Most of these funds account for monies that are restricted to a specific purpose and, therefore, are required to be accounted for separately. The City also accounts for large capital projects separately, including projects funded from federal and state grants. Lastly, the City provides refuse collection and disposal services by contract. This operation is accounted for in an enterprise fund.

Each of the City’s funds are discussed below in the context of the mid-year review.

GENERAL FUND
General Fund Revenues
A summary of General Fund revenues is provided in the table below, which shows that the adopted fiscal year 2023/24 revenues total $2,762,294. Through June 30, 2024, revenues from all sources totaled $2,710,126, resulting in a small unfavorable variance of $52,168. An analysis of each key revenue is provided below.
378
2 Property Taxes. By far, the largest General Fund revenue is from property taxes, representing 54% of total adopted revenues. At June 30, 2024, property tax revenues totaled $1,432,117. This is $64,133, below the adopted budget of $1,496,250. Staff has discussed with Council the fact that the unfavorable variance is likely due to the fact that the adopted revenue budget was built upon an estimate of fiscal year 2022/23 revenues, which, in the end, came in below the year-end projection. Thus, the revenue budget for property taxes may be slightly high, and we anticipated revenues would end the fiscal year slightly below budget. In addition, staff assumed revenues would grow by 5% in relation to prior year revenues. However, it appears property tax revenues only grew by 3.9%, which is likely the result of the sharp increase in interest rates resulted in a dramatic decline in home sales. Home sales, and their resulting re-assessment to market values, lead to growth in property taxes beyond the annual CPI increase up to 2%. With a sharp reduction, we expect a more moderated growth pattern for up to a few years.

Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT). The significant decline in home sales caused by rising interest rates has more directly affected RPPT revenues. Because the RPTT is assessed at the time a home is sold or otherwise changes title, a decline in home sales will directly and immediately affect RPPT revenues, which are received monthly.

RPTT peaked in fiscal year 2021 at approximately $133,000 but has been much lower since then, as evidenced by the current year’s budget of $56,222. Fortunately, revenues through June 30, 2024 of $63,040 are slightly higher than the adopted budget as well as last year’s revenues of $57,185. While these are welcome results, revenues may continue at these levels until sales Actuals Variance
Adopted Thru Favorable
Budget 06/30/24 (Unfavorable)
401 Property Taxes $ 1,496,250 $ 1,432,117 $ (64,133)
405 Sales Taxes 13,905 36,863 22,958
410 Property Transfer Tax 56,222 63,040 6,818
415 Other Taxes 1,000 - (1,000)
420 Motor Vehicle In Lieu 269,267 274,520 5,253
440 Building & Other Permits 600,000 537,787 (62,213)
441 C&D Permits 5,600 7,900 2,300
450 Variance, Planning & Zoning 67,000 23,342 (43,658)
455 Animal Control Fees 150 696 546
460 Franchise Fees 13,000 12,110 (890)
480 Fines & Traffic Violations 3,500 5,089 1,589
482 Cost Recoivery - Publications 7,200 5,250 (1,950)
600 RHCA Lease Revenue 69,000 68,991 (9)
650 Public Safety Aug Fund 1,200 1,346 146
670 Interest on Investments 110,000 166,881 56,881
671 PARS Earnings 20,000 42,638 22,638
675 Miscellaneous Revenue 5,000 7,556 2,556
699 Transfers In - Refuse Fund 24,000 24,000 -
TOTALS $ 2,762,294 $2,710,126 $ (52,168)
Budget Vs Actual Through June 30 2024
General Fund Revenues
379
3 volumes increase from current levels and/or property values are back to where they were before the interest rate hikes.

Building and Other Permits. Revenues from this category are the General Fund’s second-largest revenue, with budgeted revenues of $600,000. In fiscal year 2021-22, revenues hit a 4-year high of approximately $640,000, driven by increasing building activity buoyed by low interest rates.

However, as with property taxes and real property transfer taxes, increases in interest rates tend to affect building/development activity due to the increased costs of borrowing. We did not see the expected impact on building revenues last fiscal year, with revenues reaching approximately $578,000. In this fiscal year, the trend during most of the year suggested a significant decline in revenues, perhaps as low as $400,000. However, revenues have reached $537,787 due to strong revenues since March 2024. Consequently, revenues are only $62,213 below budget.

Interest on Investments. Excluding the funds held in the Section 115 Pension Trust, interest revenues through June 30, 2024, totaled $166.681 versus the adopted budget of $110,000.

Revenues have been higher in the last two years for two reasons. First and foremost, over $1M has been shifted from Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) to CDs to capitalize on higher interest rates offered in the 3-month to 9-month window. For most of the current fiscal year, interest rates on the short end have been higher than the long end (referred to as an inverse yield curve).

As a result, staff has moved more money into short-term CDs, which has yielded higher earnings.

The second reason is that, generally, interest rates have increased after more than a decade of historically low-interest rates.

Interest earnings from the funds held in the City’s Section 115 pension trust are also higher than expected, ending the year at $42,638 versus a budget of $20,000.

General Fund Expenditures
The originally adopted budget for fiscal year 2023/24 totaled $2,805,457, which included $250,000 in capital transfers, leaving an operating budget of $2,555,457. The amended budget includes appropriation carryovers and budget amendments approved between July 1 and June 30, 2024, and totals $4,452,584, of which $1,727,160 is for one-time capital transfers.

Excluding capital transfers, expenditures through June 30, 2024, totaled $2,427,292, resulting in a favorable variance of $298,133. A discussion of the key variances at the department level is provided below.
380
4 • City Administrator/Manager Department
The $290,056 favorable variance was the result of underspending in three areas: (1) Approximately $193,143 is attributable to salary and benefit savings from staff vacancies.

During the first half of the fiscal year, there were vacancies in 3 of the 4 positions accounted for in the City Manager’s Department; (2) Consulting fees (account 890) were $71,513 below budget. This account includes project management costs performed by contract. Because most of the work is tied to capital projects accounted for in the Capital Improvement Fund (40), the costs have been charged directly to those projects rather than to this account; and (3) costs for services from the City attorney totaled $48,367, well below the $90,000 adopted budget. This is the result of an intentional focus on reducing the level of services requested from the contracted City Attorney.
• Planning Department
Expenditures for the Planning Department totaled $899,439, which is $40,638 more than the amended budget. Although there were smaller variances, both favorable and unfavorable, in Actuals Variance
Amended Thru Favorable
Department Budget Budget 06/30/24 (Unfav)
City Administrator $ 957,138 $ 1,063,827 $ 778,896 $ 284,931 Finance 154,400 154,400 157,780 (3,380)
Planning & Development 858,801 858,801 899,439 (40,638) Public Safety 270,000 317,578 298,815 18,763
Non-Departmental 134,018 141,618 122,814 18,804
City Properties 181,100 189,200 169,548 19,652
Total Operations 2,555,457 2,725,424 2,427,292 298,133
Capital Transfers 250,000 1,727,160 236,186 1,490,974
GENERAL FUND TOTALS $ 2,805,457 $ 4,452,584 $ 2,663,478 $1,789,106

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
General Fund Expenditures by Department
Budget Vs. Actual
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024
Adopted
381
5 many of the accounts, the unfavorable variance was largely caused by amounts paid for planning and building services to the County of Los Angeles Public Works Department (LACPW) and Willdan. The budgets for LACPW and Willdan were $250,000 and $30,000, respectively. However, costs through June 30, 2024, were $347,115 and $43,053, respectively, for a total overage of $110,168. Fortunately, this was in line with actual revenues.

As shown in the table above, revenues exceeded the fees paid to the County and Willdan.

The overhead rate applied to the fees charged by the County is 25%, which is in line with the

26.1% margin achieved in the fiscal year. The expected margins are higher for the services provided by Willdan; however, the 132.7% margin shown in the table is likely due to the timing of invoices from Willdan relative the receipt of fees. • Public Safety
In total, public safety expenditures were $298,515 through June 30, 2024, which were $18,763 below the amended budget. However, we do see larger variances at the line-item level. By far the largest expenditures are for public safety services provided by the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department. As shown in the table below, the amount paid to the Sheriff of $283,349 exceeded the budget by $28,349. This is due to a miscalculation of the expected cost when the budget was created.

In contrast, we see a favorable variance in account 833 – Other Law Enforcement Services.

On an ongoing basis, this account is used to track costs for school security reimbursement, and the monthly ALPR camera connectivity. However, in March 2024 the City Council amended the budget for a total of approximately $35,000 for the one-time purchase of Gross Net Revenue
Revenues Fees Revenues Margin
LA County Public Works $ 437,596 $ 347,115 $ 90,481 26.1% Willdan 100,191 43,053 57,138 132.7%
$ 537,787.00 $ 390,168 $ 147,619 37.8%
382
6 equipment related to the Auto License Plate Recognition Program and the LIDAR/RADAR Speed Detection Device. As of June 30, 2024, the City has not paid for this equipment, largely explaining the $36,839 variance.

Budget Summary
Although revenues fell short of budget, expenditures were well below budget by almost $300,000. More importantly, as reflected in the middle column of numbers, the actual results were more favorable than the amended operating budget. In total, revenues exceeded expenditures by $282,835. This is a much better outcome than the $36,870 budgeted operating surplus.

Note that $236,186 was transferred to cover capital improvement costs accounted for in the CIP Fund and the Capital Grants Fund. The amended budget for capital transfers totals $1,660,814.

There are several capital projects that have been funded/budgeted from previous years and which are still in progress. In addition, the General Fund is currently covering a portion of costs of two utility undergrounding projects (Eastfield and Crest Road) that ultimately will be reimbursed by FEMA and CalOES.

Status of Reserves
Based on audited numbers, General Fund reserves at June 30, 2023 totaled $4,633,046. However, through June 30, 2024, a total of $1,107,656 in amendments to the General Fund budget has been approved by Council that draw upon reserves. The vast majority of the amendments are tied ted to one-time costs. In addition, the adopted fiscal year 2023/24 budget included the use of reserves for capital in the amount of $43,163. As a result, the available balance is currently $3,482,227. Of this total, $2,650,498 is set aside for emergencies, such as natural disasters, pursuant to the City’s adopted reserve policy. This leaves $831,729 available for discretionary one-time costs. Please refer to Attachment 5 for a summary of approved budget amendments and calculation of available reserves.

FY 2023/24 Preliminary
Amended Results
Budget 6/30/2024 Variance
Operating Revenues $ 2,762,294 $ 2,710,126 $ (52,168)
Operating Expenditures 2,725,424 2,427,292 298,133
Operating Surplus (Deficit) 36,870 282,835 245,965
Capital Transfers (1,660,814) (236,186) 1,424,628
Net Addition to (Use of) Reserves $ (1,623,944) $ 46,649 $ 1,670,593

CITY OF ROLLINGS HILLS
Preliminary Year End Results
General Fund
383
7 RESTRICTED FUNDS
Transit/Transportation Funds (Propositions A and C, Measures M and R) The City receives revenues, primarily from the County, that are restricted for specific purposes.

These include the allocation of special sales tax measures approved by Los Angeles County voters over the last several decades that are restricted to transit and transportation programs and projects. The measures include Proposition A, Proposition C, Measure R, and Measure M. Since the City of Rolling Hills does not own and operate a transit system and, in fact, has no transit service provided within the City limits, nor does the City own and maintain any public roads, the funds received pursuant to the four tax measures are either gifted to other agencies or exchanged for unrestricted monies with other agencies that can utilize the funds in accordance with their intended uses.

Revenues received within these transit/transportation funds through June 30, 2024, totaled $143,349, which is $21,651 below budget. It is unclear why revenues are down, but since all four of the measures are tied to sale tax measures approved starting as far back as the early 1990s.

Since they are all down, it appears the shortfall is the result of lower sales tax collections.

Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Fund
The City also maintains a COPs Fund for monies received from the County’s Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund, created in 2009 through an increase statewide to vehicle license fees. The revenues can only be used for supplemental law enforcement services.

Total revenues through June 30, 2024, are $186,254 versus the budget of $165,000. The higher than expected revenue total is the result of a one-time payment for prior year under-allocations from the State of California.

On the expenditure side, allocated costs for supplemental law enforcement services totaled $132,977 through June 30, 2024. The costs include two parts: (1) the allocation of 30% of the monthly invoices received by the Sheriff and other, separately billed, traffic enforcement services. However, due to the vacancies in traffic personnel normally provided by the County Sheriff, the City has not incurred the costs as budgeted.

Measure W Fund
The City receives an allocation of the countywide special parcel tax pursuant to Measure W (Safe, Clean Water Act) for parcels located within the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. These revenues are intended for storm water recycling and water quality improvement projects and 384
8 programs. The City receives a single payment each year for the full annual allocation. In January 2024, the City received $103,765, which is very close to the $105,000 budget.

Actual costs will not be known until after the staff and the City’s consultant are able to analyze the costs to determine the appropriate allocation between the General Fund and the Measure W Fund.

ENTERPRISE FUND
Refuse Fund
The Refuse Fund is the City’s only enterprise fund. Enterprise funds are typically used to account for utilities owned and operated by governments, such as water, wastewater, electricity, and refuse, and other operations that are similar to those provided by the private sector, such as airports and golf courses.

The Refuse Fund accounts for the contracted waste collection and disposal for all City of Rolling Hills residents. The fees charged to City residents are processed as a “Direct Assessment” through the County Assessor’s Office, which means the annual total is added to the property tax bill sent to property owners by the County and is payable in two installments. Thus, the payments the City receives from the County for refuse services coincide with the payments we receive for regular property taxes.

After several years of subsidized rates via the General Fund, rates for refuse services were calculated to fully recover the contracted cost of services, which totaled $980,995 for the fiscal year. Revenues, budgeted at $1,005,336, are intended to cover the $981,336 to be paid to the refuse contractor plus $24,000 paid by the General Fund for administrative support. Through June 30, 2024, revenues totaled $1,005,443, almost exactly in line with costs. 385
ATTACHMENT 1
FY 2023/24 Preliminary
Amended Results
Budget 6/30/2024 Variance
Operating Revenues $ 2,762,294 $ 2,710,126 $ (52,168)
Operating Expenditures 2,725,424 2,427,292 298,133
Operating Surplus (Deficit) 36,870 282,835 245,965
Capital Transfers (1,660,814) (236,186) 1,424,628
Net Addition to (Use of) Reserves $ (1,623,944) $ 46,649 $ 1,670,593

CITY OF ROLLINGS HILLS
Preliminary Year End Results
General Fund
386
ATTACHMENT 2
Actuals Variance
Adopted Thru Favorable
Budget 06/30/24 (Unfavorable)
401 Property Taxes $ 1,496,250 $ 1,432,117 $ (64,133)
405 Sales Taxes 13,905 36,863 22,958
410 Property Transfer Tax 56,222 63,040 6,818
415 Other Taxes 1,000 - (1,000)
420 Motor Vehicle In Lieu 269,267 274,520 5,253
440 Building & Other Permits 600,000 537,787 (62,213)
441 C&D Permits 5,600 7,900 2,300
450 Variance, Planning & Zoning 67,000 23,342 (43,658)
455 Animal Control Fees 150 696 546
460 Franchise Fees 13,000 12,110 (890)
480 Fines & Traffic Violations 3,500 5,089 1,589
482 Cost Recoivery - Publications 7,200 5,250 (1,950)
600 RHCA Lease Revenue 69,000 68,991 (9)
650 Public Safety Aug Fund 1,200 1,346 146
670 Interest on Investments 110,000 166,881 56,881
671 PARS Earnings 20,000 42,638 22,638
675 Miscellaneous Revenue 5,000 7,556 2,556
699 Transfers In - Refuse Fund 24,000 24,000 -
TOTALS $ 2,762,294 $ 2,710,126 $ (52,168)
Budget Vs Actual Through June 30 2024
General Fund Revenues

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
387
ATTACHMENT 3
Actuals Variance
Amended Thru Favorable
Department Budget Budget 06/30/24 (Unfav)
City Administrator $ 957,138 $ 1,063,827 $ 778,896 $ 284,931 Finance 154,400 154,400 157,780 (3,380)
Planning & Development 858,801 858,801 899,439 (40,638) Public Safety 270,000 317,578 298,815 18,763
Non-Departmental 134,018 141,618 122,814 18,804
City Properties 181,100 189,200 169,548 19,652
Total Operations 2,555,457 2,725,424 2,427,292 298,133
Capital Transfers 250,000 1,727,160 236,186 1,490,974
GENERAL FUND TOTALS $ 2,805,457 $ 4,452,584 $ 2,663,478 $ 1,789,106

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
General Fund Expenditures by Department
Budget Vs. Actual
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024
Adopted
1 Page: 1 388
ATTACHMENT 3
Actuals Variance
Amended Thru Favorable
Department Budget Budget 06/30/24 (Unfav)

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
General Fund Expenditures by Department
Budget Vs. Actual
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024
Adopted
2 Page: 2 389
ATTACHMENT 4
Actuals Variance
Adopted Amended Thru Favorable
Budget Budget 6/30/2024 (Unfav)
01 - CITY ADMINISTRATOR
702 Salaries -Full Time $ 505,294 $ 505,294 $ 373,750 $ 131,544 705 Temporary Salaries 7,000 7,000 28,652 (21,652)
710 Retirement CalPERS-Employer 46,935 46,935 16,570 30,365 712 CalPERS Unfunded Liability - - 62,424 (62,424)
715 Workers Compensation Insurance 9,100 9,100 9,099 1
716 Group Insurance 72,907 72,907 46,338 26,569
717 Retiree Medical 37,500 37,500 31,304 6,196
718 Employer Payroll Taxes 39,401 39,401 27,183 12,218
719 Deferred Compensation 4,718 4,718 317 4,401
720 Auto Allowance 4,800 4,800 2,289 2,511
721 Phone Allowance 2,520 2,520 1,529 991
740 Office Supplies 13,000 13,000 8,083 4,917
745 Equipment Leasing Costs 11,000 11,000 8,135 2,865
750 Dues & Subscriptions 14,240 14,240 8,580 5,660
755 Conference Expense 1,873 1,873 1,207 666
757 Meetings Expense 2,000 2,000 1,485 515
759 Training & Education 5,000 5,000 - 5,000
761 Auto Mileage 500 500 236 264
765 Postage 21,000 21,000 8,123 12,877
775 City Council Expense 5,000 5,000 8,636 (3,636)
776 Miscellaneous Expenses 4,750 4,750 133 4,617
780 Comm./Newsletters & Outreach 5,000 5,000 2,617 2,383 785 Codification 3,000 3,000 2,205 795
790 Advertising 2,400 2,400 2,485 (85)
795 Other Gen Admin Expense 2,500 2,500 2,671 (171)
801 City Attorney 90,000 90,000 48,367 41,633
802 Legal Expense - Other 3,000 3,000 25,251 (22,251)
820 Website 6,000 6,000 2,457 3,543
890 Consulting Fees 35,000 101,895 30,382 71,513
891 Records Management 1,700 41,494 18,388 23,106
Total City Administrator 957,138 1,063,827 778,896 284,931

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024
Department/Object Account
1 Page: 1 390
ATTACHMENT 4
Actuals Variance
Adopted Amended Thru Favorable
Budget Budget 6/30/2024 (Unfav)

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024
Department/Object Account
05 - FINANCE
740 Office Supplies - - - -
750 Dues & Subscriptions 3,000 3,000 3,750 (750)
810 Annual Audit 31,400 31,400 20,725 10,675
890 Consulting Fees 120,000 120,000 133,305 (13,305)
Total Finance 154,400 154,400 157,780 (3,380)
15- PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
702 Salaries 212,515 212,515 211,062 1,453
703 Salaries - Part-Time 27,610 27,610 15,372 12,238
710 Retirement CalPERS-Employer 16,750 16,750 14,260 2,490 715 Workers Comp. Insurance 3,900 3,900 3,900 -
716 Group Insurance 42,669 42,669 37,097 5,572
718 Employer Payroll Taxes 18,527 18,527 17,087 1,440
719 Deferred Comp 865 865 716 149
720 Auto Allowance 1,200 1,200 1,200 -
721 Phone Allowance 600 600 600 -
761 Auto Mileage 300 300 - 300
750 Dues & Subscription 5,500 5,500 996 4,504
755 Conference Expense 385 385 1,724 (1,339)
759 Training & Education 1,000 1,000 - 1,000
776 Miscellaneous Expenses - 1,166 (1,166)
790 Publication/Advertising/Noticing 15,000 15,000 7,926 7,074 802 Legal Expenses-Other 10,000 10,000 9,217 783
872 Property Development-Legal Exp 50,000 50,000 25,143 24,857 875 Willdan Building 30,000 30,000 43,053 (13,053)
878 Build Inspect. LA County 250,000 250,000 347,115 (97,115) 881 Storm Water Management 84,100 84,100 93,537 (9,437) 884 Special Project Study & Consult. 20,000 20,000 7,979 12,021 886 Code Enforcement 62,880 62,880 54,920 7,960
890 Consulting Fees (Onward) - - - -
928 Traffic Engineering 5,000 5,000 5,369 (369)
Total Planning & Development 858,801 858,801 899,439 (40,638) 2 Page: 2 391
ATTACHMENT 4
Actuals Variance
Adopted Amended Thru Favorable
Budget Budget 6/30/2024 (Unfav)

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS

GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024
Department/Object Account
25 - PUBLIC SAFETY
830 Law Enforcement 255,000 255,000 283,349 (28,349)
833 Other Law Enforcement Exp 4,000 39,078 2,239 36,839 837 Wild Life Mgmt & Pest Control 6,000 18,500 7,820 10,680 838 Animal Control Expense 5,000 5,000 5,407 (407)
Total Public Safety 270,000 317,578 298,815 18,763
65 - NON-DEPARTMENTAL
895 Insurance & Bond Expense 37,018 37,018 39,765 (2,747) 901 South Bay Comm. Organization 10,000 17,600 12,600 5,000 915 Community Recognition 10,000 10,000 7,599 2,401
917 Emergency Preparedness 77,000 77,000 62,850 14,150
Total Non-Departmental 134,018 141,618 122,814 18,804
75 - CITY PROPERTIES
892 IT Services 61,200 61,200 62,257 (1,057)
893 Granicus Services 8,300 8,300 8,143 157
894 Computer Hardware Fund 5,000 5,000 - 5,000
925 Utilities 60,000 60,000 56,779 3,221
930 Repairs & Maintenance 16,000 16,000 18,865 (2,865)
931 Area Maintenance - - -
932 Area Landscaping 15,600 23,700 23,504 196
946 Buildings & Equipment 15,000 15,000 - 15,000
Total City Properties 181,100 189,200 169,548 19,652
TOTALS BEFORE TRANSFERS 2,555,457 2,725,424 2,427,292 298,133

OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT
999 Capital Grants Fund (16) - 694,726 - 694,726
999 Capital Impr Fund (Fund 40) 250,000 1,032,433 236,186 796,247 Total Transfers Out 250,000 1,727,160 236,186 1,490,974 GENERAL FUND TOTAL $ 2,805,457 $ 4,452,584 $ 2,663,478 $ 1,789,106 3 Page: 3 392
ATTACHMENT 5
Res. Account
No. Date Description Amount Type Number
Budgeted Surplus (Deficit) $ (43,163.00)
FY 2023/24 Amendments
Alan Palermo - Project Management 1343 07/10/2023 Transfer from GF to CIP Fund $ 21,100.00 One-Time 01-00-999 Tennis Court Improvements 1344 07/10/2023 Transfer from GF to CIP Fund 307,000.00 One-Time 01-00-999 Grant Writing Services 1345 07/10/2023 Sub-Appl for Fire Fuel Abatement 30,470.00 One-Time 01-01-890 AC Pros City Hall HVAC Repl Project 1347 08/28/2023 Transfer from GF to CIP Fund 30,892.20 One-Time 01-00-999 Community Organizations 1352 11/13/2023 Contr to Local Volunteer Orgs 7,600.00 Ongoing 01-65-901 Crest Road East Power Line 1355 02/24/2024 Rule 20C Undergrounding 577,069.90 One-Time 01-00-999 ADA Improvements Project 1356 02/12/2024 Additional Design & Engineering 11,500.00 One-Time 01-00-999 Area Landscaping 1357 02/12/2024 Additional Lanscaping - Bennet 8,100.00 Ongoing 01-75-932 Wildlife Management 1358 02/26/2024 Additional Coyote Mgmt 12,500.00 Ongoing 01-25-837 Other Law Enforcement Services 1359 03/11/2024 Auto Lic Plate Recog Program 34,420.00 One-Time 01-25-833 Other Law Enforcement Services 1360 03/11/2024 LIDAR/RADAR Speed Det Device 658.21 One-Time 01-25-833 Potholing Services 1368 06/10/2024 Eastfield Drive Rule 20B Portion 66,345.73 One-Time 01-00-999 Total Amendments 1,107,656.04
Total Budgeted Use of Reserves $ (1,150,819.04)
Fund Balance - July 1, 2023 4,633,046.00
Budgeted Use of Reserves (1,150,819.04)
Reserve for Contingencies (2,650,498.00)
Reserves Above Policy $ 831,728.96

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Summary of Budget Adjustments and Reserves Status
Fiscal Year Ended June30, 2024
393
ATTACHMENT 6
Amended Actuals Variance
Budget 06/30/2024 Fav (Unfav)
10 - COPS FUND
Revenues
570 COPS Allocation $ 165,000 $ 186,159 $ 21,159
Expenditures
840 COPS Program Expenditures 165,000 132,977 32,023
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ - $ 53,182 $ (10,864) 16 - CAPITAL GRANT FUND
Revenues
588 Crest Road FEMA Grant - 4434-526-112R $ 1,135,337 $ 3,625 $ (1,131,712) 589 Safety Element Disaster Grants - DR 4344 PL0521 - - - 590 Veg. Mgmnt FEMA Grant - HMGP-4382-175-13R 172,215 - (172,215) 591 Eastfield U/Grounding FEMA DR-4382-177-7R-CA 1,951,059 511 (1,950,548) 699 Transfers In - General Fund - Safety Element - -
699 Transfers In - Utility Fund - Crest Rd 4434-526-112R 381,819 - (381,819) 699 Transfers In - Gen Fund - Crest Rd 4344-526-112R - - - 699 Transfers In - Gen Fund - Eastfiled DR4382-177-7R - - - 699 Transfers In - Utility Fund - Eastfiled DR4382-177-7R 657,294 - (657,294) 699 Transfers In - General Fund - HMGP-4382-175-13R 51,311 - (51,311) Total Revenues 4,349,035 4,136 (4,344,899)
Expenditures
957 Crest Road East Project - 4434-526-112R 1,301,109 545,292 755,817 958 Safety Element DR4344-PL0521 219,189 - 219,189
959 Veg. Mgmt Mitig. Proj. - HMGP-4382-175-13R - 3,995 (3,995) 960 Eastfield Drive Utility U.G. - 4382-177-7R 2,581,945 67,666 2,514,279 Total Expenditures 4,102,243 616,953 3,485,290
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ 246,792 $ (612,817) $ (859,609) 22 - SB1383
Revenues
509 SB1383 Revenues $ - $ 80,000 $ 80,000
Expenditures
XXX Reimb to CalRecycle - 22,762 (22,762)
$ - $ 57,238 $ 102,762

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Status of Revenues and Expenditures
Restricted, Capital, and Refuse Funds
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024
1 394
ATTACHMENT 6
Amended Actuals Variance
Budget 06/30/2024 Fav (Unfav)
25 - PROPOSITION A FUND
Revenues
500 Grant Revenues $ 52,000 $ 43,634 $ (8,366)
670 Interest Earned 300 - (300)
Total Revenues 52,300 43,634 (8,666)
Expenditures
620 Prop A Exchange - - -
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ 52,300 $ 43,634 $ (8,666) 26 - PROPOSITION C
Revenues
501 Grant Revenue-Prop C $ 43,000 $ 37,039 $ (5,961)
670 Interest Earned 250 - (250)
Total Revenues 43,250 37,039 (6,211)
Expenditures
906 Prop C Gifted - - -
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ 43,250 $ 37,039 $ (6,211) 27- MEASURE R TRANSIT
Revenues
502 Measure R Grant Revenues $ 33,000 $ 27,771 $ (5,229) 670 Interest Earned 250 - (250)
Total Revenues 33,250 27,771 (5,479)
Expenditures
907 Measure R Gifted - - -
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ 33,250 $ 27,771 $ (5,479) 29 - MEASURE M
Revenues
507 Measure M Local Return $ 37,000 $ 34,905 $ (2,095)
670 Interest Earned 250 - (250)
Total Revenues 37,250 34,905 (2,345)
Expenditures
XXX Measure M Gifted - - -
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ 37,250 $ 34,905 $ (2,345) 2 395
ATTACHMENT 6
Amended Actuals Variance
Budget 06/30/2024 Fav (Unfav)
30 - MEASURE W
Revenues
508 Grant Revenues $ 105,000 $ 103,765 $ (1,235)
670 Interest Earned 500 - (500)
Total Revenues 105,500 103,765 (1,735)
Expenditures
810 Audit' - 12,500 (12,500)
913 Storm Water Management - 30% 31,650 37,258 (5,608)
914 Storm Water Management - 70% 73,850 - 73,850
105,500 49,758 55,742
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ - $ 54,007 $ 54,007 40 - CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
Transfers from General Fund $ 1,031,442 $ 236,186 $ (795,256) 1,031,442 236,186 (795,256)
Expenditures
887 Sewer Feasibility Project 9,010 8,977 33
890 Consulting Fees 21,100 - 21,100
899 Outdoor Siren System - Design & Constr 293,220 131,449 161,771 934 Equestrian Fence Replacement 26,725 19,925 6,800
935 Tennis Court Improvenments 307,000 8,291 298,709
947 Non-Building Improvements - - -
948 City Hall Improvements 19,456 12,113 7,343
949 Battery/Solar Back-Up 250,000 28,500 221,500
961 Middleridge Road Emergency Storm Drain Repairs 71,173 - 71,173 962 Phase 1 Bifurcated 8" Sewer Main Engineering 22,598 3,135 19,463 963 Generator & Waterproof Removal and Electrical Svcs 6,994 - 6,994 964 HVAC Replacement Project 30,892 23,796 7,096
Total Expenditures 1,058,168 236,186 821,982
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ (26,726) $ - $ 26,726 50 - REFUSE FUND
Revenues
665 Service Charges $ 1,005,336 $ 1,005,443 $ 107
699 Transfers In - General Fund - - -
Total Revenues 1,005,336 1,005,443 107
Expenditures
815 Refuse Service Contract 981,336 980,995 341
790 Advertising - - -
999 Transfers Out 24,000 24,000 -
Total Expenditures 1,005,336 1,004,995 341
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $ - $ 448 $ 448
3 396
Agenda Item No.: 15.A
Mtg. Date: 10/14/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO

CITY MANAGER
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVE THE 2024 HOLIDAY OPEN HOUSE FINAL

GUEST LIST
DATE: October 14, 2024
BACKGROUND:

The 2024 Holiday Open House will be held on Monday, December 9th at City Hall from 4:00pm to 8:00pm. The guest list to the annual holiday open house was updated with feedback from some Councilmembers in previous years and is included with this report for review and approval.

DISCUSSION:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost of the event in the past five years range between $6,100 and $6,600. The adopted FY 2024-2025 budget allocated $8,000 for the event.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve list as presented; provide direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

CL_AGN_240923_CC_HolidayOpenHouse_ProposedInviteList.pdf 397
2024 OPEN HOUSE PROPOSED LIST
Name Company Address City
1 Honorable Al Muratsuchi Assemblymember, 66th District 3424 W. Carson St., Suite 450 Torrance, CA 90503 Melissa Ramoso, District Director 66th District 3424 W. Carson St., Suite 450 Torrance, CA 90503 Cody Bridges, Field Representative 66th District 3424 W. Carson St., Suite 450 Torrance, CA 90503 2 Honorable Ben Allen State Senator, 26th District 2512 Artesia Blvd., #320 Redondo Beach, CA 90278-3279 Sam Lieu, District Director 26th District 2512 Artesia Blvd., #320 Redondo Beach, CA 90278-3279 Olina Wibroe, District Representative 26th District 2512 Artesia Blvd., #320 Redondo Beach, CA 90278-3279 3 Honorable Ted Lieu United States Congress, 33rd District 1645 Corinth Ave, Suite 101 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Karen Calderon, Field Representative 1645 Corinth Ave, Suite 101 Los Angeles, CA 90025 4 Honorable Janice Hahn, Supervisor Fourth District, County of Los Angeles 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Mr. Mark Baucum, Chief of Staff Fourth District, County of Los Angeles 500 West Temple Street, Rm 358 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Ms. Jennifer LaMarque, Harbor Area Director Fourth District, County of Los Angeles 302 West 5th Street, #200 San Pedro, CA 90731 Ms. Alysia Hererra, Staff Assistant Fourth District, County of Los Angeles 302 West 5th Street, #200 San Pedro, CA 90731 5 Mr. Jeffrey Kiernan
Regional Public Affairs Manager
League of California Cities 8581 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 325 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Ms. Jennifer Quan, Executive Director
Regional Public Affairs Manager League of California Cities 8581 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 325 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Ms. Kristine Guerrero, Legislative Director
Regional Public Affairs Manager
League of California Cities 8581 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 325 West Hollywood, CA 90069 6 Mr. Dave Pilon, President
and Members of the Board of Directors
P.V.P. Land Conservancy 916 Silver Spur Road, Suite 207 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Cristian Sarabia, Conservation Director
P.V.P. Land Conservancy
916 Silver Spur Road, Suite 207 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Ms. Adrienne Mohan, Executive Director and
Susan Wilcox, Development Director P.V.P. Land Conservancy 916 Silver Spur Road, Suite 207 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 7 Bob Parke, President and Members of the Board Palos Verdes Library District 701 Silver Spur Road Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Ms. Jennifer Addington, Director Palos Verdes Library District 701 Silver Spur Drive Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 8 Ami Gandhi, President
and Members of the Board
PVPUSD Board of Education 375 Via Almar Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Devin Serrano, Ph.D
Superintendent of Schools and staff
PVPUSD
Malaga Cove Administrative Center
375 Via Almar Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
398
2024 OPEN HOUSE PROPOSED LIST
Mr. Brett Egan, Principal Rancho del Mar High School 375 Via Almar Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 9 Mr. Robert C. Ferrante, General Manager and
staff
County Sanitation District of L A County 1955 Workman Mill Rd. Whittier, CA 90601 10 Mrs. Jacki Bacharach, Executive Director and
staff
South Bay Cities Council of Governments 2355 Crenshaw Blvd., #125 Torrance, CA 90501 11 Sheriff Robert Luna L. A. County Sheriff's Headquarters 211 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Captain Kimberly Guerrero
and all LASD Lomita Personnel
L. A. County Sheriff's Department 26123 Narbonne Avenue Lomita, CA 90717 12 Jennifer Perez
President
California Contract Cities Association 17315 Studebaker Road Suite 210 Cerritos, CA 90703 Mr. Marcel Rodarte
Executive Director
California Contract Cities Association 17315 Studebaker Road Suite 210 Cerritos, CA 90703 13 Ms. Eileen Hupp, President/CEO and staff Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce
4040 Palos Verdes Drive North, Suite 205 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 14 Mr. Anthony Marrone, Fire Chief Los Angeles County Fire Department 1650 West 162nd Street Gardena, CA 90247-3734 Mr. Brian Bennett, Acting Deputy Fire Chief Division 1, County of Los Angeles Fire Department
1650 W. 162nd Street Gardena, CA 90247-3734
Mr. Brian Kane, Assistant Fire Chief
and staff, Division I Office - F. S. 158
Division 1, County of Los Angeles Fire
Department
1650 W. 162nd Street Gardena, CA 90247-3734
Mr. Trevor Moore, Assistant Fire Chief,
LaCoFire/Forestry Division
Mr. Brad Weisshaupt, Deputy Forester
Pre Fire Engineer, LaCoFire/Forestry
Mr. Haddee Hammoud LaCoFire/Forestry
Battalion Chief John Butorovich Fire Station 56 12 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 15 John Cruikshank
Members of the City Council and
Councilmembers Elect
City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Mr. Ara Mihranian, City Manager and staff City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 16 Mayor Velveth Schmitz
and Members of the City Council
City of Rolling Hills Estates 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 399
2024 OPEN HOUSE PROPOSED LIST
Mr. Greg Grammer
City Manager and staff
City of Rolling Hills Estates 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 17 Mayor Dawn Murdoch
and Members of the City Council
City of Palos Verdes Estates 340 Palos Verdes Drive West Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Kerry Kallman, City Manager and staff City of Palos Verdes Estates 340 Palos Verdes Drive West Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 18 Mr. Mike Dorta, District Engineer and staff L. A.

County Depart. of Public Works
Building and Safety Division 24320 S. Narbonne Ave. Lomita, CA 90717 19 Mr. Patrick Donegan, City Attorney
and staff
BB&K LLP 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Mr. Ryan Stager, Assistant City Attorney BB&K LLP 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 20 Mr. William Pagett, Sr. Vice President and staff Willdan Engineering 2401 East Katella Avenue, Suite 300 Anaheim, CA 92806 Ms. Vanessa Munoz, PE, TE, PTOE,
President/CEO, Traffic Engineer
Willdan Engineering 13191 Crossroads Parkway North # 405 Industry, CA 91746-3497 21 Mr. Aaron Arugay, Executive Director and staff L. A. County West Vector Control District 6750 Centinela Avenue Culver City, CA 90230 22 Ms. Marcia Mayeda, Director and staff L. A. County Animal Care & Control Administrative Headquarters
5898 Cherry Avenue Long Beach, CA 90805
23 Mr. Fernando Barrera
Specialist
Wildlife Specialist & Consultant
24 Mr. Devin Kincaid, General Manager and staff Republic Services Inc. 14905 South San Pedro Street Gardena, CA 90248 Tanasha Malone, Operations Manager Republic Services Inc. 14905 South San Pedro Street Gardena, CA 90247 Addrian Orssten, Operations Supervisor Republic Services Inc. 14905 South San Pedro Street Gardena, CA 90247 Ms. Dawn Harris, Municipal Services Manager Republic Services Inc. 14905 South San Pedro Street Gardena, CA 90247 25 Mr. Ralph Felix, District Manager California Water Service Company 2632 West 237th Street Torrance, CA 90505-5272 Mr. Robert Thompson, Operations Manager California Water Service Company 2632 West 237th Street Torrance, CA 90505-5272 Mr. Agustin Baeza Operations Manager
and staff
California Water Service Company 2632 West 237th Street Torrance, CA 90505-5272 26 RHCA Board members 1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ms. Kristen Raig and staff RHCA Manager and staff 1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 27 Ms. Susan Sifuentes-Trigueros District Manager
and staff
Southern California Gas Company 2922 - 182nd Street Redondo Beach, CA 90278-3922 400
2024 OPEN HOUSE PROPOSED LIST
28 Ms. Connie Turner, Regional Manager and staff Southern California Edison 505 Maple Street Torrance, CA 90503 29 Mr. Alexander Smith
Executive Director and Staff
California Joint Powers Insurance
Authority
8081 Moody St. La Palma, CA 90623
Melaina Francis
Regional Risk Manager
California Joint Powers Insurance
Authority
8081 Moody St. La Palma, CA 90623
Abraham Han
Management Analyst
California Joint Powers Insurance
Authority
8081 Moody St. La Palma, CA 90623
30 Mr. Ray Cruz Former R.H.City Manager 11710 Telegraph Road Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 31 Mr. Anton Dahlerbruch Former R.H. City Manager 300 Harding Boulevard, Suite 203-D Roseville, CA 95678 32 Diane Gladwell, MMC
33 Yolanta Schwartz Former R.H. Planning Director
34 Meredith Elguira Former R.H. Planning Director 8650 California Avenue South Gate, CA 90280 401
Agenda Item No.: 16.A
Mtg. Date: 10/14/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO

CITY MANAGER
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: EXISTING LITIGATION - GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(D)(1)

THE CITY FINDS, BASED ON ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL, THAT

DISCUSSION IN OPEN SESSION WILL PREJUDICE THE POSITION OF THE CITY IN THE LITIGATION. (1 CASE)
a. NAME OF CASE: CONNIE ANDERSEN, ET AL. V. CALIFORNIA
WATER COMPANY, ET AL. (SEAVIEW CASE) CASE NO.:
24STCV20953
DATE: October 14, 2024
BACKGROUND:

None.

DISCUSSION:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

None.

ATTACHMENTS:
402
Agenda Item No.: 16.B
Mtg. Date: 10/14/2024
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
THRU: KARINA BAÑALES, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (2 Cases) CPUC Complaints against Sothern California Edison and SoCal Gas
DATE: October 14, 2024
BACKGROUND:

None.

DISCUSSION:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

RECOMMENDATION:

None.

ATTACHMENTS:
403

Rolling Hills City CouncilOctober 14, 2024

Rolling Hills City Council
October 14, 2024