Rolling Hills City Council
July 13, 2026

1 City Council
Monday, July 13, 2026, 7:00 PM
Regular Meeting
City of Rolling Hills
Members of the public may participate in-person, by Microsoft Teams, or email.

City Council meetings are live-streamed and indexed archives of meetings are available via the city’s official website at https://rollinghillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/
To watch meeting live on the city's website: https://rollinghillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/ To watch meeting live on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@cityofrollinghills Remote Public Participation and Public Comment Instructions Members of the public may participate remotely in the City Council meeting through Microsoft Teams Webinar. Advance registration is required to participate remotely.

Register in advance for this meeting at: https://events.teams.microsoft.com/event/f17ca6c9-8171-45b5-bff0- aa1fe9e1a4bd@4e8d6bfc-2bb2-4d4f-9810-b882b37fc685
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email from Microsoft Teams containing instructions for joining the meeting. The email will include:
- A link to join the meeting using a computer, tablet, or smartphone; and - Telephone access information, including a phone number and conference ID, for individuals who wish to participate by telephone.

Providing Public Comment
Members of the public attending remotely may provide public comment during designated comment periods. Please use the name provided during registration so City staff can properly identify participants.

Participants joining through Microsoft Teams may indicate they wish to speak by selecting the “Raise Hand” feature. Participants joining by telephone may indicate they wish to speak by pressing *5 on their telephone keypad. When recognized, the meeting host will provide instructions for addressing the City Council.

Email: to participate by written communication, emails must be received before 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting (emails will not be read out loud)
Written materials pertaining to matters listed on the posted agenda received after the agenda has been published will be added as supplemental materials under the relevant agenda item. Public comments may be submitted by email to [email protected]. Emails must be received before 3:00 p.m. On the date of the meeting to ensure council and staff have the ability to review materials prior to the meeting.

AGENDA

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

2 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: Receive and file.

7. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda.

7.A. Supplemental Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.

8. Consent Calendar
Business items, except those formally noticed for public hearing, or those pulled for discussion are assigned to the Consent Calendar. The Mayor or any Councilmember may request that any Consent Calendar item(s) be removed, discussed, and acted upon separately. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be taken up under the "Excluded Consent Calendar" section below. Those items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved in one motion. The Mayor will call on anyone wishing to address the City Council on any Consent Calendar item on the agenda, which has not been pulled by Councilmembers for discussion.

8.A. Approve Affidavit of Posting for the City Council Regular Meeting of July 13, 2026 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 Minutes of June 22, 2026: City Council Regular Meeting RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.

8.D. Payment of Bills
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.

8.E. Republic Services Recycling Tonnage and Complaint Reports for May 2026 RECOMMENDATION: Recieve and file.

3 9. Excluded Consent Calendar Items

10. Commission Items

11. Public Hearings

11.A. Zoning Case No. 26-73: Request 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; Conditional Use Permits for a guest house, a stable greater than 200 square feet, a corral greater than 550 square feet and a detached accessory structure greater than 200 square feet; and Variances to allow construction of certain structures in the front yard, to allow a corral to encroach into the front yard setback, to allow retaining walls to exceed the maximum average height of 2.5 feet, to allow a portion of the basement to extend beyond the walls of the residence, and to allow grading export; and finding the project categorically exempt from CEQA for 23 Crest Road East (Lot 132A-MS)(Ogasawara) RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing, take public testimony, close the public hearing, discuss the proposed project, and consider Resolution No. 1418 for approval.

12. Discussion Items

13. Matters From the City Council

14. Matters From Staff

14.A. Consideration of Authorizing the Mayor to sign a Letter of Support for AB 1821 (Pacheco) regarding Agency response timelines under the California Public Records Act
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council provide direction on whether to support AB 1821 (Pacheco) and, if so, authorize the Mayor to sign and submit a letter of support on behalf of the City.

14.B. Receive and File a Status Update on the SAFE Network and SAFE Unit Information Workshop (Verbal)
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file a verbal update on the SAFE Network and SAFE Unit Information Workshop.

15. Recess to Closed Session

16. Reconvene to Open Session

4 17. Adjournment
Next regular meeting: Monday, July 27, 2026 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.

Item: 6.A.

Meeting Date: 7/13/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: For Blue Folder Documents approved at the City Council Meeting Background:

Discussion:

Fiscal Impact:

Recommendation:

Receive and file.

Attachments:

1. CL_AGN_260713_CC_Item7A

2. CL_AGN_260713_CC_Item11A

BLUE FOLDER ITEM (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Blue folder (supplemental) items are additional back up materials to administrative reports, changes to the posted agenda packet, and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
July 13, 2026
7A. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk CL_AGN_260713_CC_Item7A_PublicComment01

BLUE FOLDER ITEM (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Blue folder (supplemental) items are additional back up materials to administrative reports, changes to the posted agenda packet, and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
July 13, 2026
11A. Zoning Case No. 26-73: Request 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; Conditional Use Permits for a guest house, a stable greater than 200 square feet, a corral greater than 550 square feet and a detached accessory structure greater than 200 square feet; and Variances to allow construction of certain structures in the front yard, to allow a corral to encroach into the front yard setback, to allow retaining walls to exceed the maximum average height of 2.5 feet, to allow a portion of the basement to extend beyond the walls of the residence, and to allow grading export; and finding the project categorically exempt from CEQA for 23 Crest Road East (Lot 132A-MS)(Ogasawara) From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk PL_ADR_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_240618_DevelopmentTable

Item: 7.A.

Meeting Date: 7/13/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Supplemental Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Background:

None.

Discussion:

None.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

Receive and file.

Attachments:

1. CL_AGN_260713_CC_Item7A_PublicComment01

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Eleanor Manzano; City Clerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Representative Ted Lieu; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic
Subject: Public Comment: Media Coverage of BCHD"s Eviction of 100 Dementia Patients Date: Friday, July 10, 2026 1:14:26 PM
Attachments: Youssef 25 years.png

PUBLIC COMMENT - NON AGENDA ITEM - NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING - ALL

AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
Note: This document contains significant and cited support data following the messaging.

Media Coverage of BCHD's Eviction of 100 Dementia Patients Below are links to damning media coverage of Beach Cities Health District's (BCHD) misguided financial transaction to evict 100 memory care and dementia patients to increase annual lease revenue by $250,000.

Peer-reviewed Research shows that Forced Eviction of memory care patients results in Early Death and Diminished Quality of Life
As a matter of scientific fact, publicly owned Beach Cities Health District, Redondo Beach, CA's action to displace 100 dementia care patients in order to net an $250,000 additional lease payment per year will cause their early death and quality of life reductions. See the peer reviewed studies below.

Eviction Caused by BCHD's Desire for $250,000 Net Increase in Lease Revenue per Year Beach Cities Health District in Redondo Beach, CA has recently made a decision to terminate the $1M per year lease of Silverado Memory Care and evict the 100 dementia patients housed there.

BCHD will be replacing the lease with a Sunrise non-specialized, general assisted living facility for $1.25M per year. The "deal" by BCHD will increase lease revenue by a net $250,000 per year.

Eviction Causes Net Loss in Taxpayer Value
The Silverado advanced dementia and memory care facility occupies a 4-story wing of a taxpayer owned building for its $1M in annual rent payment. The new Sunrise facility will receive a 99- year, 5 acre grant of publicly owned land on the same site for its $1.25M. The land is valued at approximately $60M based on estimates from BCHD's former investment bankers. The nearly century long loss of 5 acres of such expensive land creates a large net loss to taxpayers based on the option value of the land that land.

BCHD Claims that the Silverado Facility must be Demolished are False The health district has been making media claims that the building does not meet seismic standards and that it must be demolished. BCHD's own seismic consultants acknowledge that the building meets every applicable seismic code to provide up to 25 years of continued use under engineering best practices. Further, the consultants acknowledge there are no requires for retrofit nor demolition. BCHD Board and CEO, with no engineering or seismic expertise, are displacing 100 dementia residents due to a desire to increase lease payments by $250,000 per year. **************************************************

RESOURCES AND SUPPORT (headings in red color online)
Media Links to Beach Cities Health District's Eviction of 100 Dementia Patients in Redondo Beach, CA

1. Los Angeles Times Los Angeles Times. (2026, July 9). Scores of LA dementia patients set to be evicted; families outraged. Los Angeles
Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-07-09/scores-of-la-dementia-patientsset-to-be-evicted-families-outraged

2. Daily Mail Daily Mail. (2026). Dementia patients care home eviction Redondo Beach. Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15965299/dementia-patients-care-homeeviction-redondo-beach.html

3. AOL AOL. (2026). Nearly 100 dementia patients
being... AOL. https://www.aol.com/articles/nearly-100-dementia-patients-being120000000.html

4. Easy Reader News (Sunrise Selection) Meyer, G. (2026, June 8). Beach Cities Health District board chooses Sunrise to evict Silverado residents in one year. Easy Reader News. https://easyreadernews.com/beach-cities-health-district-board-chooses-sunrise-toevict-silverado-residents-in-one-year

5. Easy Reader News (Developers Appeal) Meyer, G. (2026, July 2). Would-be BCHD campus developers appeal to Redondo Beach city council. Easy Reader News. https://easyreadernews.com/would-be-bchd-campus-developers-appeal-to-redondobeach-city-council

6. Easy Reader News (Silverado Families) Easy Reader News. (2026, May 26). Silverado families seek pause on new BCHD Redondo Beach redevelopment plan. Easy Reader News. https://easyreadernews.com/silverado-families-seek-pause-on-new-bchd-redondobeach-redevelopment-plan

7. Easy Reader News (Best Senior Care) Easy Reader News. (n.d.). Best senior care Silverado Beach Cities care community. Easy Reader
News. https://easyreadernews.com/best-senior-care-silverado-beach-cities-care-community

8. Facebook (North Redondo Beach Group) North Redondo Beach. (2026). [Community post regarding BCHD / Silverado] [Facebook group post].

Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/groups/NorthRedondoBeach/posts/4368446236746970/

9. Streamline Feed Streamline Feed. (2026). Tragic eviction crisis threatens 100 dementia patients in Redondo Beach. Streamline Feed. https://streamlinefeed.co.ke/news/tragiceviction-crisis-threatens-100-dementia-patients-in-redondo-beach

10. Lavender Hotels Lavender Hotels. (2026). Brutal math: Senior care evictions Redondo Beach. Lavender Hotels Weddings. https://weddings.lavenderhotels.co.uk/brutal-mathsenior-care-evictions-redondo-beach

11. Instagram Post 1 Instagram. (2026). [Post regarding Redondo Beach senior care] [Instagram photo/video]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/DY0QuxTEqI0/

12. Silverado Senior Living Silverado. (n.d.). Silverado Beach Cities memory care community.

Silverado. https://www.silverado.com/silverado-bchd/

13. Instagram Post 2 Instagram. (2026). [Post regarding Silverado BCHD updates] [Instagram photo/video]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/DY2_87lSvx6/ Peer Reviewed Study Links to Early Death and Reduced Quality of Life for Memory Care and Dementia Patients from Transfer Trauma caused by Forced Relocation Holder, J. M., & Jolley, D. (2012). Forced relocation between nursing homes: Residents' health outcomes and potential moderators. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 22(4), 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959259812000147
Robinson, V. (2002). A Brief Literature Review of the Effects of Relocation on the Elderly.

Hospital Employees' Union.

Ryman, F. V. M., Erisman, J. C., Darvey, L. M., Osborne, J., Swartsenburg, E., & Syurina, E. V. (2018). Health effects of the relocation of patients with dementia: A scoping review to inform medical and policy decision-making. The Gerontologist, 59(6), e674–e682. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny031
Walker, C., Curry, L. C., & Hogstel, M. O. (2007). Relocation stress syndrome in older adults transitioning from home to a long-term care facility: Myth or reality? Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 45(1), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.3928/02793695-20070101-09
Seismic Best Practices Allow Up To 25 Years of Continued Silverado Facility Usage per BCHD Consultants
Silverado Annual Revenue Estimate (Base $64K/month + Utilities/Common $24K/month) According to formal Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) board financial audits and lease summaries, here are the credible details regarding the lease for Silverado Senior Living at 514 N. Prospect Avenue:

Square Footage Leased: Silverado leases 35,008 square feet of the facility.

Monthly Base Rent: For the FY 2021/22 period, the monthly base rent paid by Silverado was $63,834.

Annual Recognized Lease Revenue: BCHD recognized $766,008 in direct annual lease revenue from Silverado for that fiscal year (not including an additional $370,868 accounted for as interest revenue under governmental accounting standards).

Lease Term: The original agreement was dated May 18, 2006, and was slated to run through June 30, 2031.
2026 Lease Update: Note that following the BCHD Board's decision in May 2026 to proceed with Sunrise Senior Living for the campus redevelopment, an early termination clause was triggered. As part of the pre-agreed lease terms, Silverado entered a one-year rent-free transition period beginning May 29, 2026, to facilitate resident relocation prior to the scheduled demolition of the 514 building.

The Operating Expense & Reimbursement Structure
According to the BCHD Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports (ACFR), the financial arrangement is not a pure "triple-net" lease where the tenant handles utilities entirely on their own meters; instead, it utilizes a shared reimbursement model:

The Baseline Structure: At the inception of the lease agreement, the baseline payment of $24,382 per month was structured specifically to cover both the base building rent and a direct reimbursement to the District for common area operating expenses.

The Escalation Cap: Both the base rent and the operating expense reimbursements are adjusted annually on a non-compounding basis, tied to the local Consumer Price Index (CPI), capped strictly at a maximum increase of 3% per year.

The Variance Risk: Because the reimbursement portion is subject to that strict 3% annual CPI cap, BCHD bears the financial risk if actual utility costs spike. For instance, in subsequent mid-term budget cycles, BCHD explicitly noted that higher-than-budgeted utility costs across campus property operations frequently outpaced the capped rental revenue increases.

Sources:

Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports (ACFR)
The primary audited financial data—including the exact square footage, historical rent schedules, and GASB 87 revenue breakdowns—is published in the Beach Cities Health District Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Leases section):

FY 2021-22 Financial Report (Page 43 / Notes Page 69):

Documents the exact $63,834 monthly base rent for that specific fiscal period, the $766,008 recognized lease revenue, the $370,868 interest revenue standard entry, and the June 30, 2031 legal lease conclusion date.

Source URL: BCHD ACFR FY21-22 Final Report
FY 2022-23 & FY 2023-24 Financial Reports:

Tracks the subsequent escalation of the base rent to $80,000 per month while carrying forward the historical 35,008 square footage baseline data.

Source URLs: BCHD ACFR FY22-23 Report | BCHD Financial
Report FY24

2. Historical Operating and Baseline Expense Clauses
FY 2012-13 and FY 2018 CAFR Asset Summaries:

Details the original May 18, 2006 lease execution, highlighting the initial monthly bundled floor of $38,126 established for both the base space rent and the dedicated common area operating expense
reimbursements.

Source URL: BCHD CAFR 2018 Report Archive
Sunrise $1.25M Across 10 Years Credible Estimate from BCHD Presentations
Based on the official proposal submitted by Sunrise Senior Living to the Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) for the Healthy Living Campus ground lease, the rent structure is tier-based during the construction and stabilization phases, followed by a fixed percentage escalation every 5 years.

Proposed Sunrise Ground Lease Schedule (Years 1–10)
The base ground lease rent starts at closing and follows this progression across the first decade:

Lease
Year Phase / Tier Annual Rent
Payment
Monthly
Equivalent
Year
1 Initial Construction (Months
1–12) $500,000 $41,667
Year
2 Initial Construction (Months
13–24) $500,000 $41,667
Year Mid-Construction Tier $750,000 $62,500

3 (Months 25–36)
Year
4 Mid-Construction Tier
(Months 37–48) $750,000 $62,500
Year
5 Stabilized Operations Base
(Year 1) $1,250,000 $104,167
Year
6 Stabilized Operations Base
(Year 2) $1,250,000 $104,167
Year
7 Stabilized Operations Base
(Year 3) $1,250,000 $104,167
Year
8 Stabilized Operations Base
(Year 4) $1,250,000 $104,167
Year
9 Stabilized Operations Base
(Year 5) $1,250,000 $104,167
Year
10 Post-Stabilization Escalation
(7.5% Increase)* $1,343,750 $111,979
Total First 10 Years Cumulative
Revenue $9,593,750 (Approx.
$10M

Item: 8.A.

Meeting Date: 7/13/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Approve Affidavit of Posting for the City Council Regular Meeting of July 13, 2026 Background:

None.

Discussion:

None.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

Approve.

Attachments:

1. CL_AGN_260713_CC_AffidavitofPosting

Administrative Report

8.A., File # 2026-195 Meeting Date:7/13/2026
To: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
From: Christian Horvath, City Clerk
TITLE
APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 13, 2026

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In compliance with the Brown Act, the following materials have been posted at the locations below.

Legislative Body City Council
Posting Type Regular Meeting Agenda
Posting Location 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 City Hall Window
City Website: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agendas_meetings.php https://rollinghillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/
Meeting Date & Time JULY 13, 2026 7:00pm Open Session
As City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills, I declare under penalty of perjury, the document noted above was posted at the date displayed below.

Christian Horvath, City Clerk
Date: July 10, 2026

Item: 8.B.

Meeting Date: 7/13/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk 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
Background:

None.

Discussion:

None.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

Approve.

Attachments:

None

Item: 8.C.

Meeting Date: 7/13/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Approve the following Minutes of June 22, 2026: City Council Regular Meeting Background:

None.

Discussion:

None.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

Approve as presented.

Attachments:

1. CL_MIN_260622_CC_F

MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 22, 2026

Minutes
Rolling Hills City Council
Monday, June 22, 2026
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 7:02 p.m. Mayor Dieringer presiding.

2. Roll Call
Councilmembers Present: Pieper, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Dieringer Councilmembers Absent: Black
Staff Present: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Samantha Crew, Management Analyst
Nicolas Papajohn, City Attorney
Benjamin Johnson, Planning Technician / Code Compliance Officer

3. Pledge Of Allegiance – Councilmember Wilson

4. Presentations / Proclamations / Announcements - None

5. Approve Order of the Agenda
Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to approve the order of the agenda.

Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

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

6. Blue Folder Items (Supplemental) - None

7. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items - None

8. Consent Calendar

8.A. Approve Affidavit of Posting for the City Council Regular Meeting of June 22, 2026

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 Minutes of June 8, 2026: City Council Regular Meeting

8.D. Payment of Bills

8.E. Adopt Resolution No. 1417, Updating the City of Rolling Hills Records Retention Schedule

MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 22, 2026

8.F. Adoption of Amendment to Legal Services Agreement with Best, Best & Krieger regarding Updated Fee Schedule for City Attorney Services and authorization for the City Manager to sign the Agreement
Motion by Councilmember Mirsch, seconded by Councilmember Pieper to approve the Consent Calendar.

Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

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

9. Excluded Consent Calendar Items - None

10. Commission Items - None

11. Public Hearings

11.A. A Hearing regarding a Nuisance Abatement at 6 Saddleback Road (Lot 18-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 Presentation by Planning Technician / Code Compliance Officer Johnson.

Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Wilson to approve Resolution No. 1416 as presented and direct staff to return with an update at the July 27 meeting. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

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

12. Discussion Items

12.A. Outdoor Emergency Siren and SAFE Unit Update; Receive and File and Provide Direction Regarding Community Outreach for Potential Future Siren Locations Presentation by Management Analyst Crew.

Public Comment: Mark Ellers, Dina Swanson-Zelleke, Arlene Honbo, Bill Dilfer, Mary Martha Bernadette, Judith Haenel
Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to receive and file; direct staff to hold site specific silhouette viewing opportunities for the public and provide tentative known dates for SAFE unit soft launch events in a small area. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

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

13. Matters From the City Council

13.A. Verbal update regarding additional handrails or guardrails at the Rolling Hills Tennis Courts

MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 22, 2026

Presentation by Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Horvath.

Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Wilson to receive and file and direct staff to take no further action until the Rolling Hills Community Association completes their Cabana related construction work. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

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

13.B. Consideration and possible action regarding acknowledgment of resident-submitted ideas for publicly funded amenities, including requests for plaques or other forms of recognition.

Presentation by Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Horvath.

Public Comment: Judith Haenel, Melissa McNabb
Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Mirsch to receive and file. Mayor Dieringer made a friendly amendment, accepted by the motion makers, directing staff bring the matter back for discussion if an individual expresses interest in making a significant donation to the City project that may require revisions to current policies. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

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

14. Matters From Staff

14.A. Receive an update on Phase 1 of the Portuguese Bend Road / Rolling Hills Road 8" Sewer Main Project
Presentation by Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Horvath.

Motion by Councilmember Pieper, seconded by Councilmember Wilson to receive and file; table the matter until receiving further information regarding possibility of additional funding or other funding sources via follow up with Congressmember Lieu’s office and the USDA. Motion carried unanimously with the following vote:

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

15. Recess To Closed Session - None

16. Reconvene To Open Session - None

17. Adjournment: 9:26 P.M.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. on June 22, 2026. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, July 13, 2026 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 the City’s website link at:
https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php

MINUTES – CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 22, 2026

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,
____________________________________
Bea Dieringer, Mayor

Item: 8.D.

Meeting Date: 7/13/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Payment of Bills
Background:

None.

Discussion:

None.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

Approve as presented.

Attachments:

1. CL_AGN_260713_CC_PaymentOfBills_E

Item: 8.E.

Meeting Date: 7/13/2026
To: City Council
From: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Republic Services Recycling Tonnage and Complaint Reports for May 2026 Background:

On July 1, 2020, the City entered into an Amended and Restated Agreement with Republic Services for the collection, transportation, recycling, composting, and disposal of solid waste, recyclables, green waste, bulky items, and brush. As part of the Agreement, Republic Services is required to provide periodic operational and performance reports to the City. These reports assist the City in monitoring service levels, recycling activities, diversion compliance, and resident service requests.

Over the past several months, staff has presented information to the City Council regarding Republic Services' reporting requirements and the various reports submitted under the Agreement. These reports provide transparency regarding waste collection operations and support the City's oversight responsibilities.

This evening, staff is presenting reports for May. In addition, Republic Services has provided additional information regarding its reporting requirements and reporting methodologies, which is included in Attachment E.

Discussion:

Republic Services provides several recurring reports to the City, including Recycling Tonnage Reports, Complaint Reports, Red Tag Reports, Missed Pick-Up Reports, Commercial Recycling Recovery Reports, Greenwaste Reports, and Residential Roll-Off Bin Usage Reports. • Tonnage Reports, which document the volume of materials collected and processed and assist the City in monitoring progress toward recycling and waste diversion goals (Attachment A). o Greenwaste Reporting, which tracks green waste collection and diversion activities and identifies factors that may impact reported tonnage, including contamination and dataentry corrections. o Residential Roll-Off Bin Usage Reports, which document resident utilization of the City's annual free green waste roll-off bin program.
• Commercial Recycling Recovery Reports, which document recovery rates from transfer facilities and support compliance reporting requirements (Attachment B).

• Republic Services Missed Pick-Up Reports, which provide information regarding missed collections and their subsequent resolution (Attachment C). • City of Rolling Hills Complaint Reports, which track resident concerns, including missed collections and service-related issues, and document corrective actions taken (Attachment D). • Red Tag Reports, which identify contamination issues or other violations associated with waste disposal practices. For May, there were no red tags issued.

Republic Services is contractually required to achieve a minimum annual diversion rate of 30 percent for residential solid waste collection services. Currently, the City meets California's recycling and waste diversion requirements through its overall diversion program, including the diversion of green waste from landfills.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

Recieve and file.

Attachments:

1. Attachment A - VC_REP_260622_May_TonnageReport

2. Attachment B - VC_REP_260622_May_C&D Report

3. Attachment C - VC_REP_260622_May_CallLog

4. Attachment D - VC_REP_260713_May_ComplaintList

5. Attachment E - VC_REP_260603_RS_Diversion_SB1383Compliance_Report

Year 2026
Diversion Requirement Y
Month Commodity Tons Collected Tons Recovered Tons Disposed Diversion % 1 Greenwaste 89.97 89.97 - 100.00%
Trash 169.33 - 169.33 0.00%
Greenwaste - Residential Roll Off Bin 26.16 26.16 - 100.00% Trash - Residential Roll Off Bin 5.26 - 5.26 0.00%
1 Total 290.72 116.13 174.59 39.95%
2 Greenwaste 105.57 105.57 - 100.00%
Trash 133.77 - 133.77 0.00%
Trash - Residential Roll Off Bin 4.65 - 4.65 0.00%
2 Total 243.99 105.57 138.42 43.27%
3 Greenwaste 99.86 99.86 - 100.00%
Trash 195.06 - 195.06 0.00%
Greenwaste - Residential Roll Off Bin 4.99 4.99 - 100.00% Trash - Residential Roll Off Bin 12.13 - 12.13 0.00%
3 Total 312.04 104.85 207.19 33.60%
4 Greenwaste 133.73 133.73 - 100.00%
Trash 124.31 - 124.31 0.00%
Greenwaste - Residential Roll Off Bin 5.19 5.19 - 100.00% Trash - Residential Roll Off Bin 6.99 - 6.99 0.00%
4 Total 270.22 138.92 131.30 51.41%
5 Greenwaste 112.41 112.41 - 100.00%
Recycle 5.66 2.91 2.75 51.44%
Trash 146.75 - 146.75 0.00%
Greenwaste - Residential Roll Off Bin 1.11 1.11 - 100.00% 5 Total 265.93 116.43 149.50 43.78%
Grand Total 1,382.90 581.90 801.00 42.08%

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL FRANCHISE
2026

Year 2026
Diversion Requirement N
Month Commodity Tons Collected Tons Recovered Tons Disposed Diversion % 1 Recycle 0.16 0.07 0.09 42.94%
Trash 64.25 - 64.25 0.00%
Organics 0.02 0.01 0.01 67.20%
1 Total 64.43 0.08 64.35 0.12%
2 Recycle 0.18 0.09 0.09 50.45%
Trash 13.48 - 13.48 0.00%
Organics 0.02 0.01 0.01 61.64%
2 Total 13.68 0.11 13.57 0.77%
3 Recycle 0.19 0.09 0.09 50.78%
Trash 83.53 - 83.53 0.00%
3 Total 83.71 0.09 83.62 0.11%
4 Recycle 0.16 0.09 0.07 55.32%
Trash 74.09 - 74.09 0.00%
C&D 11.25 9.24 2.01 82.13%
4 Total 85.50 9.33 76.18 10.91%
5 Recycle 0.23 0.12 0.11 52.37%
Trash 77.09 - 77.09 0.00%
C&D 4.44 3.65 0.79 82.13%
5 Total 81.76 3.77 77.99 4.61%
Grand Total 329.08 13.37 315.71 4.06%

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS NON-FRANCHISE
2026

Republic Services City of Rolling Hills
C&D Report Reporting Period May-26
Disposal Site Material Loads Taken Tons Collected
CWS C&D 1 4.44
Summary
Row Labels Sum of Tons Collected
C&D 4.44
Grand Total 4.44

Republic Services Call Log Report
City: Rolling Hills
Year 2026
Month/Quarter 5
Summary of Calls by Type
Final Call
Final Call Type Sub-Type Total
*No Missed Pick-ups to Report this month (blank) 1
*No Missed Pick-ups to Report this month Total 1
Grand Total 1
Pg 1 of 2

Republic Services Call Log Report
Final Call Type Sub-Type Case Number
Date/Time
Opened
Date/Time
Closed
Created
By Request Description Resolution Comments Customer Category Account Number Site Account Name Site Address Phone *No Missed Pick-ups to Report this month
Pg 2 of 2

City of Rolling Hills - May 2026 Republic Services Complaint Log Date of Issue Time Issue/Complaint Resident Name Resident Address Republic contacted
Republic
Reponse
5/1/2026 8:30 AM Missed Trash Arlene Honbo 33 Portuguese Bend Rd. Lori Reyna Lori Reyna 5/6/2026 9:30 AM Missed Trash and Green Waste Bill Dilfer 25 Chuckwagon Rd. Lori Reyna Lori Reyna 5/7/2026 10:10 AM Missed Green Waste Mrs. Stern 18 Buggy Whip Dr. Lori Reyna Lori Reyna 5/15/2026 11:05 AM Missed Trash Elizabeth Birkett 10 Saddleback Rd. Lori Reyna 5/18/2026 7:45 AM Missed Green Waste Tina Maltz 14 Southfield Dr. Lori Reyna Lori Reyna 5/20/2026 3:30 PM Missed Green Waste Mrs. Stern 18 Buggy Whip Dr. Lori Reyna Lori Reyna 5/26/2026 4:20 PM Missed Trash and Green Waste Liz Altman 17 Caballeros Rd. Lori Reyna Lori Reyna 5/27/2026 9:45 AM Missed Trash and Green Waste Liz Altman 17 Caballeros Rd. Lori Reyna Lori Reyna 5/28/2026 8:00 AM Missed Trash Lisa Levine 25 Caballeros Rd. Lori Reyna

Page | 1
Republic Services Diversion and SB 1383 Performance
June 2, 2026
Summary
This report summarizes the City’s compliance with State solid waste regulations, including SB 1383, and Republic Services’ role in supporting and advancing that performance.

DIVERSION AND SB 1383 COMPLIANCE

1. CalRecycle Disposal Reduction & Diversion Performance Through its partnership with Republic Services, the City continues to meet and exceed State diversion and disposal reduction requirements:
• Maximum Allowable Disposal Rate (CalRecycle): 16.70 lbs/person/day • Rolling Hills Actual (2024): 9 lbs/person/day
• State Diversion Benchmark: 50%
• Rolling Hills Diversion Performance: ~73%
This performance reflects substantially lower disposal and higher diversion than required by the State, underscoring Republic’s critical role in delivering programs, services, and community engagement that consistently drive measurable results.

2. SB 1383 Compliance
Rolling Hills has been granted a Low Population Waiver based on:
• Annual disposal volumes under 5,000 tons
• Population below 7,500 residents
While this waiver reduces certain regulatory obligations, Republic Services has continued to proactively implement SB 1383-aligned programs, ensuring the City not only maintains compliance but remains well-positioned relative to evolving State expectations:
• Annual SB 1383 education and outreach (newsletter)
• Ongoing direct customer engagement on recycling and waste reduction • Digital outreach and web-based educational resources
These efforts demonstrate Republic’s commitment to going beyond minimum requirements to support the City’s long-term compliance and sustainability goals.

Page | 2

3. Local Program Implementation and Service Model
Republic’s specialized service model is foundational to the City’s success in achieving high diversion and compliance outcomes:
• Collection of customer-owned waste containers
• Collection of bundled green waste
• Use of specialized small-vehicle collection equipment for hillside access • Routing strategies designed to minimize community impacts Additional programs that directly contribute to diversion and proper material management include:
• Fire Abatement Support: Roll-off containers for brush clearance • Residential Green Waste Support: Annual organic material recycling options These tailored programs increase participation, reduce improper disposal, and directly contribute to the City’s strong diversion performance.

4. Contract Diversion Performance (Context)
Republic’s impact extends beyond contract metrics:
• State-Reported Diversion Rate: ~72–73%
• Franchise Requirement: 30% minimum diversion
• Current Franchise Performance: 28.98%
It is important to note that State diversion calculations include additional programs and material streams—such as construction and demolition debris, open market services, and source reduction activities—that are not captured in franchise reporting.

As a result, the State-recognized diversion rate more fully reflects Republic’s comprehensive service delivery and the City’s overall performance, which significantly exceeds State requirements.

CONCLUSION
Republic Services plays a critical and proactive role in supporting the City of Rolling Hills in meeting and exceeding State mandates, including:
• Delivering programs that achieve diversion performance well above State requirements
• Supporting continued SB 1383 alignment, despite reduced regulatory obligations

Page | 3
• Implementing community-specific service solutions that drive participation and results
• Positioning the City for continued compliance with evolving CalRecycle standards This partnership ensures the City remains a high-performing jurisdiction, with strong environmental outcomes and a clear pathway for sustained compliance.

Item: 11.A.

Meeting Date: 7/13/2026
To: City Council
From: Whitney Berry, Planning Manager
Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Zoning Case No. 26-73: Request 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; Conditional Use Permits for a guest house, a stable greater than 200 square feet, a corral greater than 550 square feet and a detached accessory structure greater than 200 square feet; and Variances to allow construction of certain structures in the front yard, to allow a corral to encroach into the front yard setback, to allow retaining walls to exceed the maximum average height of 2.5 feet, to allow a portion of the basement to extend beyond the walls of the residence, and to allow grading export; and finding the project categorically exempt from CEQA for 23 Crest Road East (Lot 132A-MS)(Ogasawara)
Background:

Summary
On October 28, 2024, the City Council approved Zoning Case No. 23-070 for a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits and Variances to develop a vacant lot with a new single-family residence and accessory structures located at 23 Crest Road East. The Applicant is requesting approval of modifications to the original project that are the result of (1) City requirements for the slope of the driveway, (2) RHCA Architectural Committee requirement that the street-facing façade of the residence be fully exposed, and (3) geotechnical and geology requirements that the project implement a non-traditional onsite wastewater treatment system. These modifications primarily affect grading quantities, the finished elevations of the mound in the center of the driveway and the design of the north side of the residence. The proposed modifications are considered “major modifications” that are subject to City Council review and approval pursuant to RHMC Sections 17.38.065 (Variances – Subsequent Modification) and 17.46.070 (Site Plan Review – Subsequent Modification), as well as Planning Commission Policy Criteria for Determining Minor and Major Modifications for Development Projects.

Project History
On December 11, 2023, the Traffic Commission reviewed the proposed driveway and apron for the subject project and recommended approval of the new driveway and apron to the City Council.

On January 16, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for the first time at its morning field trip meeting and regular evening meeting.

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 Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant on revising the plans to address the issues.

On April 16, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a second duly noticed public hearing to consider the application at its morning field trip meeting and regular evening meeting. 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.

On June 18, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a third duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at its morning field trip meeting and regular evening meeting. 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 (two Commissioners 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 restricting 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.

On August 12, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application at a morning field trip and regular evening meeting. Neighbors within a 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearing and a notice was published in the Daily Breeze on August 1, 2024.

The applicants and owner were notified of the public hearing and were in attendance at the hearing.

The City Council opened the public hearing, took public testimony, and discussed the Project. The City Council then continued the public hearing to October 14, 2024.

On October 14, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application at its regular evening meeting. Neighbors within a 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in the Daily Breeze on 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. The City Council then continued the public hearing to October 28, 2024.

On October 28, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application at its regular evening meeting. 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. The City Council voted 4-1 to adopt Resolution No. 1376

(Attachment 9) approving Zoning Case No. 23-070 with additional conditions of approval to address landscaping, permitting through LA County only, grading quantities for the “sunset terrace,” stormwater retention cisterns designed for a 100-year storm, a maximum 12’ height above grade for cantilevered decks, prohibiting planting trees on the mound, and modifying Condition AR to require City Council approval of any modification to drainage on the property.

On December 3, 2024, the Applicant submitted conceptual plans to the RHCA Architectural Committee for review. The Applicant subsequently revised and resubmitted plans multiple times, and ultimately received approval of the conceptual designs from the RHCA Architectural Committee on September 30, 2025.

On May 22, 2026, the City received modified grading and architectural plans from Shawn Smith of Crest Real Estate (“Applicant”), on behalf of the property owner Yuki Ogasawara, to request approval of modifications to the previously approved Project. The Applicant has proposed modifications in response to agency reviews that are considered “major modifications,” pursuant to RHMC Sections

17.38.065 (Variances – Subsequent Modification) and 17.46.070 (Site Plan Review – Subsequent Modification), as well as Planning Commission Policy Criteria for Determining Minor and Major Modifications for Development Projects.

Discussion:

Site Characteristics
The property located at 23 Crest Road East is zoned RA-S-2 and has a net lot area for development purposes of 6.48 acres or 282,368 SF. The vacant property is located on the south side of Crest Road and is one of the last and most expansive undeveloped lots in the neighborhood (Attachment 2). The property is irregularly shaped and is bordered by residential development to the south, east and west and Crest Road to the north. The lot has a depth of approximately 820 feet and a width of approximately 480 feet, and has an overall elevation change of over 200 feet from Crest Road East to the rear of the property. The property has a 50-foot-wide roadway easement along Crest Road East and a 25-foot-wide Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) easement along the east, west and south perimeter of the lot. 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.

Proposed Project with Modifications
The Applicant requests approval of the modifications to the original project that are responsive to agency requirements, RHCA design review and geological investigations at the site (Attachment 8).

The proposed modifications are considered “major modifications” that are subject to City Council review and approval pursuant to RHMC Sections 17.38.065 (Variances – Subsequent Modification) and 17.46.070 (Site Plan Review – Subsequent Modification), as well as Planning Commission Policy Criteria for Determining Minor and Major Modifications for Development Projects.

The Project includes the following components:
• 12,070 SF single-family residence with a 7,916 SF basement and 921 SF attached garage; • 15,500 SF Circular driveway
• 1,226 SF Stable;
• 5,190 SF Corral;
• 612 SF Guest house;
• 693 SF Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU);

• 280 SF Swimming pool/spa;
• 400 SF Detached trellis;
• Retaining walls;
• Attached covered porches;
• A tunnel egress from the basement;
• Grading with 7,228 cubic yards (CY) of non-exempt export; • Native landscaping and other improvements.

The major modifications affect the previously-approved Site Plan Review and Variances. The project modifications related to the Conditional Use Permits are minor in nature and did not rise to the same level of significance. However, it is more efficient and clearer to keep all Project entitlements on the same timeline as they progress through the development process. Therefore, the requested Conditional Use Permits are being considered anew along with the Site Plan Review and Variances.

The proposed modifications to the Project are considered major because they (1) affect grading export by more than 500 cubic yards, (2) change the slope configuration of the mound in the center of the driveway and (3) include new retaining walls and cut of more than 3 feet in order to expose the north side of the residence:

1. Modification to Grading Export: A condition of approval by the City required a maximum slope of seven percent for the driveway entrance from Crest. The implementation of this condition required the raising of onsite grades, increasing fill (Table 1).

Table 1. Grading/Earthwork Comparison

2. Modification of Slope Configuration of the Mound. Due to the downhill side of the mound area being used for surficial onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) effluent, geotechnical and geology requirements recommend shallower inclination of this side of the mound. The plan view design of the mound remains the same. However, the downhill side of the mound would be reduced from a 2:1 slope inclination to a shallower slope inclination on the order of 4:1 (Figure 1). While this adjustment overall decreases remedial cut and fill, it will increase export.

Figure 1. Grading Section of Mound

3. Modification to the North Side of the Residence. The Rolling Hills Community Association asked

that the residence be fully exposed on the north or street-facing side, which requires an additional level area and retaining walls as opposed to the original design without a wall (Figures 2 & 3). This also increased the amount of cut in that particular area.

The modifications to the previously-approved project have been evaluated against applicable zoning code requirements and summarized in the attached project comparison chart (Attachment 6). As shown in this chart, the Project substantially conforms to the City’s residential development standard, including, but not limited to, height, lot coverage, setbacks, disturbed area and requirements for equestrian facilities.

Figure 2. Site Plan with Proposed Modifications (Zoning Case No. 26-73 Figure 3. Previously-Approved Site Plan (Zoning Case No. 23-070)

Site Plan Review
The Site Plan Review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain projects in order to ensure that proposed projects are consistent with the City’s General Plan, incorporate environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices, preserve 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.

A Site Plan Review is required for this project due to the proposed construction of a new single-family residence and associated grading. Pursuant to RHMC §17.46.050, the Planning Commission and City Council must make the following findings when considering a Site Plan Review:

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 complies with and is consistent with the General Plan and zoning ordinance with the exception of the requested variances discussed in the Variance section below. The proposed structures are consistent with General Plan policies requiring low-profile, low-density residential development that is sensitive to the natural environment and provides sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The main residence has been integrated into the existing slope to minimize 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 substantially conforms to the residential development standards in the zoning ordinance, including but not limited to height, lot coverage, setbacks, disturbed area and requirements for equestrian facilities (Attachment 6).

2. 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 Project conforms to the lot coverage requirements of the zoning ordinance (Attachment 5). The property’s net lot area is 282,368 square feet (6.48 acres) per RHMC Section 17.16.060(A). The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 15,885 square feet or 5.6% (20% max. permitted) excluding exempt structures; and the total lot coverage proposed, including flatwork, would be 40,307 square feet or 14.3% (35% max. permitted). The Project will disturbed 38.4% of the area of the lot (40% max permitted).

3. 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 because the design is sensitive to the natural environment and consistent with the overall scale of the neighborhood (Attachment 3). The integration of the residence into the slope following the topography enables the residence to be largely hidden from view from the street and neighboring residences. The proposed slopes have been rounded in an attempt to mimic the existing natural slopes in the area.

4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
The topography and the configuration of the lot have been considered in the design of the residence and the site. The Project will be a sufficient distance from nearby residences so views and privacy of surrounding neighbors will not be impacted. As there is no longer a flat plateau on the mound in the center of the driveway, vistas across the site will be enhanced. The maximum height of the mound is proposed at 1334 feet in elevation and vegetation on the mound is limited to three feet in height.

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 palette of native species back into the landscape above the house.

5. 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 Project will create three new building pads that have been designed to follow the natural contours of the site and minimize grading to the extent feasible (Attachment 4). The total proposed grading for the Project is 18,653 cubic yards (17,395 CY of cut and 1,258 CY of fill). Excavated material from the site (cut) will be used for the on-site fill and the remaining material will be exported off site. The export due to excavations for the foundation, basement, swimming pool, guest house and ADU foundations totaling 8,909 CY is considered exempt from the Site Plan Review. The remaining 7,228 CY of export is not exempt and therefore subject to Site Plan Review. Export is needed to maintain the existing topography as much as possible, rather than retaining the dirt on the property. Exporting this material has the added benefit of decreasing the weight of soil on the site.

6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
The main residence is centered on its site so that runoff is not increased within existing drainage courses on either side of the lot. Sloped areas will be planted with native or drought-tolerant

vegetation to prevent erosion. Infiltration for this project was deemed unfeasible; therefore, control of water from impervious surfaces will be collected in two 35,000-gallon retention tanks that have been designed to hold the 100-year storm rain event (Attachment 7). In case of the tank getting filled, an overflow outlet will be installed to discharge the excess runoff into rip rap downhill of the property.

The proposed drainage plans will be reviewed by the County and the Applicant is required to obtain the necessary geotechnical approvals and permits to construct the project.

7. 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 an approved landscape plan that is required to comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The Project proposes to use native plants that are well suited to the existing site without the need for irrigation beyond their establishment period of 1 to 2 years. Trees will provide visual buffers and create habitat between neighboring properties while preserving and protecting natural drainage patterns on the site. Proposed trees are restricted to locations that do not hinder views from adjacent lots and must be maintained to a height not to exceed the roof ridge. Additionally, the City Council previously prohibited any trees be planted on the mound in the center of the driveway. The new landscape adjacent to Crest Road focuses largely on the reestablishment of the coastal sage scrub planting community and providing habitat for the local fauna while seamlessly blending the house into the surrounding native hillside without obstructing views.

8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles;
The proposed site plan, driveway and apron are not detrimental to the convenience and safety of pedestrians and vehicles based on field observations and engineering judgment of the City’s Traffic Engineer and as determined by the Traffic Commission on December 11, 2023. 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.

9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

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.

Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permits provide for certain uses that, due to the nature, intensity or size of the use, require special review to determine if the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses or, through the imposition of development and use conditions, can be made compatible with surrounding uses.

The project modifications related to the Conditional Use Permits are minor in nature and did not rise

to the level of “major modifications.” However, Staff believe it is more efficient and clearer to keep all Project entitlements on the same timeline as they progress through the development process.

Therefore, the Conditional Use Permits are being approved anew along with the Site Plan Review and Variances.

This Project requires Conditional Use Permits due to the proposed stable being greater than 200 SF per RHMC §17.16.040(A)(6), the proposed corral being greater than 550 SF per RHMC §17.16.040(A)(7), the proposed construction of a guest house greater than 200 SF per RHMC §17.16.040(A)(3), and the proposed detached accessory structure that is greater than 200 SF per RHMC §17.16.200(H). Pursuant to RHMC §17.42.050, the Planning Commission and City Council must rely on the following criteria when considering a conditional use permit:

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

The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house, stable, corral, and trellis is consistent with the purposes and objectives of the zoning ordinance and General Plan because these residential accessory structures meet the applicable code development standards. The Project is compatible with existing uses on other properties in the same zone which have guest houses, stables, corrals and trellises.

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, buildings 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 distance to neighboring buildings and structures.

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

The proposed conditional uses substantially comply with the applicable development standards in the RA-S-2 Zone. The approximately seven-acre property is an adequate size to support the proposed uses and buildings and sufficient distance is provided between structures.

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

The proposed conditional uses substantially comply with the applicable development standards of the RA-S-2 Zone, with the exception of the proposed stable and corral located in the front yard. Due to the steep topography of the site, these structures are proposed in the front yard because it is the flattest area of the property. The proposed front yard location of these uses requires Variances, as discussed in the Variance section below.

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

Granting the proposed conditional uses for the Project is 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 the zoning code.

The proposed Project allows the Applicant the ability to develop their property and construct a singlefamily residence with accessory structures, a right that is enjoyed by other residents in the City. The proposed uses are consistent with the rural residential character of the City.

Variances
A Variance procedure is provided to grant relief from zoning provisions when, due to special circumstances applicable to a property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

Variances are required for this project due to the following proposed project components:

1. Stable, corral, swimming pool and retaining walls to encroach into the front yard (RHMC §17.16.200, §17.18.060 and §17.18.090);

2. Corral to encroach into the required 50-foot front setback (RHMC §17.16.110 and §17.16.200);

3. Retaining walls that exceed the maximum average height of 2.5 feet (RHMC §17.16.190(F));

4. Basement with a portion extending beyond the building walls of the residence (RHMC §17.12.020); and

5. Grading export (RHMC §17.16.230).

Pursuant to RHMC §17.38.050, the Planning Commission and City Council must make the following findings when granting a Variance:

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.

This finding can be made because the shape and steep topography of the site. The location of the stable and corral between the main house and the street is a design adopted by many neighbors on Crest Road East and would be consistent with other nearby properties. However, this design does require a Variance to allow the stable, corral, swimming pool and retaining wall in the front yard and the corral to encroach into the required 50-foot 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. Locating the proposed pool and retaining walls in the front yard is considerate of the natural slope and avoids additional grading on steeper portions of the lot. The construction of retaining walls to exceed the maximum average height of 2.5 feet, and the light well/tunnel portion of the basement extending beyond the building walls of the residence supports the overall design and access on the steep site. As a result of the shape of the lot, the grading of the Project requires a variance to export non-exempt grading of 7,228 CY of soil to keep the peak of the mound 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.

This finding can be made because 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 visible along

the street. The topographic constraints of the site support the taller than 2.5-foot average retaining walls and walls located in the front yard. The Project’s earthwork is unbalanced on site due to the cut required to fully expose the street side of the residence and to accommodate the shallow slopes required for the septic system. The requested Variance to export of 7,228 CY of excess material is warranted due to unavoidable site conditions and in order to minimize view obstruction from neighboring residences.

The Variance request pertaining to the basement extending beyond the walls of the residence is solely for a subterranean egress tunnel connecting the basement to the exterior of the residence at grade. The basement requires a secondary means of egress independent of the primary interior stairway. Due to the site’s topography, the basement floor elevation sites below adjacent finished grade on all exposed sides making a conventional window well or direct exterior door impractical without significant grading and retaining wall construction along the building perimeter. The proposed tunnel is angled so as not offer provide a clear view into the basement.

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.

This finding can be made because the Applicant is required to obtain all necessary geotechnical approvals and permits from Los Angeles County and other agencies, as applicable, to construct the project. The requested variances are designed to make the development less intensive in terms of grading, maintain views from Crest Road, maximize privacy and reduce other impacts to the neighborhood to ensure the protection of the public welfare.

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

This finding can be made because the requested Variances will allow the site to be developed with low-density residential development that is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural environment and with adjacent residential development.

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

This finding can be made because the Project proposes residential uses and accessory structures that are allowed in the RA-S-2 zone and are compatible with neighboring properties that have stables, corrals, retaining walls and other accessory structures in the front yard and setbacks. The taller than 2.5-foot average retaining walls at the site are necessary given the steep topography of the site and is a reasonable use enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. The Project’s earthwork is unbalanced on site due to the cut required to fully expose the street side of the residence and to accommodate the shallow slopes required for the septic system which does not constitute special privilege to the applicant. The proposed basement egress tunnel would meet the requirement for a secondary means of egress while minimizing the limits of disturbance and preserving existing grade at the rear of the residence.

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.

This finding can be made because the Project is 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, and the Project does not constitute a hazardous waste facility.

G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills.

This finding can be made because the Project is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills goals to maintain the City’s rural residential character, accommodate development that is compatible with and complements existing land uses and is sensitive to the natural environment and accounts for environmental hazards. The Project, together with the Variances, aligns with the goals, objectives and policies specified in the General Plan.

Public Comments
On July 2, 2026, public notice of the project was posted in three locations within the City and mailed to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject property. Staff has not received any public correspondence since notification has been posted and mailed. Any correspondence received after agenda distribution and prior to the July 13, 2026 City Council meeting will be distributed to the Council via a separate memo.

Rolling Hills Community Association Review
The RHCA Architectural Committee accepted the conceptual design for this project on September 30, 2025.

Environmental Review
The proposed project has been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment and is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts a single-family residence and accessory structures. Here, the Project includes development on a vacant lot of a new singlefamily residence in a residential zone, with attached garage, driveway, stable, swimming pool, guest house 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 12,070-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 the 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.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

Open the public hearing, take public testimony, close the public hearing, discuss the proposed

project, and consider Resolution No. 1418 for approval.

Attachments:

1. Attachment1_ResolutionNo1418_23CrestRoadE_ZC26-73_F

2. Attachment2_23CrestRoadE_ZC26-73_RadiusMap

3. Attachment3_A100_RHCA_2025-09-04 Grading Resubmittal 20260707_11x17web

4. Attachment4_2026-04-09 Crest Road Grading Permit Set_11x17web

5. Attachment5_PL_FRM_23CrestRdE_ZC26-73_260713_DevelopmentTable

6. Attachment6_23CrestRoadE_ZC26-73_ProjectConformanceComparisonChart

7. Attachment7_20260007_Hydrology Report

8. Attachment8_Rigg Letter to City Council for 23 Crest Road East Final

9. Attachment9_ResolutionNo1376_23CrestRoadE_ZC23-070_241028_F_E

10. PL_ADR_23CrestRdE_ZC23-070_240618_DevelopmentTable

RESOLUTION NO. 1418

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS TO A CITY COUNCILAPPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW TO DEVELOP A VACANT LOT INCLUDING NON-EXEMPT GRADING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A GUEST HOUSE, A STABLE GREATER THAN 200 SQUARE FEET, A CORRAL GREATER THAN 550 SQUARE FEET AND A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE GREATER THAN 200 SQUARE FEET; AND

VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN STRUCTURES IN

THE FRONT YARD, TO ALLOW A CORRAL TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT

YARD SETBACK, TO ALLOW RETAINING WALLS TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM AVERAGE HEIGHT OF 2.5 FEET, TO ALLOW A PORTION OF THE

BASEMENT TO EXTEND BEYOND THE WALLS OF THE RESIDENCE, AND TO ALLOW GRADING EXPORT; AND FINDING THE PROJECT
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA FOR 23 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 132A-MS)(OGASAWARA)

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

Section 1. On October 28, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1376 approving Zoning Case (ZC) No. 23-070 for construction of a new single-family residence with a basement, attached garage, stable, corral, a guest house, a swimming pool, maximum fivefoot-high retaining walls, an oval driveway and other improvements (the “Previously-Approved Project”).

On May 22, 2026, an application was filed by the Applicant, Shawn Smith of Crest Real Estate, on behalf of the property owner, Yuki, Ogasawara, to request approval of modified grading and architectural plans for the Previously-Approved Project. The proposed modifications are responsive to agency requirements, Rolling Hills Community Association design review and geotechnical and geological requirements of the site. The proposed modifications are considered “major modifications,” pursuant to RHMC Sections 17.38.065 (Variances – Subsequent Modification) and 17.46.070 (Site Plan Review – Subsequent Modification), as well as Planning Commission Policy Criteria for Determining Minor and Major Modifications for Development Projects. The project modifications related to the Conditional Use Permits are minor in nature and did not rise to the level of “major modifications.” However, it is more efficient and clearer to keep all Project entitlements on the same timeline as they progress through the development process. Therefore, the requested Conditional Use Permits are being considered anew along with the Site Plan Review and Variances.

The proposed Project under Zoning Case (ZC) No. 26-73 includes a new 12,070-squarefoot (SF) single-family residences with a 7,916 SF basement, a 921 SF attached garage, a 1,226 SF stable, a 5,190 SF corral, a 612 SF guest house, a 280 SF swimming pool, a 400 SF detached trellis, retaining walls, oval driveway, tunnel egress from the basement, native landscaping and other improvements (the “Project”).

2 Resolution No. 1418
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
Section 2. The property is zoned RA-S-2 and has a net lot area for development purposes of 6.48 acres or 282,368 SF. The vacant property is located on the south side of Crest Road and is one of the last and most expansive undeveloped lots in the neighborhood. The property is irregularly shaped and is bordered by residential development to the south, east and west and Crest Road to the north. The lot has a depth of approximately 820 feet and a width of approximately 480 feet, and has an overall elevation change of over 200 feet from Crest Road East to the rear of the property. The property has a 50-foot-wide roadway easement along Crest Road East and a 25-foot-wide Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) easement along the east, west and south perimeter of the lot. 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. On December 11, 2023, the Traffic Commission reviewed the proposed driveway and apron located on Crest Road East under the Previously-Approved Project (ZC No. 23-070) and recommended approval of the new driveway and apron to the City Council.

Section 4. On July 13, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing at its regularly scheduled evening meeting to consider the application. Neighbors within a 1,000- foot radius were notified of the public hearing and notices were posted in three locations within the City. The Applicant and Owner were notified of the public hearing and were in attendance at the hearing. 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 5. 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 12,070-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.

3 Resolution No. 1418
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
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.

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 5. 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) due to the proposed construction of a new single-family residence, retaining walls that exceed a height of 3 feet, associated grading 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 and is consistent with the General Plan and zoning ordinance with the exception of the requested variances discussed in the Variance section below. The proposed structures are consistent with General Plan policies requiring low profile, low-density residential development that is sensitive to the natural environment and provides sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The main residence has been integrated into the existing slope to minimize 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 substantially conforms to the residential development standards in the zoning ordinance, including but not limited to height, lot coverage, setbacks, disturbed area and requirements for equestrian facilities.

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 Project conforms to the lot coverage requirements of the zoning ordinance. The property’s net lot area is 282,368 square feet (6.48 acres) per RHMC Section 17.16.060(A). The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 15,885 square feet or 5.6% (20% max. permitted) excluding exempt structures; and the total lot coverage proposed, including flatwork, would be

4 Resolution No. 1418
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
40,307 square feet or 14.3% (35% max. permitted). The Project will disturb 38.4% of the area of the lot (40% max permitted).

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 because the design is sensitive to the natural environment and consistent with the overall scale of the neighborhood. The integration of the residence into the slope following the topography enables the residence to be largely hidden from view from the street and neighboring residences.

The proposed slopes have been rounded in an attempt 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).

The topography and the configuration of the lot have been considered in the design of the residence and the site. The Project will be a sufficient distance from nearby residences so views and privacy of surrounding neighbors will not be impacted. As there is no longer a flat plateau on the mound in the center of the driveway, vistas across the site will be enhanced. The maximum height of the mound is proposed at 1334 feet in elevation and vegetation on the mound is limited to three feet in height.

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 palette of native species back into the landscape above the house.

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 Project will create three new building pads that have been designed to follow the natural contours of the site and minimize grading to the extent feasible. The total proposed grading for the Project is 18,653 cubic yards (17,395 CY of cut and 1,258 CY of fill). Excavated material from the site (cut) will be used for the on-site fill and the remaining material will be exported off site. The export due to excavations for the foundation, basement, swimming pool, guest house and ADU foundations totaling 8,909 CY is considered exempt from the Site Plan Review. The remaining 7,228 CY of export is not exempt and therefore subject to Site Plan Review. Export is needed to maintain the existing topography as much as possible, rather than retaining the dirt on the property. Exporting this material has the added benefit of decreasing the weight of soil on the site.

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

5 Resolution No. 1418
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
The main residence is centered on its site so that runoff is not increased within existing drainage courses on either side of the lot. Sloped areas will be planted with native or droughttolerant vegetation to prevent erosion. Infiltration for this project was deemed unfeasible; therefore, control of water from impervious surfaces will be collected in two 35,000-gallon retention tanks that have been designed to hold the 100-year storm rain event. In case of the tank getting filled, an overflow outlet will be installed to discharge the excess runoff into rip rap downhill of the property. The proposed drainage plans will be reviewed by the County and the Applicant is required to obtain the necessary geotechnical approvals and permits to construct the project.

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 an approved landscape plan that is required to comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The Project proposes to use native plants that are well suited to the existing site without the need for irrigation beyond their establishment period of 1 to 2 years. Trees will provide visual buffers and create habitat between neighboring properties while preserving and protecting natural drainage patterns on the site.

Proposed trees are restricted to locations that do not hinder views from adjacent lots and must be maintained to a height not to exceed the roof ridge. Additionally, the City Council previously prohibited any trees be planted on the mound in the center of the driveway. The new landscape adjacent to Crest Road focuses largely on the reestablishment of the coastal sage scrub planting community and providing habitat 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, driveway and apron are not detrimental to the convenience and safety of pedestrians and vehicles based on field observations and engineering judgment of the City’s Traffic Engineer and as determined by the Traffic Commission on December 11, 2023.

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 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

6 Resolution No. 1418
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
not limited to garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. Further, no exceptions to the exemptions in State CEQA Guidelines, section 15300.2, apply.

Section 8. Conditional Use Permit Findings. Conditional Use Permits provide for certain uses that require special review to determine if the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses or can be made compatible with surrounding uses through the imposition of conditions pursuant to RHMC Chapter 17.42. This Project requires Conditional Use Permits due to the proposed stable being greater than 200 SF per RHMC §17.16.040(A)(6), the proposed corral being greater than 550 SF per RHMC §17.16.040(A)(7), the proposed construction of a guest house greater than 200 SF per RHMC §17.16.040(A)(3), and the proposed detached accessory structure that is greater than 200 SF per RHMC §17.16.200(H). 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.

The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house, stable, corral, and trellis is consistent with the purposes and objectives of the zoning ordinance and General Plan because these residential accessory structures meet the applicable code development standards. The Project is compatible with existing uses on other properties in the same zone which have guest houses, stables, corrals and trellises.

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 distance 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 substantially comply with the applicable development standards in the RA-S-2 Zone. The approximately seven-acre property is an adequate size to support the proposed uses and buildings and sufficient distance is provided between structures.

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

The proposed conditional uses substantially comply with the applicable development standards of the RA-S-2 Zone, with exception of the proposed stable and corral located in the front yard. Due to the steep topography of the site, these structures are proposed in the front yard because it is the flattest area of the property. The proposed front yard location of these uses requires Variances, as discussed in the Variance section below.

7 Resolution No. 1418
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
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 uses for the Project is 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 develop their property and construct a single-family residence with accessory structures, a right that is enjoyed by other residents in the City. The proposed uses are consistent with the rural residential character of the City.

Section 9. Variance Findings. A Variance procedure is provided to grant relief from zoning provisions when, due to special circumstances applicable to a property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Variances are required for this project due to the following proposed project components:

1. Stable, corral, swimming pool and retaining walls to encroach into the front yard (RHMC §17.16.200, §17.18.060 and §17.18.090);

2. Corral to encroach into the required 50-foot front setback (RHMC §17.16.110 and §17.16.200);

3. Retaining walls that exceed the maximum average height of 2.5 feet (RHMC §17.16.190(F));

4. Basement with a portion extending beyond the building walls of the residence (RHMC §17.12.020); and

5. Grading export (RHMC 17.16.230).

Given the foregoing, in accordance with RHMC Section 17.38.050, the City Council makes 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.

This finding can be made because the shape and steep topography of the site. The location of the stable and corral between the main house and the street is a design adopted by many neighbors on Crest Road East and would be consistent with other nearby properties.

However, this design does require a Variance to allow the stable, corral, swimming pool and retaining wall in the front yard and the corral to encroach into the required 50-foot 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. Locating the proposed pool and retaining walls in

8 Resolution No. 1418
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
the front yard is considerate of the natural slope and avoids additional grading on steeper portions of the lot. The construction of retaining walls to exceed the maximum average height of 2.5 feet, and the light well/tunnel portion of the basement extending beyond the building walls of the residence supports the overall design and access on the steep site. As a result of the shape of the lot, the grading of the Project requires a variance to export non-exempt grading of 7,228 CY of soil to keep the peak of the mound 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.

This finding can be made because 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 visible along the street. The topographic constraints of the site support the taller than 2.5-foot average retaining walls and walls located in the front yard. The Project’s earthwork is unbalanced on site due to the cut required to fully expose the street side of the residence and to accommodate the shallow slopes required for the septic system. The requested Variance to export of 7,228 CY of excess material is warranted due to unavoidable site conditions and in order to minimize view obstruction from neighboring residences.

The Variance request pertaining to the basement extending beyond the walls of the residence is solely for a subterranean egress tunnel connecting the basement to the exterior of the residence at grade. The basement requires a secondary means of egress independent of the primary interior stairway. Due to the site’s topography, the basement floor elevation sites below adjacent finished grade on all exposed sides making a conventional window well or direct exterior door impractical without significant grading and retaining wall construction along the building perimeter. The proposed tunnel is angled so as not offer provide a clear view into the basement.

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.

This finding can be made because the Applicant is required to obtain all necessary geotechnical approvals and permits from Los Angeles County and other agencies, as applicable, to construct the project. The requested variances are designed to make the development less intensive in terms of grading, maintain views from Crest Road, maximize privacy and reduce other impacts to the neighborhood to ensure the protection of the public welfare.

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

9 Resolution No. 1418
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
This finding can be made because the requested Variances will allow the site to be developed with low-density residential development that is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural environment and with adjacent residential development.

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

This finding can be made because the Project proposes residential uses and accessory structures that are allowed in the RA-S-2 zone and are compatible with neighboring properties that have stables, corrals, retaining walls and other accessory structures in the front yard and setbacks. The taller than 2.5-foot average retaining walls at the site are necessary given the steep topography of the site and is a reasonable use enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. The Project’s earthwork is unbalanced on site due to the cut required to fully expose the street side of the residence and to accommodate the shallow slopes required for the septic system which does not constitute special privilege to the applicant. The proposed basement egress tunnel would meet the requirement for a secondary means of egress while minimizing the limits of disturbance and preserving existing grade at the rear of the residence.

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.

This finding can be made because the Project is 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, and the Project does not constitute a hazardous waste facility.

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

This finding can be made because the Project is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills goals to maintain the City’s rural residential character, accommodate development that is compatible with and complements existing land uses and is sensitive to the natural environment and accounts for environmental hazards. The Project, together with the Variances, aligns with the goals, objectives and policies specified in the General Plan.

Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, and the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby approves Zoning Case No. 26-73 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 §§ 17.38.070,

17.42.070, and 17.46.080 of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section.

10 Resolution No. 1418
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
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 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 July 13, 2026, 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.

11 Resolution No. 1418
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
E. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to Building and Safety Department for issuance of building and grading permits, the final plans for the Project shall be submitted to City staff for verification of conformance to the City Council-approved plans.

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.

12 Resolution No. 1418
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
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 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 to the City prior to final landscape installation inspection.

R. The landscaping shall be subject to all current and applicable City standards, including 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 Manager or their designee 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.

13 Resolution No. 1418
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
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.

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. 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 retention tanks on the property and the installed storm drain pipe.

14 Resolution No. 1418
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
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 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 2025 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 the onsite wastewater treatment system.

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, Conditional Use Permits, and Site Plan Review approvals, 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.

15 Resolution No. 1418
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
AL. The stable and corral shall comply with all requirements in Sections 17.18.060 and

17.18.090, unless otherwise approved herein.

AM. Future expansion of the driveway or motor court is prohibited unless previously approved by the City.

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.

AP. The mound at the center of the driveway shall have a maximum elevation of 1334 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 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 Council approval.

AT. The applicant shall process the Project’s post entitlement permits such as building permits and any other required permits through Los Angeles County only as opposed to any qualified private consultant under contract with the City.

AU. The decks attached/adjacent to the main residence shall not be cantilevered in excess of 12’ above grade.

AV. No trees shall be planted on the mound.

AW. The project modifications related to the Conditional Use Permits are minor in nature and did not rise to the level of “major modifications.” However, it is more efficient and clearer to keep all Project entitlements on the same timeline as they progress through the development process. Therefore, the requested Conditional Use Permits are being considered anew along with the Site Plan Review and Variances.

Section 11. Previous Approvals. Rolling Hills City Council Resolution No. 1376 is hereby rescinded and the previously approved entitlements for the site are void.

Section 12. 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 Planning Manager is the custodian of records for the record of proceedings.

16 Resolution No. 1418
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)
Section 13. 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 13th DAY OF JULY 2026.

BEA DIERINGER, MAYOR
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.

17 Resolution No. 1418
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1418 entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS TO A CITY COUNCILAPPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW TO DEVELOP A VACANT LOT INCLUDING NON-EXEMPT GRADING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A GUEST HOUSE, A STABLE GREATER THAN 200 SQUARE FEET, AND A CORRAL GREATER THAN 550 SQUARE FEET; AND

VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN STRUCTURES IN

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

ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, TO ALLOW RETAINING WALLS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM AVERAGE HEIGHT OF 2.5 FEET, TO

ALLOW A PORTION OF THE BASEMENT TO EXTEND BEYOND THE WALLS

OF THE RESIDENCE, AND TO ALLOW GRADING EXPORT AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA FOR 23 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 132A-MS) (OGASAWARA).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on July 13, 2026, 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

City of Rolling Hills ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
TITLE RADIUS MAP CASE NO. Zoning Case No. 26-73
Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, Variance

OWNER OGASAWARA
ADDRESS 23 CREST ROAD EAST, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 SITE

Development Table
Zoning Case No. 26-73
23 CREST ROAD EAST

EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL
RA-S-2 Zone Vacant Single-family residence with
basement, attached garage,
stable & corral, guest house,
swimming pool, detached trellis
Net Lot Area 282,368 SF 282,368 SF 282,368 SF
Residence 12,070 SF 12,070 SF
Garage 912 SF 912 SF
Swimming Pools/Spa 580 SF 580 SF
Pool Equipment 155 SF 155 SF
Guest House 616 SF 616 SF
Cabana SF SF
Stable
(450 SF Min. set aside)
1,226 SF 1,226 SF
Corral
(550 SF Min. set aside)
5,190 SF 5,190 SF
Recreation Court SF SF
Attached Covered Porches 480 SF 480 SF
Entryway/Porte Cochere, Breezeways SF SF
Detached Trellises 400 SF 400 SF
Raised Deck + Water Feature + Fire Pit SF SF
Service Yard
(Min. 96 SF)
96 SF 96 SF
Other SF SF
Basement Area 7,774 SF 7,774 SF
Depth of Basement SF SF
Primary Driveway 15,500 SF 15,500 SF
Paved walkways/Patio Areas/Courtyards 6,272 SF 6,272 SF Pool Decking 1,110 SF 1,110 SF
Other Paved Driveways, Road Easements,
Parking Pads
1,540 SF 1,540 SF
Grading
(must be balanced onsite)
17,395 CY CUT
1,258 CY FILL
18,653 CY TOTAL
Structural Lot Coverage
(20% Max)
15,885 SF (5.6%) 15,885 (5.6%)
Flatwork Lot Coverage
(15% Max)
24,422 SF (8.6%) 24,422 SF (8.6%)
Total Lot Coverage
Structures + Flatwork (35% Max)
40,307 SF (14.3%) 40,307 SF (14.3%)
Total Disturbed Area
(40% Max.)
108,575 SF (38.4%) 108,575 SF (38.4%)
Building Heights Maximum
(21 FT Max.)
14 FT 9.25 IN 14 FT 9.25 IN

Applicable Development Standard Conformance with Standard Previous Application Comparison Height Limitation:

One story, ≤ 21 feet.

Conforms. The proposed height of the one-story residence is under 16 feet from the finished floor elevation to the roof ridge elevation.
-Residence height: < 16 feet
-Guest house height: 15’-0”
-Stable height: 13’-11”
-Trellis height: 9’-6”
Previously-approved project conformed to code requirements, and included the following heights:
- Residence height: < 16 feet
- Guest house height: 15'-0"
- Stable height: 14'-2"
- Trellis height: 9'-0"
Setbacks:

Front: 50 feet
Side: 35 feet
Rear: 50 feet
Conforms for main residence, Variance requested for the corral within front setback.

Same as previous.

A Variance is requested to locate the corral within the front setback, as discussed in more detail in the Variance section below.

Previously-approved project also conformed to required setbacks for main residence and was granted a Variance for a corral in the front setback.

Lot Coverage:

By structures: ≤ 20%
By structures & flatwork: ≤ 35%
Conforms (minor increase over previous)
-5.6% (15,885 SF) by structures
-8.6% (24,422 SF) by flatwork
-14.3% (40,307 SF) by structures and flatwork
Previously-approved project included
-6.94% (18,205 SF) by structures
-7.01% (18,385 SF) by flatwork
-13.95% (36,590 SF) by structures and flatwork
Setback Area Coverage by Driveway/Parking:

Front setback area coverage: ≤ 20%
Side setback area coverage: ≤ 20%
Conforms, same as previous.
-13% of front setback area covered
-0% of side setback area covered
Previously-approved project included:
-13% of front setback area covered
-0% of side setback area covered
Maximum Disturbed Area:
40% of the lot
Conforms (more than previous)
108,575SF of 38.4% disturbance of the lot.

Previously-approved project included 33.45% disturbance of the lot.

Driveway:

Each developed lot is permitted one driveway, except as otherwise permitted. Driveways shall be no wider than 20 feet. The first 20 feet must have no more than 7% grade, and the remainder of the driveway may not exceed 12% grade unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission.

Conforms. The proposed driveway will be 20 feet wide and have a 7% slope for the first 20 feet. Portions of the driveway will exceed 12% grade, same as previous.

Previously-approved project included a 13,480 SF circular driveway that had a steeper than 7% slope within the first 20 feet of the apron. In addition, previously-approved driveway included portions that exceeded 12% grade.

Off Street Parking:

Aboveground two-car garage minimum
Conforms (same as previous). The project includes an attached four-car garage that is aboveground.

Previously-approved project included an attached four-car garage that Swimming Pool:

Swimming pool may not be located in the front yard or in any setback. Pool equipment must be screened from view from other properties.

Variance requested (same as previous).

The project proposes to locate a 280 SF pool in the front yard.

Variance was previously granted for a 280 SF pool in front yard.

Stable:

Stable must be a minimum of 200 square feet and setback 25 feet from side and rear property lines.

May not be permitted in the front yard.

Conditional Use Permit and Variance requested (same as previous).

The project proposes a 1,226 SF stable located in the front yard. The stable is setback more than 25 feet from the side and rear property lines.

A Variance is requested to locate the stable in the front yard, as discussed in more detail in the Variance section below. A CUP is requested for a stable greater than 200 SF in size, as discussed in the Conditional Use Permit section below.

Variance and Conditional Use Permit were previously granted for stable larger than 200 SF and located in the front yard.

Applicable Development Standard Conformance with Standard Previous Application Comparison Corral:

Corral must be a minimum of 550 square feet, with slope no greater than 4:1, contiguous to a stable, fenced, setback 25 feet from side and rear property lines.

May not be permitted in the front yard.

Must be located a minimum of 35 feet from any residential structure.

Conditional Use Permit and Variances requested (same as previous).

The project proposes a 5,190 SF corral located in the front yard and partially within the front setback. The corral is contiguous to the proposed stable and is setback more than 25 feet from the side and rear property lines, and is more than 35 feet from any residential structure.

A Variance is requested to locate the corral in the front yard and encroach into the 50- foot front setback, as discussed in more detail in the Variance section below. A CUP is requested for a corral greater than 550 SF in size, as discussed in the Conditional Use Permit section below.

Variance and Conditional Use Permit were previously granted for stable larger than 200 SF and located in the front yard.

Stable and Corral Set Access:

A minimum six-foot wide accessway providing access to stable and corral; may not exceed 25% slope.

Conforms (same as previous). Accessway is more than six-feet wide, less than 25% slope, and is provided from the driveway.

Previously-approved project included an accessway included same width, slope and location.

Trellis:

Certain detached accessory structures that are more than 200 SF require a CUP.

Conditional Use Permit requested for a rectilinear, 400 SF detached trellis in the same location as previous approval.

Conditional Use Permit was previously approved for a round, 400 SF detached trellis.

Guest House:

A Conditional Use Permit is required for a guest house.

Conditional Use Permit requested for a 612 SF guest house in the same location as previous approval.

Conditional Use Permit was previously approved for a 650 SF guest house in the same location.

Basement:

By definition, basement walls across any elevation, except for walls within light wells, may not exceed a height of 5 feet above finished grade at any point immediately adjacent to the basement exterior.

Basement well(s) must be incorporated into the overall design of the building so that it does not give an appearance of a separate story.

Variance requested (same as previous).

The project proposes a portion of the basement to extend beyond the building walls of the residence for a passageway allowing ingress and egress as required by the building code.

A Variance is requested to construct a portion of the basement beyond the building walls of the residence, as discussed in more detail in the Variance section below.

Variance was previously approved for a basement passageway extending beyond the building walls of the residence to allow for ingress and egress as required by the building code; The Previously-approved project included a Condition of Approval AQ requiring that this passageway to be angled or zig-zagged.

Retaining Walls:

Maximum permitted wall height is five feet, with an overall average of 2.5 feet. A wall above three feet shall be subject to site plan review.

Variance requested (same as previous).

The project includes retaining walls that exceed the maximum average height of 2.5 feet.

A Variance is requested to construct retaining walls in the front yard, and to allow the walls across the site to exceed an overall average of 2.5 feet in height.

Variance was previously approved for retaining walls to exceed the maximum average height of 2.5 feet.

Grading:

The preliminary grading plan shall show all cut and fill slopes, existing and proposed building pads, and shall calculate grading volumes Variance requested, increase from previous.

A Variance is requested to allow 7,228 cubic yards of export.

Variance was previously approved for 6,584 cubic yards of export.

Drainage:

The preliminary drainage plan shall show existing and proposed drainage.

Same as previous, two retention tanks (cisterns) are proposed with sufficient capacity to hold the 100-year storm rain event.

Previously approved project included a Condition of Approval that the retention cisterns be designed to store excess runoff from a 100-year storm

Applicable Development Standard Conformance with Standard Previous Application Comparison Decks:

Defined as any platform elevated above the ground by means of pylons, posts or supporting walls, that is unenclosed, designed for persons to walk, sit or stand upon, and that is at least five feet in width or at least one foot in height measured from the top of the platform to the ground.

Same as previous, proposed attached/adjacent decks do not exceed 12' above grade. Previous approval include Condition AW - Decks adjacent/attached to residence may not by cantilevered in excess of 12' above grade.

Mound:

Project-specific element located in the center of the circular driveway. No zoning code requirements for this element other than consideration of view obstruction.

Elevation at driveway apron has been raised to accommodate a 7% slope at the entrance, resulting in the max elevation of approximately 1334 feet. Crest Road East has an elevation greater than 1335 where the new driveway apron will be placed.

Overall mound has been "flattened" to a shallower grade to accommodate the septic system, and as a result there is no longer a flat plateau which will improve vistas across the site.

Staff have included a Condition of Approval limiting the max elevation of the mound at 1334 feet in accordance with the civil plans provided by the Applicant.

Previous approval include Condition AX - no trees planted on mound Also Condition AP - mound shall have max elevation of 1330 with 3-ft tall shrubs allowed.

HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS LID
REPORT
FOR
23 Crest Road East
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
03/25/2026
Prepared For:

Escher Gunewardena Architecture
815 Silver Lake Blvd.
509 432 4786
Attn: Zeke Jones

Project No 20260007
Prepared by: Cesar Israel Lopez Martinez
Checked by: Khaled Abdo, PE
P.E. No. 57815

23 Crest Road East
Hydrology & LID Report
Contents

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................... 1

2. HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 1

3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 2

4. HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS .......................................................................................................... 3  4.1 DESIGN CAPTURE VOLUME CALCUALTION ....................................................................... 3  4.2 STORM DRAIN CALCULATION ................................................................................................. 4

5. LID SELECTION ..................................................................................................................................... 4

6. LID NARRATIVES ................................................................................................................................. 5

7. APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................... 7 A. LOCATION MAP .................................................................................................................................. 8 B. VICINITY MAP ..................................................................................................................................... 8 C. RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CURVE ..................................................................................................... 9 D. HYDROLOGY GIS. ............................................................................................................................ 10 E. 85TH PERCENTILE 24-HOUR ISOHYET MAP ........................................................................... 11 F. HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS ..................................................................................................... 12 G. STORM DRAIN CALCULATIONS ................................................................................................... 13 H. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLANS .................................................................................................... 14 I. HYDROLOGY MAP ............................................................................................................................. 15

23 Crest Road East

1. INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared as the hydrology study for the proposed building within the City of Rolling Hills, County of Los Angeles. The project site is located at 23 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, California: between Portuguese Bend Road and Southfield Drive.

The site is currently an undeveloped hill and is surrounded by single family residence buildings.

The site is approximately a 7-acre undeveloped terrain on a hill side; natural grade slopes range from 12% to 50% and elevations go from 1100 ft at the bottom of the property to 1340 ft above mean sea level at the crown of Crest Road East north of the property.

In the Post development condition, a 6-bedroom main residence building, a Guest House, an ADU, a stable and a driveway will be constructed. The net disturbed construction area for the proposed development is measured to be 2.26 acres. Flow patterns, tributary areas, imperviousness percentage and runoff will be analyzed and discussed herein.

2. HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS
For hydrological reasons, the project site will be divided into two tributary areas: TA-1 and TA 2:

TA-1 encompasses the west half of the development. It includes approximately half of the roof of the main residence, around 40% of the main concrete motor court loop, the stable, the pool deck and surrounding hardscape features. TA-1 has a total area of 46540 sq. ft. (1.07 acre) with an impervious area of 21,265 sq ft. (45.7 % impervious). Using a combination of laminar flow as well as catch basins and a storm drain system, the whole area discharges into the south center-west of the main residence where a Hydrodynamic separator and a cistern (Tank 1) will be located.

TA-2 encompasses the east half of the development. It includes approximately half of the roof of the main residence, around 60% of the main concrete motor court loop, the roof of the Guest House, the roof of the ADU and surrounding hardscape features. TA-2 has a total area of 52036 sq. ft. (1.19 acre) with an impervious area of 23,595 sq ft. (45.3 %

23 Crest Road East
impervious). Using a combination of laminar flow as well as catch basins and a storm drain system, the whole area discharges into the south center-east of the main residence where a Hydrodynamic separator and a cistern (Tank 2) will be located.

Since the property is on a hill, there will be a combination of garden walls & retaining walls, across the project site, as well as a basement for the main residence. Perforated sub drains will be installed to collect any moisture behind the retaining structures and also, be connected to the main storm drain system. Both retention tanks will be equipped with irrigation pumps per the landscape architect’s recommendation and an overflow HDPE storm drainpipe that will discharge into a rip rap downhill of the property.

Refer to Grading and Drainage Plans (Appendix H) and LID plan (Appendix I) for general drainage patterns and site layout.

Using LA County’s Department of public works’ Hydrocalc Software, based a 50-yr 24-hr rainfall intensity of 4.9-inches, we calculated that the 25-year storm rain event yields the total storm water flow of Q25 TOTAL = 5.02 cfs for the pre and 5.11 cfs for the post-development condition. The peak mitigated flow rate, based on the 85th percentile, is calculated 0.72 cfs. The calculation of the design volume and LID solutions will be discussed in section 4 and full calculation worksheets can be found on Appendix F.

3. METHODOLOGY
The method used to determine the potential run-off for a study area is based upon record information that has been collected by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW). The methods used to calculate the run-off rates are also provided by LACDPW.

Information for this study has been obtained from the County of Los Angeles Public Works Low Impact Development Standards Manual (2025).

A 100-year storm frequency was adopted to calculate LID run-off flow rates for this project.

23 Crest Road East

4. HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
 4.1 Design Capture Volume Calcualtion
Calculations were made for different design storm frequencies: 25 years, 50 years, 100 years, as well as the 85th percentile storm rain event. The results of the calculations are summarized on the table below. Refer to Appendix F for the full Hydrocalc worksheets.

The LID capture volume was calculated as the difference between the 100-year storm 24-hr clear runoff volume of the existing condition versus the proposed condition, totaling about 10300 Cubic Feet (approx. 77000 gallons). The capture volume will be divided into two detention tanks as mentioned in section 2.

Table 1. Hydrology calculation summary.

Notes:
• Torrance 50-year 24-hour Isohyet Map (1-H1.18) is included in Appendix XX. • LA County Department of Public Works Runoff Coefficient Curve included in Appendix XX.
• Hydrology GIS maps included in Appendix XX.
• Refer to LID Map for general tributary areas and drainage patterns in Appendix XX.

Difference
Volume Flow Volume Flow Volume
(Inch) (CF) (CFS) (CF) (CFS) (CF)
85th Percentile TA-1 1 1873.81 0.37
TA-2 1 2070.33 0.36
Total 3944.15 0.72
25-year TA-1 4.9 5285.67 2.38 9633.40 2.42 4347.73
TA-2 4.9 5878.45 2.64 10670.51 2.69 4792.06
Total 11164.12 5.02 20303.91 5.11 9139.79
50-year TA-1 4.9 6652.73 2.75 11318.96 2.78 4666.23
TA-2 4.9 7398.83 3.06 12541.93 3.09 5143.10
Total 14051.56 5.82 23860.89 5.88 9809.33
100-year TA-1 4.9 8184.01 3.13 13094.58 3.14 4910.57
TA-2 4.9 9101.84 3.48 14514.27 3.49 5412.42
Total 17285.85 6.60 27608.85 6.63 10323.00
Rainfall Pre-development Post-development
Storm Condition Intensity

23 Crest Road East
 4.2 STORM DRAIN CALCULATION
The 100-year storm rain event was used as the most critical case to calculate storm drain piping sizing. Bentley System’s FlowMaster software was used to calculate the two main storm drain systems, the West Storm Drain Main and East Storm Dran Main. Both drains were designed as a 12” PVC pipes with a 1% slope and with the pipes being around 65% full (design flow of 3.14 and 3.49 cfs respectively).
to Appendix G for the full Calculation worksheets

5. LID SELECTION
Infiltration for this project was deemed unfeasible due to the following reasons. • The project site is on a steep hill side.
• The project site is near an existing slide fracture zone (refer to Geotechnical Report by Hamilton & Associates dated May 23rd, 2024. Project No. 23-3282).

Two hydrodynamic Separators alongside two 35000-gallon storage tanks have been selected as the LID solution for this project. The Hydrodynamic Separator unit will take care of removing all trash and debris from the runoff and the tank will hold the 100-year storm rain event. In case of the tank getting filled, an overflow outlet will be installed to discharge the excess runoff into the nearby ravine. Refer to Drainage plans in Appendix H for more details.

Refer to plans by EPB for LID systems models and configurations.

23 Crest Road East

6. LID NARRATIVES
• Conserve Natural Areas – 14% of the subject site is to be developed into a hardscape structure.
• Minimize Storm Water Pollutants of Concern – The possible pollutants that could be found on a new project would be oil, grease, sediments, and fertilizers. The general pre-development drainage patterns will remain. The proposed stormwater conveyance system has been designed to minimize the introduction of site runoff pollutants by utilizing the landscape/planter areas, designed to collect sediment, debris, metals and hydrocarbons from stormwater runoff. • Protect Slopes and Channels – If applicable, sloped areas will be vegetated with native or drought tolerant vegetation to prevent erosion. • Provide Storm Drain System Stenciling and Signage – You (as project owner) must stencil “NO DUMPING – DRAINS TO OCEAN” at all storm drain inlets and catch basins, install signs and prohibitive language and/or graphical icons to prohibit illegal dumping at public access points, and maintain these items. • Properly Design Outdoor Material Storage Areas – Outdoor material storage should be maintained within a sandbagged “storage area” that blocks construction material from draining from the site.
• Properly Design Trash Storage Areas – Trash storage area should be placed within the property and construction trash shall be picked up and placed in commercial trash bins daily during construction.
• Properly Design to Limit Oil Contamination and Perform Maintenance – The project owners must treat to remove oil and petroleum at the construction parking area and provide maintenance of the treatment system in order to ensure proper project compliance.
• Hazardous Waste Management – Many of chemicals used on site can be hazardous materials which become hazardous waste upon disposal. These wastes may include 1) paints and solvents; 2) petroleum products such as oils, fuels and grease; 3) herbicides and pesticides. The following steps will help reduce storm water pollution from hazardous wastes.

23 Crest Road East
• Use the entire product before disposing of the container. • Do not remove the original product label; it contains important safety and disposal information. Follow all of manufacture’s instructions.
• Do not over-apply herbicides and pesticides. Prepare only the amount needed.

Follow the recommended usage instructions. Apply surface dressings in several smaller applications, as opposed to one large application, to allow time for infiltration and to avoid excess material being carried off-site by runoff. Do not apply these chemicals just before it rains. People applying pesticides must be certified in accordance with federal and state regulations. • Do not clean brushes or rinse paint containers into the dirt, street, gutter, storm drain, or stream. “Paint out” the brushes as much as possible. Rinse water-based paints into the sanitary sewer. Filter and reuse thinners and solvents. Dispose of excess oil-based paints and sludge as hazardous waste.
• Hazardous materials and wastes should be stored in covered containers and protected from vandalism.
• Place hazardous waste containers in secondary containment. • Arrange for regular waste collection before containers overflow.

23 Crest Road East

7. APPENDIX

23 Crest Road East
A. LOCATION MAP
B. VICINITY MAP

23 Crest Road East
C. RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CURVE














!""#
$%& '()*+,+ --,--.--/-*-0-1-2,-- - - *- 1- ,- ,- ,- ,*- ,1- - 34567488956:;6<5:=9>5?956@A;<BACD3 D6E;F;8CG;E93D6C779@C;775@5;6:9>@H? !I J

KL" 
M)
N
O#$$#O
P# $ 
"#-

QR-2S$T"UVR,-$T"USO )
 Q


LLLL
M
 Q"


$K

  QO

LLMLL
M


$T"O

23 Crest Road East
D. HYDROLOGY GIS.

50yr Two Tenths (Rainfall)

4.9 Inches

Soils 2004
Soil Type 002

Final 85th Percen
le, 24-hr Rainfall
1 Inch

Final 95th Percen
le, 24-hr Rainfall

1.95 inch

Hydrology Soil Group
Soil Group C

23 Crest Road East
E. 85TH PERCENTILE 24-HOUR ISOHYET MAP

Project Site

23 Crest Road East
F. HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: C:/Users/KhaledAbdo/Nextcloud/projects/23 Crest Road/Calcs and Reports/Hydrology/23 Crest Road - Area 1-Existing.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 23 Crest Road
Subarea ID Area 1-Existing
Area (ac) 1.07
Flow Path Length (ft) 233.5
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.139
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 4.9
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) 4.3022
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.5668
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8645
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8649
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.3754
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.3754
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.1213
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 5285.665

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: C:/Users/KhaledAbdo/Nextcloud/projects/23 Crest Road/Calcs and Reports/Hydrology/23 Crest Road - Area 2-Existing.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 23 Crest Road
Subarea ID Area 2-Existing
Area (ac) 1.19
Flow Path Length (ft) 243.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.161
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 4.9
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) 4.3022
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.5668
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8645
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8649
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.6417
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.6417
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.135
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 5878.4499

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: C:/Users/CesarIsraelLopez-Mar/Nextcloud/projects/23 Crest Road/Calcs and Reports/Hydrology/Attachments/23 Crest Road - Area 1-Existi Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 23 Crest Road
Subarea ID Area 1-Existing
Area (ac) 1.07
Flow Path Length (ft) 233.5
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.139
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 4.9
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) 4.9
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.9235
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8803
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8805
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.7543
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.7543
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.1527
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 6652.7314

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: C:/Users/CesarIsraelLopez-Mar/Nextcloud/projects/23 Crest Road/Calcs and Reports/Hydrology/Attachments/23 Crest Road - Area 2-Existi Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 23 Crest Road
Subarea ID Area 2-Existing
Area (ac) 1.19
Flow Path Length (ft) 243.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.161
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 4.9
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) 4.9
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.9235
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8803
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8805
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.0631
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.0631
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.1699
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 7398.8321

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: C:/Users/CesarIsraelLopez-Mar/Nextcloud/projects/23 Crest Road/Calcs and Reports/Hydrology/Attachments/23 Crest Road - Area 1-Existi Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 23 Crest Road
Subarea ID Area 1-Existing
Area (ac) 1.07
Flow Path Length (ft) 233.5
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.139
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 4.9
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) 5.4978
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.2801
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8904
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8905
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.1255
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.1255
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.1879
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 8184.0107

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: C:/Users/CesarIsraelLopez-Mar/Nextcloud/projects/23 Crest Road/Calcs and Reports/Hydrology/Attachments/23 Crest Road - Area 2-Existi Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 23 Crest Road
Subarea ID Area 2-Existing
Area (ac) 1.19
Flow Path Length (ft) 243.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.161
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 4.9
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) 5.4978
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.2801
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8904
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8905
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.4761
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.4761
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2089
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 9101.8436

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: C:/Users/KhaledAbdo/Nextcloud/projects/23 Crest Road/Calcs and Reports/Hydrology/23 Crest Road - Area 1-Proposed-85th.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 23 Crest Road
Subarea ID Area 1-Proposed
Area (ac) 1.07
Flow Path Length (ft) 178.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.25
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 1.0
Percent Impervious 0.457
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm
Fire Factor 0
LID True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 1.0 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.4784
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.5557
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.7131
Time of Concentration (min) 8.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.365
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.365
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.043
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 1873.8142

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: C:/Users/KhaledAbdo/Nextcloud/projects/23 Crest Road/Calcs and Reports/Hydrology/23 Crest Road - Area 2-Proposed-85th.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 23 Crest Road
Subarea ID Area 2-Proposed
Area (ac) 1.19
Flow Path Length (ft) 233.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.25
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 1.0
Percent Impervious 0.453
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm
Fire Factor 0
LID True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 1.0 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.4307
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.5363
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.701
Time of Concentration (min) 10.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.3593
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.3593
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.0475
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 2070.3315

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: C:/Users/KhaledAbdo/Nextcloud/projects/23 Crest Road/Calcs and Reports/Hydrology/23 Crest Road - Area 1-Proposed.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 23 Crest Road
Subarea ID Area 1-Proposed
Area (ac) 1.07
Flow Path Length (ft) 178.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.25
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 4.9
Percent Impervious 0.457
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 25-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.3022
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.5668
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8645
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8807
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.4189
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.4189
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2212
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 9633.3977

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: C:/Users/KhaledAbdo/Nextcloud/projects/23 Crest Road/Calcs and Reports/Hydrology/23 Crest Road - Area 2-Proposed.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 23 Crest Road
Subarea ID Area 2-Proposed
Area (ac) 1.19
Flow Path Length (ft) 280.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.25
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 4.9
Percent Impervious 0.453
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 25-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (25-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.3022
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.5668
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8645
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8806
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.6898
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.6898
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.245
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 10670.5096

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: C:/Users/CesarIsraelLopez-Mar/Nextcloud/projects/23 Crest Road/Calcs and Reports/Hydrology/Attachments/23 Crest Road - Area 1-Propo Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 23 Crest Road
Subarea ID Area 1-Proposed
Area (ac) 1.07
Flow Path Length (ft) 178.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.25
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 4.9
Percent Impervious 0.457
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.9
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.9235
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8803
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8893
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.7818
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.7818
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2598
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 11318.9571

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: C:/Users/CesarIsraelLopez-Mar/Nextcloud/projects/23 Crest Road/Calcs and Reports/Hydrology/Attachments/23 Crest Road - Area 2-Propo Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 23 Crest Road
Subarea ID Area 2-Existing
Area (ac) 1.19
Flow Path Length (ft) 280.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.25
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 4.9
Percent Impervious 0.453
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 4.9
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.9235
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8803
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8892
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.0935
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.0935
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2879
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 12541.934
Proposed Page 132 of 186
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: C:/Users/CesarIsraelLopez-Mar/Nextcloud/projects/23 Crest Road/Calcs and Reports/Hydrology/Attachments/23 Crest Road - Area 1-Propo Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 23 Crest Road
Subarea ID Area 1-Proposed
Area (ac) 1.07
Flow Path Length (ft) 178.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.25
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 4.9
Percent Impervious 0.457
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 100-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (100-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.4978
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.2801
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8904
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8948
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.1405
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.1405
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.3006
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 13094.5849

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: C:/Users/CesarIsraelLopez-Mar/Nextcloud/projects/23 Crest Road/Calcs and Reports/Hydrology/Attachments/23 Crest Road - Area 2-Propo Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 23 Crest Road
Subarea ID Area 2-Existing
Area (ac) 1.19
Flow Path Length (ft) 280.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.25
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 4.9
Percent Impervious 0.453
Soil Type 2
Design Storm Frequency 100-yr
Fire Factor 0
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (100-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.4978
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.2801
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8904
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8948
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.4926
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.4926
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.3332
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 14514.2658
Proposed Page 134 of 186
23 Crest Road East
G. STORM DRAIN CALCULATIONS

23 Crest Road - East Storm Drain Main
Project Description
Friction Method Manning
Formula
Solve For Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.010
Channel Slope 0.010 ft/ft
Diameter 12.0 in
Discharge 3.49 cfs
Results
Normal Depth 7.8 in
Flow Area 0.5 ft²
Wetted Perimeter 1.9 ft
Hydraulic Radius 3.5 in
Top Width 0.95 ft
Critical Depth 9.6 in
Percent Full 64.8 %
Critical Slope 0.006 ft/ft
Velocity 6.48 ft/s
Velocity Head 0.65 ft
Specific Energy 1.30 ft
Froude Number 1.520
Maximum Discharge 4.98 cfs
Discharge Full 4.63 cfs
Slope Full 0.006 ft/ft
Flow Type Supercritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth 0.0 in
Length 0.0 ft
Number Of Steps 0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth 0.0 in
Profile Description Dry
Profile Headloss 0.00 ft
Average End Depth Over Rise 0.0 %
Normal Depth Over Rise 64.8 %
Downstream Velocity ∞ ft/s
Upstream Velocity ∞ ft/s
Normal Depth 7.8 in
Critical Depth 9.6 in
Channel Slope 0.010 ft/ft
Critical Slope 0.006 ft/ft
23 Crest Road.fm8
FlowMaster
[25.00.00.982]
3/24/2026 Page 1 of 1

23 Crest Road - West Storm Drain Main
Project Description
Friction Method Manning
Formula
Solve For Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.010
Channel Slope 0.010 ft/ft
Diameter 12.0 in
Discharge 3.50 cfs
Results
Normal Depth 7.8 in
Flow Area 0.5 ft²
Wetted Perimeter 1.9 ft
Hydraulic Radius 3.5 in
Top Width 0.95 ft
Critical Depth 9.6 in
Percent Full 65.0 %
Critical Slope 0.006 ft/ft
Velocity 6.48 ft/s
Velocity Head 0.65 ft
Specific Energy 1.30 ft
Froude Number 1.518
Maximum Discharge 4.98 cfs
Discharge Full 4.63 cfs
Slope Full 0.006 ft/ft
Flow Type Supercritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth 0.0 in
Length 0.0 ft
Number Of Steps 0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth 0.0 in
Profile Description Dry
Profile Headloss 0.00 ft
Average End Depth Over Rise 0.0 %
Normal Depth Over Rise 65.0 %
Downstream Velocity ∞ ft/s
Upstream Velocity ∞ ft/s
Normal Depth 7.8 in
Critical Depth 9.6 in
Channel Slope 0.010 ft/ft
Critical Slope 0.006 ft/ft
23 Crest Road.fm8
FlowMaster
[25.00.00.982]
3/24/2026 Page 1 of 1

23 Crest Road East
H. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLANS

IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 2 C-3.2

DIG ALERT
Know what's below.

Call before you dig.

OF SHTS 23 Crest Rd E, Rolling Hills, CA 90274
20260007
03/25/26
14 KA
CILM
KH

DESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY
SHEET NO.

DATE
SCALE
PROJECT NO. PROJECT SHEET TITLE NO. REVISIONS: BY: DATE: LA (CORPORATE) : 411 N. HARBOR BLVD., STE. 201, SAN PEDRO, CA 90731 P - (310) 241-6550 ORANGE COUNTY : 6850 LINCOLN BLVD., STE. 206, BUENA PARK, CA 90620 P - (714) 444-2422 WWW.JMC-2.COM 1"= GRADING PLAN
C-2.0 3
20

IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

DIG ALERT
Know what's below.

Call before you dig.

OF SHTS 23 Crest Rd E, Rolling Hills, CA 90274
20260007
03/25/26
14 KA
CILM
KH

DESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY
SHEET NO.

DATE
SCALE
PROJECT NO. PROJECT SHEET TITLE NO. REVISIONS: BY: DATE: LA (CORPORATE) : 411 N. HARBOR BLVD., STE. 201, SAN PEDRO, CA 90731 P - (310) 241-6550 ORANGE COUNTY : 6850 LINCOLN BLVD., STE. 206, BUENA PARK, CA 90620 P - (714) 444-2422 WWW.JMC-2.COM 1"= DRAINAGE PLAN
C-2.1 4
20

23 Crest Road East
I. HYDROLOGY MAP

DIG ALERT
Know what's below.

Call before you dig.

OF SHTS 23 Crest Rd E, Rolling Hills, CA 90274
20260007
03/24/26
14 KA
CILM
KH

DESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY
SHEET NO.

DATE
SCALE
PROJECT NO. PROJECT SHEET TITLE NO. REVISIONS: BY: DATE: LA (CORPORATE) : 411 N. HARBOR BLVD., STE. 201, SAN PEDRO, CA 90731 P - (310) 241-6550 ORANGE COUNTY : 6850 LINCOLN BLVD., STE. 206, BUENA PARK, CA 90620 P - (714) 444-2422 WWW.JMC-2.COM 1"= HYDROLOGY MAP
C-1.0 1
201

Rigg Consulting, Inc.

June 18, 2026
Rigg Consulting
6415 Via Canada
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Rolling Hills City Council
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Re: 23 Crest Road East
Dear Mayor Dieringer and Councilmembers,
In October of 2024, we came before you with a proposal for a new home at 23 Crest Road East, after receiving approvals from the City’s Traffic Commission and the Planning Commission.

We were pleased and thankful to receive your approval on the proposed home on October 28, 2024.

Following that approval, we have first been working with the RHCA Design Review Committee to perform final design on the home. After receiving their approval on September 30, 2025, we have been finalizing the site plan, the septic system, the grading plan, the storm drains, detention tanks, and irrigation system that reuses stormwater detained during rains. All of these have been done with our geologist’s input and scrutiny. Additionally, we have worked with the Rolling Hills Community Association to gain their approval of the project.

Due to variety of design changes in these processes, the grading quantities have changed. These only impacted the grading quantities of the “mound”, which is the area surrounded by the circular driveway. The mound location and use still exists as proposed, however, the slope inclination of primarily the downhill side of the mound is shallower, as depicted below. The reasons for the changes are as follows:
● A condition of approval by the City required a maximum slope of seven percent for the driveway entrance from Crest. This was due to a Fire Department requirement and the implementation required the raising onsite grades, increasing fill. ● The Rolling Hills Community Association asked that the house be fully exposed on the street side, requiring an additional level area and additional retaining walls as opposed to the original design without a wall. This also increased the amount of cut in that particular area.

Rigg Consulting, Inc.
● This stage of our design process included testing and design of the surficial OWTS system proposed in the mound area. Due to the downhill side of the mound area being used for surficial OWTS effluent, geotechnical and geology requirements recommend shallower inclination of the downhill side of the mound. The plan view design of the mound remains the same, however the downhill side of the mound would be reduced from a 2:1(H:V) slope inclination to a shallower slope inclination on the order of 4:1(H:V), as depicted below. In percent, the inclination of the downhill side of the mound will be reduced from 26.6% to 14%. While this adjustment overall decreases remedial cut and fill, it increases export.

Below is a comparison of the earthwork quantities in cubic yards per the approved plans and per the modified plans:

Design Cut Fill Export
Approved 19,052 9,336 9,716
Modified 17,395 1,258 16,137
Delta (1,657) (8,078) 6,421
We recognize the increase in export is significant, but have found an avenue to decrease its impacts on the community. A contractor for a proposed nearby project is in need of significant amounts of fill material. We have made arrangements for our export to be transferred to their site. This will reduce the distance the trucks for both projects will need to travel through the city and a net decrease in miles traveled.

One other benefit is the elimination of the “mound” which will increase vista from Crest Road East. Condition AP of the City’s resolution approving the project provided that the maximum height of the mound to be 1330 feet in elevation and further limited vegetation on the mound to three feet. As there is no longer a flat plateau, vistas across the site will be enhanced.

Rigg Consulting, Inc.

Removing additional dirt will also decrease the weight of soil on the site in the neighborhood of 6,500 tons. We are aware of the concerns of neighbors downhill from the property and this should be viewed as a positive for the overall geologic stability of the area.

Finally, we are approaching two years from the date of the City Council approval and have not yet pulled building permits. We would ask for a two-year extension to our previous approvals granted by the City Council.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Allan Rigg, PE AICP
Principal

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

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 and 28, 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, 2 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.
3 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 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.

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 4 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.

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 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.

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.
5 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.

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 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 6 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.

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 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.

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.
7 Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)

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.

Section 9. Variance Findings. Section 17 .38.050 sets forth the required findings for granting Variances to allow:

1. Stable, corral, swimming pool, and retaining walls to encroach into the front yard (RHMC Section 17.16.200);

2. Corral to encroach into the required 50-foot front setback (RHMC Section 17.16.110 and 17 .16.200);

3. Retaining walls that exceed the maximum average height of two-and-one-half feet (RHMC Section 17.16.190(F));

4. Basement with a portion extending beyond the building walls of the residence (RHMC Section 17.12.020); and

5. Grading export (RHMC Section 17.16.230).

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 and would be consistent with other nearby properties. However, this design does require a variance to allow the stable, corral, swimming pool and retaining wall in the front yard and the corral to encroach into the required 50-foot 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 and reduce the need for additional grading. The construction of retaining walls to exceed the maximum average height of two-and-one-half feet, and the light well/tunnel portion of the basement extending beyond the building walls of the residence, 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 nonexempt 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.

8. 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 8 Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)

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 with the same types of structures and improvements in similar areas of the project. The variance request pertaining to the basement extending beyond the walls of the residence is solely for a light well type area that allows ingress and egress to the basement area as required by the building code. This subterranean tunnel type design minimizes grading and allows access to the basement area as depicted on the project plans.

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. The requested variances are designed to make the development less intensive in terms of grading, maximize privacy and reduce other impacts to the neighborhood to ensure the protection of the public welfare.

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 Hills.
9 Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)

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.

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 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 October 28, 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. 10 Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)

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.

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.

I I
Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)

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.

0. Prior to issuance of a final construction approval of the Project, all graded slopes shall be landscaped. Prior to issuance of building permit, the landscaping plan shall meet the requirements of the City, shall be submitted to the City in conformance with Fire Department Fuel Modification requirements, and shall be approved by the City's landscape consultant.

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.
12 Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)

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.

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.
13 Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)

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 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.

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

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 14 Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)

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.

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 Council approval.

AS. The applicant shall install and maintain all landscaping in accordance with all current and applicable City requirements.

AT. The applicant shall process the Project's post entitlement permits such as building permits and any other required permits through Los Angeles County only as opposed to any qualified private consultant under contract with the City. 15 Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)

AU. The approved grading plans shall be updated to include the 8 cubic yards of cut and 9 cubic yards of fill in the "sunset terrace" covered patio located downslope from the main residence.

AV. The underground cisterns for the Project shall be designed to store excess runoff from a 100-year storm.

AW. The decks attached/adjacent to the main residence shall not be cantilevered in excess of 12' above grade.

AX. No trees shall be planted on the berm.

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 28th DAY OF OCTOBER 2024. ~~~ LEAH MlftSCH, MAYOR
ATTEST: .

CH~ 2
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. 16 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 28, 2024, by the following roll call vote:

A YES: Black, Dieringer, Pieper, Mayor Mirsch
NOES: Wilson
ABSENT:

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

Administrative Offices.
~ 1/· //- A / - 1/ . ~1[~
17 Resolution No. 1376
23 Crest Road East (Ogasawara)

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

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%)

Item: 14.A.

Meeting Date: 7/13/2026
To: City Council
From: Téa Takaoka, Administrative Assistant
Thru: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk, Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Consideration of Authorizing the Mayor to sign a Letter of Support for AB 1821 (Pacheco) regarding Agency response timelines under the California Public Records Act
Background:

The California Public Records Act (CPRA) is a vital tool that promotes the public’s access to maximum disclosure of the conduct of governmental operations. Assembly Bill (AB) 1821 (Attachment A) provides an important and practical clarification to CPRA response deadlines. The bill’s shift from “calendar days” to “business days” for initial determinations and extensions is a common-sense update that reflects the operational realities of local agencies.

In 2025, the City of Rolling Hills processed approximately 43 requests for public records, almost doubling 2024's 23 requests and tripling 2023's 14 requests. The City is currently on track to process at least 55 requests by the end of 2026 and does not have a designated full-time employee allocated specifically for processing Public Records Act requests.

Public records responsibilities are carried out by the City Clerk in coordination with staff members and, when necessary, support from the City Attorney's firm at great expense. Legal review is required to determine the applicability of exemptions, ensure compliance with the PRA, and review proposed redactions. Although staff time cannot be precisely quantified, the City's legal view costs provide a measurable indicator of the increasing resources required to process requests especially with a short turnaround.

Discussion:

Government agencies across the state of California are seeing a trending rise in the volume of public record requests received paired with increased complexity of said requests. On April 7, 2026, the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), League of California Cities (Cal Cities), and the California Municipal Clerks Association (CMCA), co-signed a letter of support for AB 1821 (Attachment C) by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco. The letter recognized that agencies are committed to transparency and providing timely access to public records, while at the same time, the volume, complexity, and format of public records have changed significantly.

CPRA requests received by the City generate far more disclosable records, including emails, text, and internal messages due to modern government operations that are required to be reviewed closely for responsiveness. These requests are also assessed for legally exempted information which may require redaction of sensitive information such as attorney-client communication, personal identifiers, and sensitive data. Complying with the existing CPRA 10-calendar-day deadline to make an initial determination is a challenge for staff because the timeframe includes weekends and holidays, limiting actual working days that can be utilized to make the required determination.

For the City of Rolling Hills, AB 1821 would assist the City's limited staff who manage public records responsibilities as well as support public meetings, elections, boards and commissions, agenda management, contract routing, records management, and other core services. Local governments must absorb the full cost of increasingly time-intensive requests. This Bill ensures the City will have a reasonable opportunity to identify responsive records, determine whether exemptions apply, protect confidential and legally protected information, and provide accurate responses.

As a smaller agency that has seen a dramatic increase in expansive requests for public records, the City of Rolling Hills would benefit from this proposed clarification. This clarification aims to preserve access for public-interest requesters while recognizing the significant staff time and public resources that may be required to process certain requests.

AB 1821 (Pacheco) was amended in the Senate on June 25, 2026, removing proposed provisions previously added on June 10, 2026, related to:
• Designated methods for submitting public records requests, including a required physical office location and specified email address.
• Clarifications that requests submitted outside an agency's designated submission method may not trigger the same CPRA response timelines unless otherwise specified in the bill. • Fees for search and review time for commercial use requests, with exemptions for certain requesters, including educational or noncommercial scientific institutions, government agencies, and representatives of the news media.
• A court process for determining whether a request was submitted with malicious intent before an agency may impose search and review fees in that circumstance.

The City of Rolling Hills Estates approved this item for City Council consideration at their June 23, 2026 meeting (Attachment D). Additionally, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes submitted its letter of support for AB 1821 on May 7, 2026 (Attachment E).

This bill supports the important balance of promptly providing public access to requested records while exercising careful legal compliance. A draft letter of support is included for City Council review and consideration (Attachment B).

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council provide direction on whether to support AB 1821 (Pacheco) and, if so, authorize the Mayor to sign and submit a letter of support on behalf of the City.

Attachments:

1. Attachment A - CL_AGN_260713_CC_AB1821

2. Attachment B - CC_AGN_260713_CC_AB1821_SupportLetter_D

3. Attachment C - CC_AGN_260713_CC_CSAC-LCC-CMCA_AB1821_SupportLetter

4. Attachment D - CL_AGN_260713_CC_AB1821_RHE_SupportLetter

5. Attachment E - CL_AGN_260713_CC_AB1821_RPV_SupportLetter

AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 25, 2026
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 10, 2026
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 6, 2026
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 16, 2026
california legislature—2025–26 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1821
Introduced by Assembly Member Pacheco
February 11, 2026
An act to amend Sections 7922.530 and Section 7922.535 of the Government Code, relating to public records.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1821, as amended, Pacheco. California Public Records Act:
methods of submission, fees, and agency response time.

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable, except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law.

This bill would require an agency to designate a physical office location and a specified email address for the submission of requests, and authorize an agency to designate other reasonable methods for the submission of requests, including submission to a physical mailing address, subject to certain requirements, including that the agency accept upon receipt any request that is submitted at the designated physical office location or through the designated email address during the

95

agency’s normal business hours. If an agency designates any method for the submission of requests, the bill would deem a request as properly requested for purposes of specified provisions only if the request was submitted through a method of submission that was designated by the agency. If the agency finds that a request was not submitted through a method of submission that was designated by the agency, the bill would deem the request as not properly requested at the time of submission and not subject to specified timelines otherwise applicable to the request had it been properly requested, except as specified. The bill would require an agency to provide notice to the public of any updates or changes to any method for the submission of requests designated by the agency by posting the updates or changes on its internet website.

If an agency determines that a request is a commercial use request, as defined, the bill would require a requester to submit to the agency, in addition to any other applicable fees, a payment of fees to cover the search and review time, as defined, for the request. The bill would exempt from that fee requirement any request made by an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, as specified, a government agency, and a representative of the news media, as defined. The bill would authorize an agency to petition the superior court for a determination that a requester submitted a request with malicious intent, as specified. If the court determines that the request was submitted with malicious intent, the bill would authorize the agency to impose on the requester, in addition to any other applicable fees, a payment of fees to cover the search and review time for the request. The bill would suspend an agency’s duty to respond to a request during the pendency of any court proceeding under that provision. The bill would specify that the payment of fees by a requester to cover the search and review time for a request for these purposes includes an administrative fee and a professional fee, as specified.

Existing law requires each agency, within 10 days of a request for a copy of records, to determine whether the request seeks copies of disclosable public records in possession of the agency and to promptly notify the person of the determination and the reasons therefor. Existing law authorizes that time limit to be extended by no more than 14 days under unusual circumstances, as defined.

This bill would instead require each agency to determine whether the request seeks copies of disclosable public records in possession of the agency and to promptly notify the person as described above within 10 business days of a request for a copy of records. The bill would instead 95 AB 1821 — 2 —

authorize the time period for each agency to respond to be extended by no more than 14 business days.

The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 7922.530 of the Government Code is line 2 amended to read:
line 3 7922.530. (a)  (1)  Except with respect to public records exempt line 4 from disclosure by express provisions of law, each state or local line 5 agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably line 6 describes an identifiable record or records, shall make the records line 7 promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering line 8 direct costs of duplication and any fees to cover the search and line 9 review time for a request described in paragraph (3), or a statutory line 10 fee if applicable. Upon request, an exact copy shall be provided line 11 unless impracticable to do so.
line 12 (2)  (A)  An agency shall designate a physical office location line 13 and a specified email address for the submission of requests, and line 14 may designate other reasonable methods for the submission of line 15 requests, including, but not limited to, submission to a specified line 16 physical mailing address or through a specified online portal, line 17 subject to both of the following requirements:
line 18 (i)  The agency shall accept upon receipt any request that is line 19 submitted in person at the designated physical office location or 95 — 3 — AB 1821

line 1 through the designated email address during the agency’s normal line 2 business hours.
line 3 (ii)  An agency shall make any method of submission that was line 4 designated by the agency clearly available on its internet website. line 5 (B)  (i)  If an agency designates any method for the submission line 6 of requests, a request shall be deemed as properly requested for line 7 purposes of this chapter only if the request was submitted through line 8 a method of submission that was designated by the agency. line 9 (ii)  If the agency finds that a request was not submitted through line 10 a method of submission that was designated by the agency, the line 11 request shall not be deemed as properly requested at the time of line 12 submission and shall not be subject to any timelines under this line 13 chapter otherwise applicable to the request had it been properly line 14 requested. This clause shall not apply if the agency had a line 15 reasonable basis to be aware of the request.
line 16 (C)  An agency shall provide notice to the public of any updates line 17 or changes to any method for the submission of requests designated line 18 by the agency by posting the updates or changes on its internet line 19 website.
line 20 (3)  (A)  (i)  If an agency determines that a request is a line 21 commercial use request, the requester shall submit to the agency, line 22 in addition to any other applicable fees, a payment of fees to cover line 23 cost of the search and review time for the request. line 24 (ii)  Clause (i) shall not apply to any request made by any of the line 25 following:
line 26 (I)  An educational or noncommercial scientific institution whose line 27 purpose is scholarly or scientific research.
line 28 (II)  A government agency.
line 29 (III)  A representative of the news media.
line 30 (B)  An agency may petition the superior court for a line 31 determination that a requester submitted a request with malicious line 32 intent, including for the purpose of delaying the agency. If the line 33 court determines that the request was submitted with malicious line 34 intent, the agency may impose on the requester, in addition to any line 35 other applicable fees, a payment of fees to cover the search and line 36 review time for the request. The agency’s duty to respond to the line 37 request shall be suspended during the pendency of any court line 38 proceedings under this subparagraph.
95 AB 1821 — 4 —

line 1 (C)  The payment of fees by a requester to cover the search and line 2 review time for a request pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B) line 3 shall be as follows:
line 4 (i)  The payment of fees shall include both of the following fees:
line 5 (I)  An administrative fee in the amount of twenty-two dollars line 6 and thirty-five cents ($22.35) per hour, which may be increased line 7 by a cost-of-living adjustment.
line 8 (II)  A professional fee in the amount of sixty-six dollars and line 9 twenty-six cents ($66.26) per hour, which may be increased by a line 10 cost-of-living adjustment.
line 11 (ii)  For purposes of clause (i), both of the following shall apply:
line 12 (I)  Any charges that are for less than a full hour shall be billed line 13 in quarter-hour segments.
line 14 (II)  The United States city average of the “Consumer Price Index line 15 for all Urban Consumers,” as published by the United States line 16 Bureau of Statistics, shall be used as the basis for determining line 17 changes in the cost of living.
line 18 (D)  For purposes of this paragraph, all of the following line 19 definitions apply:
line 20 (i)  “Commercial use request” means a request from or on behalf line 21 of a person who seeks information for a use or purpose that furthers line 22 the commercial, trade, or profit interests of the requester or the line 23 person on whose behalf the request is made. In determining line 24 whether a requester properly belongs in this category, the agency line 25 may ask the requester to provide information regarding the use to line 26 which a requester will put the documents requested. If the requester line 27 does not promptly provide this information, the agency may infer line 28 that the records have been requested for commercial use. When line 29 the agency has reasonable cause to doubt the requester’s stated line 30 use of the records sought, or where the use is not clear from the line 31 request itself, the agency will seek additional clarification before line 32 assigning the request to a category.
line 33 (ii)  “Representative of the news media” means a person who line 34 regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, line 35 edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, line 36 national, or international events or other matters of public interest line 37 for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the line 38 person’s livelihood or for substantial financial gain. line 39 (iii)  “Search and review time” means the actual time spent line 40 identifying and locating records, including material within 95 — 5 — AB 1821

line 1 documents, responsive to a request, determining whether any line 2 portions are exempt from disclosure, and performing all tasks line 3 necessary to prepare the records for disclosure, including redacting line 4 portions exempt from disclosure.
line 5 (b)  A requester who inspects a disclosable record on the line 6 premises of the agency has the right to use the requester’s line 7 equipment on those premises, without being charged any fees or line 8 costs, to photograph or otherwise copy or reproduce the record in line 9 a manner that does not require the equipment to make physical line 10 contact with the record, unless the means of copy or reproduction line 11 would result in either of the following:
line 12 (1)  Damage to the record.
line 13 (2)  Unauthorized access to the agency’s computer systems or line 14 secured networks by using software, equipment, or any other line 15 technology capable of accessing, altering, or compromising the line 16 agency’s electronic records.
line 17 (c)  The agency may impose any reasonable limits on the use of line 18 the requester’s equipment that are necessary to protect the safety line 19 of the records or to prevent the copying of records from being an line 20 unreasonable burden to the orderly function of the agency and its line 21 employees. In addition, the agency may impose any limit that is line 22 necessary to maintain the integrity of, or ensure the long-term line 23 preservation of, historic or high-value records. line 24 SEC. 2.
line 25 SECTION 1. Section 7922.535 of the Government Code is line 26 amended to read:
line 27 7922.535. (a)  Each agency, upon a request for a copy of line 28 records, shall, within 10 business days from receipt of the request, line 29 determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies line 30 of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and line 31 shall promptly notify the person making the request of the line 32 determination and the reasons therefor. If the agency determines line 33 that the request seeks disclosable public records, the agency shall line 34 also state the estimated date and time when the records will be line 35 made available.
line 36 (b)  In unusual circumstances, the time limit prescribed in this line 37 article and Article 1 (commencing with Section 7922.500) may line 38 be extended by written notice from the head of the agency or a line 39 designee to the person making the request, setting forth the reasons line 40 for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected 95 AB 1821 — 6 —

line 1 to be dispatched. The notice shall not specify a date that would line 2 result in an extension for more than 14 business days. line 3 (c)  As used in this section, “unusual circumstances” means the line 4 following, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper line 5 processing of the particular request:
line 6 (1)  The need to search for and collect the requested records line 7 from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from line 8 the office processing the request.
line 9 (2)  The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine line 10 a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are line 11 demanded in a single request.
line 12 (3)  The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with line 13 all practicable speed, with another agency having substantial line 14 interest in the determination of the request or among two or more line 15 components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest line 16 therein.
line 17 (4)  The need to compile data, to write programming language line 18 or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract line 19 data.
line 20 (5)  The inability of the agency, because of a cyberattack, to line 21 access its electronic servers or systems in order to search for and line 22 obtain a record that the agency believes is responsive to a request line 23 and is maintained on the servers or systems in an electronic format. line 24 (A)  This paragraph does not relieve the agency of its obligation line 25 to comply with subdivision (a) when the requested record is line 26 maintained in a location other than on the electronic server or line 27 system affected by the cyberattack, or maintained in a nonelectronic line 28 format.
line 29 (B)  This paragraph applies only until the agency regains its line 30 ability to access its electronic servers or systems and search for line 31 and obtain electronic records that may be responsive to a request. line 32 (6)  The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine line 33 records during a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor line 34 in the jurisdiction where the agency is located when the state of line 35 emergency currently and directly affects, due to the state of line 36 emergency, the agency’s ability to timely respond to requests due line 37 to staffing shortages or closure of facilities where the requested line 38 records are located.
95 — 7 — AB 1821

line 1 (A)  This paragraph shall not apply to a request for records line 2 created during and related to the state of emergency proclaimed line 3 by the Governor.
line 4 (B)  For purposes of this paragraph, “state of emergency” means line 5 a state of emergency proclaimed pursuant to Section 8625 of the line 6 California Emergency Services Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with line 7 Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2).
line 8 SEC. 3.
line 9 SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of line 10 this act, which amends Section 7922.530 of the Government Code, line 11 and Section 2 of this act, which amends Section 7922.535 of the line 12 Government Code, further, furthers, within the meaning of line 13 paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the line 14 California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section line 15 as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local line 16 public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local line 17 agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section line 18 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes line 19 the following findings:
line 20 This act balances the right of the public to access public records line 21 in a timely manner while providing public agencies the ability to line 22 designate methods to receive, obtain proper compensation for, and line 23 sufficient time to respond to, public record requests. acknowledging line 24 that state and local agencies provide a variety of public services line 25 and may need additional time to properly respond to requests. line 26 SEC. 4.
line 27 SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of line 28 this act, which amends Section 7922.530 of the Government Code, line 29 and Section 2 of this act, which amends Section 7922.535 of the line 30 Government Code, impose imposes a limitation on the public’s line 31 right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of line 32 public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of line 33 Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that line 34 constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following line 35 findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation line 36 and the need for protecting that interest:
line 37 This act balances the right of the public to access public records line 38 in a timely manner while providing public agencies the ability to line 39 designate methods to receive, obtain proper compensation for, and line 40 sufficient time to respond to, public record requests. acknowledging 95 AB 1821 — 8 —

line 1 that state and local agencies provide a variety of public services line 2 and may need additional time to properly respond to requests.

O
95 — 9 — AB 1821

City of Rolling Hills INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
July 13, 2026
The Honorable Blanca Pacheco
California State Assembly
1021 O Street, 4510
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Assembly Bill 1821 — California Public Records Act: Methods of Submission, Fees, and Agency Response Time — SUPPORT (As Amended June 25, 2026) Dear Assemblymember Pacheco:

The City of Rolling Hills write in support of Assembly Bill 1821, which would make several important updates to the California Public Records Act, including preserving the clarifica�on that certain agency response periods are calculated in business days rather than calendar days.

Public agencies are commited to transparency and providing �mely access to public records. At the same �me, the volume, complexity, and format of public records have changed significantly.

Requests now rou�nely involve large volumes of email, text messages, electronic files, audio and video recordings, body-worn camera footage, and other digital records that must be searched, reviewed, and, when legally required, redacted before release. This work o�en requires coordina�on among mul�ple departments, informa�on technology staff, legal counsel, and records personnel.

Current law requires an agency to make its ini�al determina�on within 10 calendar days, with a possible 14-calendar-day extension under unusual circumstances. Because those �meframes include weekends and holidays, agencies may not receive the full number of working days needed to conduct a careful and legally compliant review. AB 1821 would provide a more prac�cal and consistent framework by changing those periods to 10 business days and 14 business days. This important change remains in the bill as amended June 10, 2026.

This adjustment is especially important for local agencies where staffing is limited and public records responsibili�es are o�en carried out by employees who also support public mee�ngs, elec�ons, boards and commissions, agenda management, contract rou�ng, records management, and other core services. A business-day standard would not reduce an agency’s obliga�on to respond to records requests or make disclosable records available. Rather, it would help ensure that agencies have a reasonable opportunity to iden�fy responsive records, determine whether exemp�ons apply, protect confiden�al or legally protected informa�on, and provide accurate responses.

Letter of Support AB 1821

For The City of Rolling Hills, public records requests have increased in recent years. Even when staff work diligently, weekends and holidays can materially reduce the actual �me available to complete the required review. AB 1821 would provide a more realis�c �meline while preserving the public’s right to access disclosable public records.

For these reasons, the City of Rolling Hills supports AB 1821 and we thank you for your leadership on this most important issue.

Sincerely,
Bea Dieringer
Mayor
City of Rolling Hills
cc:

Honorable Members of the Senate Judiciary Commitee
Senator Ben Allen
Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi
California Municipal Clerks Associa�on
City of Rolling Hills City Council

April 7, 2026
The Honorable Ash Kalra
Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee
1020 N Street, Room 104
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1821 (Pacheco) California Public Records Act: agency response time.

As Amended April 6, 2026 – SUPPORT
To be heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee
The California State Association of Counties (CSAC), the League of California Cities (Cal Cities), and the California Municipal Clerks Association (CMCA) are pleased to support Assembly Bill (AB)1821 by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco.

The California Public Records Act (CPRA) is a vital tool that enables the public to hold government accountable. Local agencies take these responsibilities seriously and devote substantial resources to responding thoroughly and promptly to public records requests. Our members are committed to transparency and accountability.

AB 1821 provides an important and practical clarification to CPRA response timelines.

The bill’s shift from “calendar days” to “business days” for initial determinations and extensions is a common‑sense update that reflects the operational realities of local agencies. Public agencies generally do not have staff available on weekends or holidays, yet current law continues to toll CPRA deadlines during these periods. A business‑day standard ensures agencies have the full, intended number of working days to conduct thorough and accurate searches for disclosable records.

Under existing law, agencies must determine within 10 days whether a request seeks disclosable records, with a possible 14‑day extension in unusual circumstances. Neither timeframe accounts for weekends or holidays when staff are unavailable. AB 1821 corrects this discrepancy by converting these periods to business days, helping agencies comply with the law more effectively and consistently.

Local agencies across California have seen a sharp rise in both the volume and complexity of CPRA requests, reporting a 73% increase over five years and noting that more than 90% of agencies have had to divert staff time away from core services to meet these demands. Modern government operations now generate far more disclosable records, including emails, texts, and internal messages, which require extensive searching, review, and redaction of sensitive information such as attorney‑client communications, personal identifiers, and medical or criminal data. At

4/7/2026

the same time, agencies have lost key revenue sources that once offset these costs:

Proposition 42 eliminated state reimbursement for CPRA compliance, and a 2020 California Supreme Court ruling restricted agencies from recovering staff time or technical costs associated with producing records. As a result, local governments must absorb the full cost of increasingly time‑intensive requests.

Prior to the April 6 amendments, AB 1821 would have addressed this critical issue by allowing agencies to recover reasonable costs for exceptionally burdensome searches. While that provision is no longer included, we appreciate the author’s efforts and remain committed to continued conversations about broader CPRA reform. The business‑day clarification that remains in the bill is a narrow but meaningful improvement that will help agencies comply with the law more effectively and consistently.

For these reasons, CSAC, Cal Cities, and CMCA are pleased to support AB 1821 and respectfully request your AYE vote. If you have any questions regarding our position, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,
Eric Lawyer
Senior Legislative Advocate
California State Association of
Counties
[email protected]
Johnnie Pina
Legislative Advocate
League of California Cities
[email protected]
Ethan Nagler
Legislative Representative
California Municipal Clerks Association
[email protected]
cc: The Honorable Blanca Pacheco, Member, California State Assembly Members, Assembly Judiciary Committee
Nicholas Liedtke, Chief Counsel, Assembly Judiciary Committee Liz Enea, Consultant, Assembly Republican Caucus

City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Paul Seo, Mayor
Stephen Perestam, Mayor Pro Tem
David L. Bradley, Councilmember
Barbara Ferraro, Councilmember
George Lewis, Councilmember
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5207 / FAX (310) 544-5291 / WWW.RPVCA.GOV May 7, 2026
The Honorable Blanca Pacheco
California State Assembly 1021 O Street,
4510 Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Support for AB 1821 — California Public Records Act: Agency Response Time (As Amended April 6, 2026)
Dear Assemblymember Pacheco:

On behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, I write in support of Assembly Bill 1821, which would make an important clarification to the California Public Records Act (PRA).

Current law requires an agency to produce public records within 10 calendar days, with a possible 14-calendar-day extension under unusual circumstances. Because those timeframes include weekends and holidays, agencies may not receive the full number of working days needed to conduct a careful and legally compliant review. AB 1821 would provide a more practical and consistent framework by changing those periods from calendar to business days.

Public agencies are committed to transparency and providing timely access to public records. At the same time, the volume, complexity, and format of public records have changed significantly since the PRA was first adopted. Requests now routinely involve large volumes of email, text messages, electronic files, audio and video recordings, body-worn camera footage, and other digital records that must be searched, reviewed, and, when legally required, redacted before release. This work often requires coordination among multiple departments, information technology staff, legal counsel, and records personnel.

In 2025, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes received approximately 400 requests, and many contracts, and personnel-related records. AB 1821 would provide a more realistic timeline while preserving the public’s right to access disclosable public records. A business-day standard would not reduce an agency’s obligation to respond to records requests or make disclosable records available. Rather, it would help ensure that agencies have a reasonable

opportunity to identify responsive records, determine whether exemptions apply, protect confidential or legally protected information, and provide accurate responses.

For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes supports AB 1821 and we thank you for your leadership on this most important issue.

Sincerely,
Paul Seo
Mayor
cc: Honorable Members of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations California Municipal Clerks Association

Item: 14.B.

Meeting Date: 7/13/2026
To: City Council
From: Samantha Crew, Management Analyst
Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Receive and File a Status Update on the SAFE Network and SAFE Unit Information Workshop (Verbal)
Background:

None.

Discussion:

None.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

Receive and file a verbal update on the SAFE Network and SAFE Unit Information Workshop.

Attachments:

None