Loading...
City Council Agenda 03-28-2016eer, al seat geek INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 AGENDA ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2016 7:00 P.M. Next Resolution No. 1183 Next Ordnance No. 347 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding the items on the consent calendar or items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Minutes — (1) Adjourned Regular Meeting of March 14, 2016 and (2) Adjourned Regular Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Field Trip). RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Financial Statement for the Month of February, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. D. Allied Recycling Tonnage Report for February, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. E. City Council Personnel Committee meeting notes of March 14, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 5. CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION A. NOMINATION OF 2016-2017 MAYOR B. NOMINATION OF 2016-2017 MAYOR PRO TEM C. COMMENTS FROM 2016-2017 MAYOR Page 1 of 3 1\ 6. PRESENTATION TO MAYOR PIEPER IN RECOGNITION OF HIS SERVICE DURING HIS 2015-2016 TERM AS MAYOR 7. ADJOURNMENT TO RECEPTION 8. COMMISSION ITEMS NONE. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANTS THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONTINUED TO MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2016 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF TWO APPEALS OF COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS RESOLUTION NO. 2015-03-CTV SETTING FORTH FINDINGS RELATING TO TRIMMING OF TREES AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD DUE TO VIEW IMPAIRMENT FROM 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD. LOCATION OF TREES: 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD PROPERTY OWNER: MR. AND MRS. HASSOLDT COMPLAINANTS: DR. AND MRS. NUCCION 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD 10. OLD BUSINESS A. SECOND READING, WAIVE FULL READING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING CHAPTER 17.29 IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE PERSONAL CULTIVATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND IMPOSE AN EXPRESS BAN ON COMMERCIAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE CITY IN ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01. 11. NEW BUSINESS A. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND THE CITIES OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, PALOS VERDES ESTATES, ROLLING HILLS, AND ROLLING HILLS ESTATES REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION AND COST SHARING FOR IMPLEMENTING THE COORDINATED INTEGRATED MONITORING PROGRAM (CIMP) FOR THE PENINSULA CIMP AGENCIES. B. CONSIDERATION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 MID -YEAR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS. City Council Agenda 03/28/16 Page 2 of 3 12. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS NONE. 13. MATTERS FROM STAFF NONE. 14. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS 15. CLOSED SESSION Government Code §54957.6 Conference with Labor Negotiator City representative: Personnel Committee (Pieper and Dieringer) Unrepresented employees: Planning Director, City Clerk/Executive Assistant, Administrative Assistant, Associate Planner 16. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION (ORAL REPORT). 17. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Monday, April 11, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. City Council Agenda 03/28/16 Page 3 of 3 Memorandums of Understanding for Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program Kathleen McGowan, P.E. McGowan Consulting Outline Regulatory Background Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program Memorandum of Understanding 1 f March 28, 2016 2 Storm Water e Program • Regulatory Background Federal Clean Water Act torm Water4 Program March 28, 2016 3 Rolling Hills Drainage System .‘41111111.11rninms----- Primarily natural drainage channels/ canyons interrupted by short sections of County - owned or private improved storm drains March 28, 2016 4 Storm Water Program a am; , 05 •*AK (Sail c. 0 0 40 \ et § itth ° t`ff11) ## 4l « ifralra,m ; c,a w , 0 a (f.:35% o i are ) \o\ia\ »N if -454..0»e ,_e . alt .teft: • Figure 1. Regional Drainage of Rolling Hills QCly Bounday Streets 9urmM*iED}ayer © L&Naea Warted lj Machado Lakel`Mertied QCPai Coat Waatred Continuation of RH Drainage to the Coast Lei Pmwume Bend /t @Portuguese Bend e: Patugueee Bend /' Tnanp Gen Carve RH Drainage To the Coast Portuguese Bad 11 =Portuguese Bad 12 C Portuguese Bend Y- - Tranp Golf Carve U1/Lb/LUIS T Green = Machado Labe Pink = Santa Monica Bay Blue = Los Angeles Harbor — - Stormwater Program Update- - - — 1 Clean Water Act provides that States may be authorized to administer the NPDES program in lieu of USEPA California is authorized via: ♦ State Water Resources Control Board and 6 9 Regional Water Quality Control Boards • Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Permit violations subject to: ♦ Administrative, civil liability, and/or criminal penalties • Mandatory minimum penalties under CA Water Code • Citizen suit provision under the Clean Water Act March 28, 2016 7 Storm Water Program Order No. R4-2012-0175 Municipal StormStorni Water Permit for Coastal Watersheds of LA County Choices for Implementing Monitoring and Reporting Program Requirements : Individually adhere to the Monitoring and Reporting Requirements in Attachment E of the Permit Or Implement a customized monitoring program that achieves the 5 primary objectives and includes the elements in Attachment E via an Integrated Monitoring Program in coordination with a Watershed Management Program March 28, 2016 9 Storm Water Program torm Water a Program Coordinated/Integrated Monitoring Program (GIMP) Customized monitoring program ♦ Achieve 5 primary objectives ♦ Include required elements ♦ Provide for cost efficient and effective water quality monitoring on a watershed basis March 28, 2016 11 Storm Water Program 5 Primary Objectives are to assess: 1. Pollutant loads in storm water discharges 2. Whether water quality standards are met 3. Sources of pollutants in discharges 4. Chemical, physical, and biological impacts on receiving waters from discharges 5. Effectiveness of pollutant controls March 28, 2016 12 Storm Water Program Required Elements of Monitoring Program ♦ Receiving water monitoring: 6 Wet weather - 3x per year 6 Dry weather - 2x per year ♦ Storm Water Outfall monitoring: 6 Representative locations to reflect mix of land use 6 Wet weather - 3x per year ♦ Non -storm Water Outfall Screening and Monitoring Program 6 Systematic screening for significant non -storm water flows 6 Track to identify source and eliminate or 6 Monitor 4x per year ♦ Regional/Special Studies March 28, 2016 13 Storm Water Program Santa Monica Bay Bacteria Ongoing TMDL Monitoring included ♦ Weekly sampling, year-round ♦ 5 beaches on the Peninsula ♦ 3 types of indicator bacteria Machado Lake TMDLs ♦ 4 locations ♦ Monthly: Nitrogen & Phosphorus ♦ Two storm events: Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Pesticides and PCBs Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Toxic TMDL (incorporated by reference in CIMP, separate MOU) ♦ Metals, Pesticides & PCBs ♦ 22 water sample locations, during 2 wet and 1 dry weather events per year ♦ Sediment 2x/5 years, Fish tissue every 2 years March 28, 2016 14 Storm Water Program Peninsula-RW1 SMB 7 SMB 7-2 ,,,:sec Palos Verdes Estates '\LI 9i Santa Monica Bay,Watershedl '• r .mil zoJl...-- r -r . rim' .f .n gut Peninsula -SIN Point Vicente Lighthouse Rainfall Gauge Santa Monica Bay March 28, 2016 SM8 7-3 A , RHE CtlyH Hall SMB 7-5. Y•' Rolling Hilis - RaiMallGauge. Machado Lake •` Lariat County of LA 1 Rolling Hills Estates s ' , << •= •Dominguez Ch nn eI1W` a Y 15 Storm Water Program 4},1f: str— -t + r r1 ir,orjefe 1 '-[Rancho Palos Verdes a I December2012 A Permit Effective Date LIMP Timeline June 2014 Draft CIMP Submittal February 2016 A Final CIMP Approval Apri121, 2016 A Commence CIMP Implementation March 28, 2016 16 Storm Water Program Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Administration and Cost Sharing for Implementing the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program for the Peninsula Agencies March 28, 2016 17 /torm Water 6 Program Participating Agencies �tii 18 Storm Water Program • Rancho Palos Verdes • Palos Verdes Estates • Rolling Hills Estates • Rolling Hills • County of Los Angeles • Los Angeles County Flood Control District Cost -share Key MOU Provisions General ♦ 5 -year term ♦ Rancho Palos Verdes to administer for 5% fee ♦ 10% contingency ♦ Not to exceed $382,432 annually March 28, 2016 ♦ Los Angeles County Flood Control District 5% share of cost ♦ All other parties have share based on % land area and which key tasks they are participating in ♦ Rolling Hills' share not to exceed $39,710 annually • Less $10,000 for current Machado Lake Monitoring 6 Net fiscal impact is approx. $30,000 19 Storm Water Program LIMP MOU Adoption Process ♦ March 8, 2016 Palos Verdes Estates City Council approved ♦ March 22, 2016 Rolling Hills Estates City Council ♦ March 28, 2016 Rolling Hills City Council ♦ April 5, 2016 - Rancho Palos Verdes City Council for: 6 Approval of Peninsula CIMP MOU 6 Award contract for CIMP Implementation March 28, 2016 20 Storm Water Program Staff Recommendation e Approve the Peninsula CIMP MOU e Authorize Mayor to sign the Peninsula CIMP MOU March 28, 2016 21 Storm Water Program Extra Slides Regional Projects March 28, 2016 23 /st;rWater rn rogram 6 6 Recent Prop 1 Coastal Conservancy grant application not successful 0 LA County may still pursue the project but time frame is uncertain March 28, 2016 24 Storm Water Program Torrance Airport Regional Project ♦ Capture a t Pen1t su4a-ruiroff to Machado Lake via Wilmington Drain A Preliminary estimated cost for construction if sized up to capture Peninsula runoff from design storm is —$14 million 6 Torrance applying for Prop 1 Storm Water Grant to design the project ♦ $500,000 grant ♦ $500,000 match from Torrance and Peninsula cities combined r n ♦ Could replace 3 proposed regional projects in. Peninsula EWMP estimated at $77 — 113 million capital costs March 28, 2016 25 Storm Water Program Eastern basin—_ (A3) could capture design storm runoff from Peninsula runoff via Wilmington Drain Year 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 Mayor Pieper Lay Hill Black Lay Pernell Heinsheimer Hill Black Lay Pernell Heinseimer Hill Lay Murdock Pernell Heinsheimer Hill Mayor Pro Tern Dieringer Pieper Lay Hill Black Lay Pernell Heinsheimer Hill Black Lay Pernell Heinsheimer Hill Lay Murdock Pernell Heinsheimer Brief discussion ensued concerning the portion of the covered porch that encroaches into the setback and the proposed driveway. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission to explain the applicant's request. Geoff Sumich, Designer addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the applicant's request and presented a model of the proposed house. Following staffs presentation and public testimony, the members of the Planning Commission determined that a site visit should be scheduled to provide the members of the Planning Commission with further understanding of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 894 at 77 Crest Road East. The public hearing was continued. SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS The Planning Commission scheduled a field trip to the following properties to be conducted on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. 10 Bowie Road 46 Eastfield Drive 77 Crest Road East $EW PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) TONING CASE 140. 899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01. Consideration of a Zoning Code amendment relating to prohibiting medical marijuana cultivation, delivery, distributing and dispensaries within the City by amending Sections 17.08.050 and 17.16.020, and adding Chapter 17.29 to Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). It has been determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). AND Consideration to adopt Resolution No. 2016-01. A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills recommending that the City Council amend Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code by amending Sections 17.08.050 and 17.16.020 and adding Chapter 17.29 in order to impose an express ban on medical marijuana cultivation, delivery and dispensaries within the City. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that before the Planning Commission for consideration is a proposed Zoning Code amendment that would ban cultivation, delivery, dispensing and other activities related to medical marijuana within the City boundaries. She stated that this proposed amendment is before the Planning Commission in response to recent legislation, collectively referred to as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), adopted by the State legislature that requires cities wishing to regulate medical marijuana activities within their jurisdiction to adopt specific regulations doing so by March 1° otherwise, the State regulations which are much more permissive would apply. City Manager Cruz stated that both Mayor Pro Tern Dieringer and Councilmembe• Mirsch suggested that this matter be considered by the Planning Commission recognizing that there is a narrow window of time for the City to take action. Discussion ensued concerning why this matter is before the Planning Commission rather than directly before the City Council. In response to Chairman Chelf, Assistant City Attorney Karpeles stated that if the City does not act in regard to this matter, the State will be the sole licensing authority with regard to the cultivation of medical marijuana in the City of Rolling Hills. She stated that the amendment as proposed by the City Attorney's office represents the most restrictive regulations, but could be amended at a later date to be more permissive. Chairman Chelf called for public commt it Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 Cathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed regulations pertaining to restrictions on medical marijuana in the City stating that she feels it takes away people's rights granted under the compassionate use act. She stated that she does not feel there should be any restrictions on legally prescribed medical marijuana for personal use. Iim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed, the City Council in opposition to the proposed ordinance pertaining to restrictions on medical marijuana in the City. He stated that he also does not feel there should be any restrictions on legally prescribed medical marijuana for personal use. Discussion ensued cameaning the effect this regulation would have on individuals in the City who ere qualified patients and have a legal right to obtain medical marijuana. Ms. Karpeles clarified that this regulation would not prevent qualified patients from obtaining medial marijuana from fixed location dispensaries or qualified delivery services. She stated that the primary objective of the regulation is to ban mobile medical marijuana dispensaries from coming into the City to dispense medical marijuana. Further discussion ensued regarding personal cultivation. Ms. Karpeles clarified that the proposed regulation prohibits commercial cultivation and personal cultivation to the extent that such cultivation is not preempted by State law. The Planning Commissioners collectively expressed concern that they were not given enough time to give this matter due diligence. Further discussion ensued regarding the delivery mechanisms available to qualified patients. Vice Chairman Gray expressed concern that the term "commercial transfer" is not clearly defined. Ms. Karpeles provided an explanation of the term "commercial transfer." Following further discussion and recognizing the time constraints, Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-01 recommending that the City Council amend Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code by amending Sections 17.08.050 arid 17.16.020 and adding Chapter 17.29 in order to impose an express ban on medical marijuana cultivation, delivery and dispensaries within the City as amended to (1) provide a definition for the term "commercial transfer" and (2) provide for a delivery mechanism into the City for patients who need medical marijuana but cannot procure it for themselves. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion, which carried without objection. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION None. ITEMS FROM STAFF None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the Commission, Chairman Chelf adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting field trips to 10 Bowie Road, 46 Eastfield Drive and 77 Crest Road East. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hilts City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, ckp Heidi Luce City Clerk Chelf nnan Minutes Planning Commission Regular Mating 01-19-16 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within proceeding; my business address is 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. On the 25ih day of March, 2016,1 serve the within City Council Meeting - 03/28/2016 a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, on the person, or persons, named below by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Rolling Hills, California addressed as follows: E -MAILED MAILED DropBox NONE RH Web site listSery Interested parties City Attorney CouncilMembers Dieringer, Pieper, Black, Mirsch and Wilson DELIVERED City Manager City Council Also posted at City Hall, at www.Rolling-Hills.org and pdf's in DropBox. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 25'" day of March, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California. Ewa Nikodem Administrative Assistant DRAFT Agenda Item No. 4-A(1) Meeting Date: 03/28/16 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2016 CALL TO ORDER An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Pieper at 7:03 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Black, Dieringer, Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Pieper. Councilmembers Absent: None. Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. Jeffrey Ostriker, 27 Caballeros Road. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road. Patty Naegely, on behalf of Occhipinti (34 Crest Road East). OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council to suggest that the City Council meetings be televised so that residents that don't drive can see the meetings. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of February 22, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as presented. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. DRAFT PRESENTATION Presentation of a City Council Commendation to Commander Blaine Bolin Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department The City Council presented a Commendation to Lomita Sheriff's Station Captain Blain Bolin to thank him for his service to the City and congratulate him on his promotion to Commander of the North Patrol Division. Commander Bolin thanked the City for its support during his four years as Captain of the Lomita Station. City Manager Cruz then introduced the new Lomita Station Captain, Dan Beringer. Mayor Pieper stated that if there are no objections, New Business Item 8A regarding an appeal of the City Manager's determination in aggressive animal complaint will be taken out of order at the request of the appellant. Hearing no objection, he so ordered. NEW BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FILED BY DR. JEFFREY OSTRIKER, PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.24.070, REGARDING A DETERMINATION ORDERING THE DISPOSITION OF AN AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL COMPLAINT FILED BY MR. MATTHEW CHAISSON. Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. City Manager Cruz presented the staff report and reviewed the complaint filed by Mr. Matthew Chaisson against a dog, Azul, owned by Dr. Jeffrey Osktriker alleging that Azul came onto the property where Mr. Chaisson resides and killed his chickens. He further reviewed the investigation performed by an officer of the Los Angeles County Dept. of Animal Care and Control which found the complaint to be meritorious. He then reviewed the order imposed by the City Manager as a result of complaint being confirmed. He stated that the order required that Azul be confined to Dr. Ostriker's property and when off the property, be under control of a leash by a person capable of controlling the dog. He further commented that this matter is before the City Council because a timely appeal was filed by Dr. Ostriker requesting that the City Manager's decision be reviewed. He stated that additional correspondence was received from Dr. Ostriker and Mr. Chaisson and has been placed on the dais. Dr. Jeffrey Ostriker, 27 Caballeros Road addressed the City Council to request that the City Manager's order be modified to allow him to walk his dogs off leash due to medical reasons. He presented letters from a doctor and psychologist in support of his request. Following discussion, Councilmember Black moved that the City Council affirm the City Manager's decision in the aggressive animal complaint against a dog owned by Dr. Jeffrey Ostriker that the dog be confined to the property when on the property and to modify the order to allow Dr. Ostriker to walk the dog off leash provided that he does not walk in the vicinity of the property where the chickens owned by Mr. Matthew Chaisson are located (8 Crest Road East). Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Minutes City Council Meeting 03-14-16 DRAFT COMMISSION ITEMS RESOLUTION NO. 2016-02 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION, GRADING, SWIMMING POOL, PORCH, TRELLIS, AND WALLS AND VARIANCES FOR ENCROACHMENT WITH PORTIONS OF THE ADDITIONS, WALLS AND A LIGHTWELL INTO SETBACKS, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO EXCEED 2.5' AVERAGE HEIGHT OF WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 888 AT 17 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH, (LOT 5 -MR), IN THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT-OZD-1, (POST). Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the constrained lot configuration and provided an overview of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 888 at 17 Middleridge Lane North. She stated that after several public hearings, a site visit and modifications to address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2016-02 approving the request on a 3-2 vote. Councilmember Dieringer expressed concern regarding the encroachment into the front yard setback and questioned the need/justification for granting a variance for the encroachment. Following discussion, Councilmember Black moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-02 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 888 at 17 Middleridge Lane North. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried with Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer opposed. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-04 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A DETACHED GARAGE, GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE; AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE IN THE FRONT SETBACK, A ONE -CAR PARKING PAD LESS THAN 30 FEET FROM THE ROADWAY EASEMENT LINE, GARAGE AND WALL ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, OUT OF GRADE CONDITION OF THE GARAGE, WALL THAT DOES NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5 -FEET, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL COVERAGE AND THE DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT, IN ZONING CASE NO. 892, AT 3 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 58-EF), (BENNETT). Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the constrained lot configuration and provided an overview of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 892 at 3 Eastfield Drive. She stated that after a public hearing and site visit, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2016-04 approving the request on a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Smith abstaining. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-04 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 892 at 3 Eastfield Drive. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Minutes City Council Meeting 03-14-16 DRAFT PUBLIC HEARINGS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING CHAPTER 17.29 IN ORDER TO IMPOSE AN EXPRESS BAN ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE CITY, IN ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01. AND AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING CHAPTER 17.29 IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE PERSONAL CULTIVATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND IMPOSE AN EXPRESS BAN ON COMMERCIAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE CITY IN ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01. Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz presented the staff report stating that before the City Council are two proposed ordinances pertaining to delivery and cultivation of medical marijuana in the City. She reviewed the background of the issue including the State legislative history on the issue. She stated that the Planning Commission also heard this matter and recommended adoption of the stricter ordinance prohibiting all cultivation including for personal use. She noted that at the time the Planning Commission heard this matter, there was a March 1st deadline by which cities needed to take action, if they wished to regulate any marijuana activities, but the State legislature since eliminated the deadline. When the matter was before the Planning Commission, the public provided testimony suggesting that the City provide for delivery of medical marijuana and allow for personal cultivation but given the urgency of the matter, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of an ordinance banning all cultivation and permitting delivery by a dispensary having a legitimate storefront. Staff has since further researched the issue and prepared a second draft ordinance allowing for personal cultivation but still banning commercial cultivation. Discussion ensued concerning the amount of area that is allowed for personal cultivation. Further discussion ensued concerning commercial cultivation of other crops and the delivery mechanisms by which qualified patients would be allowed to obtain medical marijuana. Mayor Pieper called for public comment. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council to urge the City Council to adopt the ordinance allowing for personal cultivation of medical marijuana. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer expressed concern that the allowing personal cultivation outdoors could potentially increase crime in the City. She suggested allowing only indoor growth. Discussion ensued concerning State law versus Federal law relating to marijuana. City Attorney Jenkins stated that it is Minutes City Council Meeting 03-14-16 DRAFT illegal under Federal law to sell, cultivate or use marijuana. Councilmember Black suggested not adopting an ordinance and just defaulting to Federal law as it relates to medical marijuana. Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council waive full reading and introduce on first reading an ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills amending Sections 17.08.050 and 17.16.020 and adding Chapter 17.29 in order to permit the personal cultivation of medical marijuana and impose an express ban on commercial medical marijuana cultivation and dispensaries within the City. Mayor Pieper seconded the motion. Discussion ensued concerning the allowance for personal cultivation and the licensing requirement. With regard to the provision that there be no exterior evidence of cultivation from any street [Section 17.29.020(C)(1)(h)], Councilmember Wilson suggested that trails and easements be added as locations from where there shall be no exterior evidence of cultivation. Following discussion, Councilmember Mirsch accepted Councilmember Wilson's amendment and Mayor Pieper seconded. Following brief discussion, the motion carried as amended with Councilmember Black and Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer opposed. OLD BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1182 ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that two items regarding this item were received today and have been placed on the dais. The City Council took a brief recess to read the materials submitted. Planning Director Schwartz then presented the staff report and reviewed the background of this matter stating that for several months the City Council has been considering the adoption of administration regulations interpreting Measure B so that it can be applied consistently. She stated that the issues being discussed include the matters of acquisition and maturity. She noted that the City Council has already decided on an interpretation for the acquisition issue; and at its last meeting decided, on the maturity issue, to use 75% of a tree's maximum canopy width and height as a metric for determining maturity. She stated that since that meeting it was Teamed that there are several ways to measure "width" of a canopy. She stated that there are various methods for measuring canopy width and staff recommends using the "drip line" to measure the canopy spread. She stated also that since the last meeting, it was learned that the most recent edition of Sunset Western Garden Book does not include some of the trees common in Rolling Hills where the previous version did. She stated that it is staff's recommendation that staff be allowed to use the previous version as a reference. Lastly, based on direction received at the last meeting that staff do research pertaining to "Consulting Arborists", most of the local landscape/arbor companies do not employ an arborist certified by the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA), but do consult with one when needed. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the City Council has two items left to consider. First, to finalize the "maturity" issue and secondly to affirm the less controversial issue with regard to the "retroactivity" provision. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer, Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the various methods for measuring canopy "spread". Discussion ensued concerning the various methods for measuring width and Minutes City Council Meeting 03-14-16 DRAFT height of trees. Further discussion ensued concerning the height ranges. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer expressed concern that trees may not reach their maximum height due to planting site conditions and suggested that the City Council consider adding language to refer to the maximum "expected" height so that the planting site can be taken into consideration. She stated that she does not think the presently proposed interpretation regarding maturity meets the legal requirements. Brief discussion ensued concerning tree height. With regard to the issue of which version of Sunset Western Garden Book should be used a reference for tree heights, the City Council concurred that the most recent edition should be used unless a tree is not listed in that version, then the previous edition where a particular tee is listed could be used. Discussion ensued concerning using a consulting arborist certified by the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) rather than an arborist certified by the American Society of Arboriculture (ASA) when arborist consultant services are needed. Following discussion, the City Council concurred to use the proposed language presented in the draft Administrative Regulations attached to the resolution. Discussion ensued concerning retroactivity portion of the administrative regulation. The City Council concurred to use the language as proposed in the draft Administrative Regulations attached to the resolution. Mayor Pieper called for public comment. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council to suggest that when an arborists' services are necessary that an ASCA certified consulting arborist be used. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Council in support of using 75% of the maximum expected height and using the most recent version of Sunset Western Garden book that lists the specific tree as a reference. Patty Naegely addressed the City Council on behalf of the Occhipinti Family (34 Crest Road East) to further explain the correspondence she presented which shows that many trees in the area do no reach their maximum height even though they are mature. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the proposed Administrative Regulations as presented in the draft resolution. Discussion ensued concerning maturity. Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council change the word "maximum" to "expected" in Section 2001 as it relates to the tree canopy height and width. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer seconded the motion. Following further discussion concerning the "expected" canopy height and width spread, the motion failed with Councilmember Black, Mirsch Wilson and Mayor Pieper opposed. Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1182 adopting administrative regulations interpreting Measure B relating to view preservation as amended. Mayor Pieper seconded the motion, which carried with Councilmember Black and Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer opposed. Minutes City Council Meeting 03-14-16 DRAFT MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS DISCUSSION CONCERNING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE REGARDING FILLING AN UNEXPECTED VACANCY ON THE ROLLING HILLS TRAFFIC COMMISSION. (ORAL REPORT) Mayor Pieper reported that the Personnel Committee discussed the unexpected vacancy on the Rolling Hills Traffic Commission and directed staff to advertise the vacancy in the Citywide newsletter and proceed with the recruitment process to fill the vacancy so that the position will be filled by the May meeting of the Traffic Commission. OTHER MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Pieper reported that the Personnel Committee also discussed the issue of employee salary adjustments and the matter will be placed on the Closed Session agenda at a future meeting for discussion and then discussed in open session by the City Council. Mayor Pieper stated that he is hearing resident concern regarding coyotes. Councilmember Wilson suggested that staff address the issue of traffic control when contractors are working in the City so that they be required to remove or make the traffic control signage not visible in the hours that they are not working. Councilmember Mirsch asked that a discussion regarding a process for responding to correspondence received be agendized for discussion at future City Council meeting. Mayor Pieper asked that a discussion on a proposed ballot measure pertaining to view preservation be agendized for discussion at future City Council meeting. MATTERS FROM STAFF CONSIDERATION OF PROVIDING ACCURATE COMPENSATION TO THE LAW FIRM JENKINS & HOGIN FOR UNDERPAYMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FOR VIEW IMPAIRMENT CASES FROM MAY OF 2014 TO DECEMBER 2015. City Attorney Jenkins recused himself from discussion on this matter because it relates to his services and left the dais. City Manager Cruz presented the staff report stating that due to billing error, the City Attorney's office inadvertently under billed the City for services related to view impairment cases from May 2014 to December 2015. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Black moved that the City Council approve an appropriation in the amount of $13,832.90 to accurately compensate Jenkins & Hogin for legal services provided between May 2014 and December 2015 that were billed incorrectly resulting in an underpayment. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer seconded the motion, which carried without objection. City Attorney Jenkins returned to the dais. CLOSED SESSION Minutes City Council Meeting 03-14-16 DRAFT None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Pieper adjourned the meeting at 9:39 p.m. in memory of long time residents Rosina Baur, Georgia Claessens and Cosimo Occhipinti. An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, March 21, 2016 beginning at 6:00 p.m. at 18 and 15 Portuguese Bend Road for the purpose of conducting a field trip regarding the appeals of a Committee on Trees and Views decision. An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, March 28, 2016 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, Jeff Pieper Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 03-14-16 DRAFT Agenda Item No. 4-A(2) Meeting Date: 03/28/16 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2016 CALL TO ORDER An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Pieper at 6:00 p.m. at 18 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Black, Dieringer, Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Pieper. Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Wendy Starks, Associate Planner. Howard Weinberg, Attorney (Nuccion). Hal Light, Attorney (Hassoldt). William Hassoldt, applicant (15 Portuguese Bend Rd). Roger Hawkins, Resident. Brandon Gill, Arborist. Luke Midura, Arborist. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF TWO APPEALS OF COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS RESOLUTION NO. 2015-03-CTV SETTING FORTH FINDINGS RELATING TO TRIMMING OF TREES AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD DUE TO VIEW IMPAIRMENT FROM 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD. LOCATION OF TREES: 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD PROPERTY OWNER: MR. AND MRS. HASSOLDT COMPLAINANTS: DR. AND MRS. NUCCION 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD The City Council and the parties present assembled on the driveway at 18 Portuguese Bend Road. Mr. Weinberg distributed a larger aerial photo of the tree survey than was previously submitted. Planning Director Schwartz briefly reviewed the background of the appeals. All present walked onto the patio above the pool at 18 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California to view the trees and the view. Mayor Pieper stated that the purpose of the site visit is to: 1) See the view and the viewing area. 2) Minutes— Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting 03-21-16 -1- DRAFT Determine if there is a view. 3) Determine if the viewing area is appropriate. 4) If the viewing area is determined to be appropriate, is it obstructed? It was confirmed that the aerial photographic evidence provided by Dr. and Mrs. Nuccion was from July 2010. Mr. Light advised that trees on 15 Portuguese Bend Road have been trimmed in January 2016. Planning Director Schwartz, Mr. Hassoldt, and Mayor Pieper identified each of the trees subject to this case, including the ones that are not part of the complaint (#7, Acacia, and #10 of the list provided by the Nuccions). It was stated that trees #8 and #13 on the new list are Olive trees that were deemed mature by CTV and were not recommended for restorative action by the CTV. In response to an inquiry, Planning Director Schwartz advised that the purchase date for 18 Portuguese Bend Road is April 2009. The City Council agreed there is a view from the patio viewing area and that the viewing area is appropriate. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer added that there are views of city lights and mountains per statute. A discussion ensued as to whether the trees block the views, if they are mature, and if they are mature, were they mature in 2009, and if the property owners had a view in 2009. Councilmember Black observed that it is clear the trees have grown since the photographic evidence and that the view is obstructed. Councilmember Mirsch confirmed that the 2 Olive trees are the only ones that were declared mature per the Committee on Trees and Views and that the Pine tree that abuts both property lines is not a part of this complaint. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer asked that since the regulations have changed, does the complaint need to go back to the CTV, and Councilmember Black advised a vote can be taken by the City Council on that matter during the regular meeting of the City Council on March 28, 2016. Councilmembers directed staff to obtain an opinion from the City Attorney whether the case can be decided by the City Council or does it have to go back to the CTV and whether the new regulations and interpretation of Measure B should be applied to this case or the old ones. The group proceeded to the pool area, where the Councilmembers stated that some of the pictures were taken from, and determined that the vantage point from this patio is different. The City Council and the parties present then proceeded to the property located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road to view the subject trees. Minutes — Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting 03-21-16 DRAFT Mr. Hassoldt and Mayor Pieper identified each of the trees in the complaint. Councilmembers observed that some of the trees were cut previously as the cut lines were visible, that tree #7, the Acacia has been cut, that trees #2 and #3, Palm Trees, have been trimmed recently. Mr. Light advised that in response to Mr. Jenkins, the City Attorney, who advised at a previous meeting that the owner could trim the trees to ensure the trees' health while this case is being considered, the owners trimmed and cleaned some of the trees. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer inquired if the CTV determined the two trees were mature using the current definition. Mayor Pieper advised that they did not as the City Council established the definition recently. Mayor Pieper confirmed that all Councilmembers have seen the trees and know where each one is. There being no further questions or comments, the public hearing was continued to Monday, March 28, 2016 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Pieper adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m., to an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council to be held on Monday, March 28, 2016 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Wendy Starks Associate Planner Approved, Jeff Pieper Mayor Minutes — Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting 03-21-16 -3- CHECK CHECK NO. DATE 24246 24247 24248 24249 24250 24251 24252 24253 24254 24255 24256 24257 24258 24259 24260 24261 24262 24263 24264 • PR LINK PR LINK City opellin y Agenda Item No: 4-B Mtg. Date: 03/28/16 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 3282016 -CHECK RUN PAYEE 03/28/2016 ANTIMITE TERMITE & PEST 03/28/2016 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 03/28/2016 COLLINS COMPANY 03282016 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 03/28/2016 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP 03282016 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS 03/28/2016 MANERI SIGN CO., INC. 03/28/2016 PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES 03/28/2016 REMOTE SATELLITE SYS INTL 03282016 ROGERS, ANDERSON, MALODY 03282016 SOUTH BAY CHAMBER MUSIC 03282016 THE GAS COMPANY 03/28/2016 USCM 03/28/2016 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS - 04/012016 CALPERS 04/01/2016 CALPERS- 04/01/2016 HEALTHSMART BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 04/012016 METLIFE SBC 04/012016 SUN LIFE 3/182016 PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING 3/18/2016 PR LINK - PAYROLL 6 & PR TAXES Total DESCRIPTION PEST CONTROL CRENSHAW DETACHMENT-CERT COMP TENNIS COURT MAINT/REPAIR ROAD STRIPING FY 14/15 VIEW IMPAIRMENT CASES 14/15 COPIER MAINE AGREEMENT SIGN POST ONLY WENDY'S DRUG TEST SCREENING SATELLITE PHONE APRIL 2016 ACCOUNTING SERVICES JAN 2016 DONATION FY 15/16 BILLING PERIOD 2/10-3/11 457 - PAY PERIOD 3/18/2016 457 - PAY PERIOD 3/18/2016 HEALTH INS APRIL 2016 RETIREMENT APRIL 2016 VISION INS APRIL 2016 DENTAL APRIL 2016 - LIFE INS APRIL 2016 Processing Fee Pay Period - March 2, 2016 Through March 15, 2016 I, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, California certify that the above demands are accurate and there is available in the General Fund a balance of 556,950.46 for the payment of ve terns. it Rajmlond if Cruz,City Manager • Previously Disbursed NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF, 90274 (310) 3771521 FAX: (310) 3777288 AMOUNT 50.00 600.00 353.75 231.36 13,832.90 81.11 163.50 95.00 97.90 6,855.00 600.00 40.97 930.00 364.00 7,191.17 5,245.70 115.66 642.27 294.11 59.95 19,106.11 S 56,950.46 Printed on Recycled Paper 3/14/2016 4:24 PM /- ASSETS Cash & Cash Equivalents $ Cash & Crash Equivalents - Capital Project Fund Poppy Trail Grading Bond Accounts Receivable Prepaid Expense @ Deposits LIABILITIES FUND BALANCE Unassigned Fund Balance 4,427,508 - 133,218 23 536 482,706 257,502 (463) S II 1918 986 507 TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE 4,427,508 133,218 23,536 482,706 257,502 (463) 111,918 986.507 TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE& LIABILITIES $ 4,481,805 S 306,771 S 36,367 S 133,218 5 23,536 S 482,706 5 383,499 S (463) $ 111,918 5 986,507 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS BALANCE SHEET February 29, 2016 MUNICIPAL GENERAL& DEPOSIT OPER COPS & COMMUN. SELF- REFUSE TRAFFIC TRANSIT UTILITY CAPITAL FUND FUND TRUST CLEEP FACILMFS INSUR COLLECT. SAFETY PROP A. C.M FUND & TIM 4.465,313 S 1.771 S 36,367 $ 133,218 $ 23,536 $ 260,774 5 353,130 S (463) S 111,918 S 986,507 10,956 305,000 (3,703) 9,239 222,332 30,369 TOTAL ASSETS S 4,481,805 S 306,771 S 36,367 S 133,218 S 23,536 5 482,706 S 383,499 S (463) $ 111,918 $ 986,507 Accounts @ Contract Payable S - S S - S - 5 - 5 - S 125,997 S 5 Available for OPEB - 36,367 Deposits 23,803 306,771 Deferred Revenues 26,785 Employees Benefits Payable 3,709 - TOTAL LIABILITIES 54,297 306771 36367 - 125997 - - COMPOSITION OF CASH Petty Cash 5 1,500 OPUS Bank - Checking Account 44,720 OPUS Bank -Interest Checking Account 1,000,872 OPUS Bank - Money Market 1,084,203 Calif- State Local Agency Investment Fund 2.531,332 Malaga Bank - CDARS - CD's 1,700,000 S 6,382,627 Prepared Br Terry inance Director Appro i d By: Raymond Date Cnsz, City Manager BEGINNING YTD OF YEAR TOTAL TOTAL I 6,371,671 $ 6,061,616 10.956 10,956 305.000 305.000 248,998 381,398 9 239 27.797 S 6,945,864 S 6,786,767 5 125,997 S 128,965 36,367 330,574 331,574 26,785 6340 3,709 523.432 466.879 6,422,432 6,319,888 6,422,432 6,319,888 S 6,945,864 6,786,767 3 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Actual Compared to Annual Budget July 1, 2015 to February 29, 2016 GENERAL Fund Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue CITIZENS' OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue COMMUNITY FACILITIES Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue MUNICIPAL SELF-INSURANCE Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue REFUSE COLLECTION Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TRAFFIC SAFETY Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TRANSIT- PROPOSITION A, C, M & TDA Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue UTILITY FUND Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TOTAL ALL FUNDS Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue This Year Last Year This Year -- Better' ,i (Worse) Annual Budget & Adj. Remaining Budget $ 960,147 $ 971,702 $ (11,555) 1,779,550 $ 819,403 862,462 890,286 27,824 1,756,780 894,318 97,685 81,416 16,269 22,770 (74,915) (17,455) 11,200 (28,655) (332,943) (315,488) 80,230 92,616 (12,386) (310,173) (390,403) 114,618 » 97,277 17,341 100,200 (14,418) 71,115 - 42,700 (28,415) 104,500 33,385 43,503 • 54,577 •(11,074) (4,300) (47,803) 0 43,503 54,577 (11,074) (4,300) (47,803) - - - 100 100 - - - 57,700 57,700 - - - (57,600) (57,600) - - - 62,400 62,400.00 - _ - 4,800 4,800 235 3.998 3,763 228,332 228,097.00 (235) (3,998) 3,763 (228,332) (228,097.00) (235) (3,998) 3,763 (228,332) (228,097.00) 513,010 541,305 (28,295) 771,800 258,790 503,987 515,948 11,961 755,980 251,993 9,023 25,357 (16,334) 15,820 6,797 (16,000) (11,200) (4,800) (24,000) (8,000) (6,977) 14,157 (21,134) (8,180) (1,203) - - - 50 50 33,919 4,706 (29,213) 55,550 21,631 (33,919) (4,706) (29,213) (55,500) (21,581) 33,455 - 33,455 55,500 22,045 (464) (4,706) 4,242 - 464 56,654 54,908 1,746 84,141 27,487 56,654 54,908 1,746 84,141 27,487 56,654 54,908 1,746 84,141 27,487 33,799 - (33,799) 150,000 116,201.00 (33,799) - (33,799) (150,000) (116,201.00) - - 250,000 250,000.00 (33,799) - (33,799) 100,000 133,799.00 1,644,429 1,665,192 , (20,763) 2,735,841 1,091,412 1,505,517 1,457,638 . (47,879) 3,108,842 1,603,325 138,912 207,554 , - (68,642) (373,001) (511,913) - - - 10,957 10,957 $ 138,912 $ 207,554 $ (68,642) $ (383,958) $ (522,870) CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL ALLIED WASTE RECYCLE NOW REPORT Report Date: 2016 MONTH 2016 January February March April May June RECYCLED (tons) 74.63 82.00 GREEN WASTE (tons) 83.74 66.79 C&D Recycled 4.33 3.20 C&D Disposed 1.85 1.37 Disposal Diversion Tonnage % 151.42 145.47 51.49% 50.86% July August September October November December Year to Date Totals: Average Monthly Totals: 2016 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 156.64 78.32 150.53 75.27 7.53 3.76 3.23 MONTHLY TOTALS (tons) 315.97 298.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.19% 296.88 1.61 148.44 0.51 614.80 307.40 RECEIVED MAR 2 4 2016 City of Rolling Hills By Agenda Item No: 4-E Mtg. Date: 03/28/16 Rolling Hills City Council Personnel Committee March 14, 2016 6:00 PM Meeting Notes Participants Jeff Pieper, Mayor Bea Dieringer, Mayor Pro Tern Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager Terry Shea, Finance Director The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pieper at 6:03 pm Salary Survey The Committee met to discuss the Salary Survey and employee salary increases with their associated long-term Ca1PERS obligations: Finance conducted the Salary Survey of the 9 local cities as listed in the City's Personnel Rules and compared Rolling Hills to the 9 cities. Finance compared the City's current salaries to the average of the high end as well as the median of the high end. For the City's Planning Director and City Clerk/Executive Assistant positions, the City's salaries were significantly lower than amounts as highlighted on the Survey. The Mayor indicated that staff should not have used the high salary amount to compare to our salaries, but should have a used an average of the high and low for each position. The Finance Director stated he would prepare that schedule and will included it in the Staff Report for the Council meeting of March 28, 2016. The Finance Director continued to walk through the staff report and illustrated the schedules for a 3% and a 5% salary increase by position, which included the additional benefit costs associated with those raises. The Mayor asked if staff could include a separate page for each employee instead of combining them on to one schedule. The answer was yes and will be provided within the next staff report on the topic to the City Council. The Committee members wanted to know what would be the long-term pension costs for any potential salary increases, so staff included a report from our new software GovInvest for a 3% and a 5% raise. Staff discussed the reports and the Committee Members indicated they liked the reports but would like to see the same reports run using several different discount rate scenarios and would like someone from Govinvest to make a presentation to the entire Council under closed session The Mayor asked if Bonus Pay is subject to PERS, the Finance Director passed out a handout from PERS which details are reportable/non-reportable compensation. For it to be reportable 111. PERS compensation, it has to be contained in a written labor policy or agreement. Bonus pay is described as "Compensation to employees for superior performance such as "annual performance bonus" and "merit pay". A program or system must be in place to plan and identify performance goals and objectives. If provided only during a member's final compensation period, it shall be excluded from the final compensation as final settlement pay." The way the City of Rolling Hills Merit Pay is currently structured the bonus or merit pay would be subject to PERS. Therefore, most compensation options that could be offered would be reportable and it would be difficult (if not impossible) to construct a bonus plan that would not reportable to PERS. The City Manager reminded the Committee members that purpose of the salary survey was to keep the employees' salaries competitive to the marketplace, not to find options to allude paying associated PERS costs. Thus, the Committee then focused on to best method to bring the employees to a fair level of compensation that would not be too high in one particular fiscal year. The Committee Members decided because two of the positions were well below the range of the cities surveyed, the matter should be brought before the entire City Council to develop a strategy to help close the gap. To assist with this effort, staff will invite the CEO of GovInvest to help walk the City Council through various compensation options that will illustrate the long-term associated PERS obligations. This will done within a Closed Session of the March 28th City Council meeting. Traffic Commission Vacancy The City Manager reported to the Committee that two residents submitted applications for the open Traffic Commission position. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer stated that she believes that the City should knsgo through the regular notification process that includes announcements in the blue community newsletter. The two Committee Members agreed to re -advertise the recruitment for the vacancy based on the schedule that was attached to the staff report with the goal to have the City Council make the appointment at its May 9th meeting so that the new commissioner can participate in the May Traffic Commission meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:43 pm. Notes prepared by: Terry Shea INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 10-A Mtg. Date: 03/28/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR NATALIE C. KARPELES, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 347 OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING CHAPTER 17.29 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE PERSONAL CULTIVATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND IMPOSE AN EXPRESS BAN ON COMMERCIAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE CITY IN ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01. DATE PUBLISHED: MARCH 3, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 347 CAPTAIN BERINGER'S OPINION 1. It is recommended that the City Council introduce the attached ordinance for second reading and adoption, or provide other direction to staff. 2. The City Council held a public hearing in the matter of amendment to the Municipal Code at their March 14, 2016 meeting regarding cultivation, dispensaries and distribution of medical marijuana within the City and directed staff to bring forth the ordinance for a second reading. The ordinance would permit cultivation of marijuana for personal medicinal use only in a small area of the property (100 sq.ft. area per qualified patient and up to 500 sq.ft. for up to 5 qualified patients; either inside or outside), prohibit dispensaries and delivery, except delivery by a dispensary having a fixed storefront, cultivation cannot be visible from the street, easement or established trail. At the March 14, 2016 meeting, the City Council also considered the Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission, which recommended adoption of an ordinance, which would prohibit all cultivation, commercial and non-commercial (for personal use). That ordinance was recommended by the Planning Commission at a time when the matter was deemed to be urgent and an ordinance needed to be adopted by a certain date, if the City wished to control any type of marijuana activity within the City. The City Council chose to consider and held a public hearing on the more permissive ordinance. 3. Under federal law, the distribution of marijuana remains a federal offense. However, the federal government has traditionally relied on state and local authorities to address marijuana activities through strong state -based enforcement efforts. California is one of two dozen states that have legalized marijuana for medical use; yet the recreational use of marijuana is still unlawful in our state. In order to allow persons in need of medical marijuana to use it without fear of prosecution, California approved the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) in 1996. Similarly, in 2004, California approved the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) to clarify the scope of the CUA and to provide limited protection under the law for the cultivation of marijuana for qualifying patients and primary caregivers. On October 9, 2015, Governor Brown signed three bills into law - Assembly Bills 266 and 243, and Senate Bill 643 - collectively referred to as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act ("MMRSA"). Prior to the passage of the MMRSA, State law provided no legal mechanism for commercial cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes and Federal law prohibited all cultivation of marijuana. Until the MMRSA was passed, cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes in California was restricted to individual qualified patients or their primary care givers for non-commercial purposes and limited to personal quantities. The MMRSA became effective on January 1, 2016 and contains provisions that govern the cultivating, processing, transporting, testing, and distributing of medical marijuana to qualified patients. 4. Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (the City's Zoning Ordinance) lists specifically permitted uses within the City. As medical marijuana dispensaries are not permitted by right or with a conditional use permit, they are prohibited. Because the Rolling Hills Municipal Code does not currently expressly and separately prohibit the cultivation of marijuana or the delivery of marijuana within the City, Title 17 has historically been applied to prohibit or preclude these types of activities. In order to ensure full local control over regulation of commercial cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes in the City is preserved, the MMRSA contains language that requires commercial cultivation and delivery services to be expressly prohibited by local ordinance, if the City wishes to do so. Currently the City's Ordinance specifically states: 0 17.16.020 Permitted and prohibited uses. A. Uses permitted in the RA -S zone as primary uses include: 1. Single-family residences; 2. Tree, bush or field crops provided there is no retail sale from the premises and provided the activity does not cause undue traffic not normally associated with residential use. B. The following uses are prohibited in the RA -S zone: 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to offer or make available for rent or to rent (by way of a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written) for compensation a residential dwelling or a room in a dwelling for occupancy of less than thirty days. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person to occupy a residential dwelling or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty days pursuant to a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written, for compensation. 5. Staff requested an opinion on the proposed Ordinance from Captain Beringer of the Lomita Sheriff Station, which is attached. It is his opinion that the proposed Ordinance is responsive to the law and will not create public nuisance for the City or its enforcement agencies. 6. Per Council direction, staff with the help of City Attorney's office, contacted several local cities to find out what ordinance relating to the marijuana issue they adopted. Staff found the following: PVE - adopted a total ban (cultivation, dispensaries and delivery) prior to the March 1, 2016 dead line that cities were threatened with. RHE - adopted a total ban on cultivation and dispensaries; and allows limited (similar to RH) delivery Torrance - adopted a total ban on cultivation and dispensaries; and allows limited (similar to RH) delivery RPV - City Council put the item on hold until after November*. Hermosa Beach - adopted a total ban (cultivation, dispensaries and delivery) prior to the March 1, 2016 dead line *There is a strong possibility that an initiative will reach the ballot in November 2016 that would legalize marijuana and hemp under state law. The initiative was also designed to establish state agencies to oversee the licensing and regulation of the marijuana industry. Other larger and more distant cities: West Hollywood - allows for personal and limited commercial cultivation City of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Diego - allow for limited personal cultivation We also found that many Central and Northern California cities, some with abundance of open space similar to Rolling Hills, (Bishop, Berkeley, Concord, Chico, Lodi) allow for personal cultivation with various restrictions, such as: Limiting cultivation to a certain number of plants - Limiting cultivation to a certain number of square feet - Prohibiting outdoor cultivation - Allow only in enclosed, detached outdoor spaces - Prohibiting in rental units w/out owner consent - Prohibiting personal cultivation if someone under the age of 18 resides at the residence In addition, at the last meeting a question was raised if registration for medical marijuana cultivation with the City is necessary. The Assistant City Attorney responded to staff that the state law requires it. 7. The proposed Ordinance would: 1. Prohibit the commercial cultivation, delivery (by any mobile marijuana dispensary that does not have a fixed storefront and which operates solely as a mobile retail outlet which transports or delivers, or arranges the transportation or delivery of marijuana), and distribution of marijuana in all zones within the City by expressly listing them as a non -permitted uses 2. Add Chapter 17.29 to Title 17 ("Zoning") of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code to extensively regulate the delivery, cultivation and dispensing of marijuana within the City. Specifically, Chapter 17.29 will: (1) Prohibit mobile marijuana dispensaries from operating within the City; (2) Expressly prohibit deliveries of marijuana by mobile dispensaries without a fixed storefront, both within the City, as well as deliveries to and from the City; (3) Expressly prohibit the cultivation of marijuana for commercial purposes anywhere in the City, unless preempted by state or federal law; (4) Regard any violation of the ordinance to be a nuisance subject to summary abatement, and/or administrative citation, among other enforcement remedies; and (5) Permit the cultivation of medical marijuana for personal use only when conducted in conformance with the following specific standards: (Pursuant to Chapter 3.5 of the California Business and Professions Code, commencing with section 19300 and California Health and Safety Code commencing with section 11362). (a) Only qualified patients and/or primary caregivers may cultivate, and only pursuant to square footage parameters outlined by State law; (b) Only persons who reside on the parcel full-time may cultivate on that parcel; (c) Cultivation is only permitted on parcels with residential units; (d) The use of gas products to cultivate is prohibited; (e) The sale of medical marijuana is prohibited, notwithstanding the exceptions for compensation outlined in Health and Safety Code section 11362.765(c); (f) Cultivation activities cannot be visible from the street, easement or established trail (g) The cultivation of marijuana shall not create a public nuisance due to noise, dust, glare, odor, gases, vibrations, safety, etc. • (h) The cultivation of marijuana shall be conducted in accordance with State and local laws related to land conversion, grading, electricity usage, water usage, agricultural discharge, etc. 3. Cultivation Registration. Prior to commencing any medical marijuana cultivation, any person would have to register for medical marijuana cultivation with the City. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 0 ORDINANCE NO. 347 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING CHAPTER 17.29 IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE PERSONAL CULTIVATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND IMPOSE AN EXPRESS BAN ON COMMERCIAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE CITY IN ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does ordain as follows: Section 1. Commercial medical marijuana activities, including commercial cultivation, can adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Section 2. Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC") Section 17.08.050 provides that uses not specifically permitted in the RHMC are prohibited. Section 17.16.020 provides a list of permitted uses and prohibited uses. Commercial uses are not specifically permitted; therefore, they are prohibited. However, the City has determined that recent developments in State Law regarding the regulation of medical marijuana make it necessary to clarify that uses such as the commercial cultivation and dispcnsing of marijuana are expressly banned in the City of Rolling Hills. Section 3. The City Council does hereby find as follows: A. On October 9, 2015, Governor Brown signed three bills into law — Assembly Bills 266 and 243, and Senate Bill 643 — collectively referred to as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act ("MMRSA"). The MMRSA became effective on January 1, 2016 and contains provisions that govern the cultivating, processing, transporting, testing, and distributing of medical marijuana to qualified patients. B. Commercial medical marijuana activities can adversely affect the health, safety, and well-being of City residents. Further, as recognized by the Attorney General's August 2008 Guidelines for the Security and Non -Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use, marijuana cultivation or other concentration of marijuana in any location or premises without adequate security increases the risk that surrounding homes or businesses may be negatively impacted by nuisance activity such as loitering or crime. C. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) does not currently expressly and separately prohibit the commercial cultivation of marijuana within the City, Title 17 has historically been applied to prohibit or preclude these types of activities. In order to ensure full local control over regulation of commercial cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes in the City is preserved, the MMRSA requires the City to adopt an ordinance expressly regulating cultivation and delivery, if the City wishes to do so. D. The Zoning Ordinance text amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan because the proposed ordinance is in the public interest and there are Ordinance No. 347 1 Medical Marijuana community benefits resulting from the regulation of medical marijuana. E. The Zoning Ordinance text amendments promote the health, safety, and welfare of Rolling Hills' residents and serve the goals and purposes of RHMC Title 17 by ensuring compliance with the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. Section 4. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the environmental impacts of the action be assessed. The proposed amendment will not in itself result in any environmental impacts nor will the amendment result in any changes in the physical conditions that exist in the City. Staff has determined the proposed ordinance to be Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines per § 15061 (b)(3). Section 5. Section 17.08.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.08.050 - Zoning compliance required. A. Except as provided in this title, no building shall be erected, reconstructed or structurally altered, nor shall any building or land be used for any purpose except as specifically provided for and allowed by this title. Any use or structure not specifically permitted by this title shall be prohibited. B. The commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of marijuana are expressly prohibited in all zones of the City (per Section 17.16.020 B and Chapter 17.29). Accordingly, the City shall not issue any permit, license, or other entitlement for the commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of marijuana. Section 6. Section 17.16.020(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding subparagraphs 3 and 4 to read as follows: 17.16.020 — Permitted and prohibited uses. B. The following uses are prohibited in the RA -S zone: 3. Dispensing of Cannabis and Cannabis delivery by any mobile marijuana dispensary (as that term is further defined in section 17.29.010) that does not have a fixed storefront and which operates solely as a mobile retail outlet which transports or delivers, or arranges the transportation or delivery, of Cannabis to a Person, including deliveries made via any technology platform owned and controlled by the mobile medical marijuana dispensary, or independently licensed by the State under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, which enables persons, qualified patients, and/or primary caregivers to arrange for or facilitate the commercial transfer of medical marijuana or medical marijuana products, defined in Chapter 3.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as may be amended. 4. Commercial cannabis activities, including cultivation, possession, manufacture, possessing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, transporting, distribution, or sale of medical marijuana or medical marijuana products, except as set forth in Ordinance No. 347 Medical Marijuana Business and Professions Code section 19319, related to qualified patients and/or primary caregivers. Section 7. Title 17, Chapter 17.29, "Medical Marijuana Regulation" is hereby added to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code to read as follows: Title 17 Chapter 17.29 Medical Marijuana Regulations Sections: 17.29.010 Definitions. 17.29.020 Prohibition. 17.29.030 Cultivation Registration. 17.29.040 Exception. 17.29.050 Public Nuisance. Section 17.29.010 Definitions. As used in this chapter: Cannabis, or Marijuana„ shall _have the same, definition as Health and Safety Code section_-_ 11018. Commercial Cannabis Activity means cultivation, possession, manufacture, processing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, transporting, distribution, or sale of Medical Cannabis or a Medical Cannabis product, except as set forth in Business and Professions Code Section 19319, related to Qualifying Patients and Primary Caregivers. Commercial cannabis activity does not include: (1) a qualified patient, who cultivates, possesses or stores cannabis exclusively for his or her personal medical use and who does not provide, donate, sell, or distribute cannabis to any other person; and (2) a primary caregiver who cultivates, stores, possesses, donates, or provides cannabis exclusively for the personal medical purposes of no more than five (5) specified qualified patients but who does not receive remuneration for these activities except for compensation in full compliance with Section 11362.765(c) of the Health and Safety Code. Cultivation means any activity • involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of Cannabis. Delivery shall include the use by a Dispensary of any technology platform owned and controlled by the Dispensary, or independently licensed by the State under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, which enables Persons, Qualified Patients, and/or Primary Caregivers to arrange for or facilitate the commercial transfer of Medical Cannabis or Medical Cannabis products. The term "Delivery" does not include the distribution of Cannabis from a Mobile Marijuana Dispensary. Dispensary means a facility where Medical Cannabis, Medical Cannabis products, or devices for the use of Medical Cannabis or Medical Cannabis products are offered, either individually or in any combination, for retail sale, including an establishment that Delivers Medical Cannabis and Ordinance No. 347 3® Medical Marijuana Medical Cannabis products as part of a retail sale. Medical Cannabis means a product containing Cannabis, including but not limited to, concentrates and extractions, intended to be sold by Medical Cannabis patients in California pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 and 11362.7. Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act shall refer to Chapter 3.5 of the California Business and Professions Code, commencing with section 19300, et seq. Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries means any dispensary, cooperative, association, club, business, collective, operator, or provider that does not have a fixed storefront and which operates solely as a mobile retail outlet which transports or Delivers, or arranges the transportation of Delivery, of Medical Cannabis to a Person. Person means any individual, firm, corporation, association, club, society, or other organization. The term Person shall include any owner, manager, proprietor, employee, volunteer, or salesperson. Primary Caregiver shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 11362.7, as may be amended. Qualified Patient shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 11362.7, as may be amended, and which means a Person who is entitled to the protections of Health and Safety Code section 11362.5. For the purposes of this Article, Qualified Patient shall include a Person with an identification card, as that term is defined by Health and Safety Code section 11362.7 et seq. Section 17.29.020 Prohibition. A. Commercial Cannabis Activities of all types are expressly prohibited in all zones within the City's jurisdictional limits. No Person shall establish, operate, conduct, or allow a Commercial Cannabis Activity anywhere within the City. B. Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries (as defined in Section 17.29.010) are prohibited in all zones within the City's jurisdictional limits. No Person shall: 1. Locate, operate, own, suffer, allow to be operated or abide, abet or assist in the operation of any Mobile Marijuana Dispensary within the City; 2. Deliver Marijuana to any location within the City from a Mobile Marijuana Dispensary, regardless of where the Mobile Marijuana Dispensary is located, or engage in any operation for this purpose; or 3. Deliver any Medical Cannabis product, including, but not limited to tinctures, baked goods, or other consumable products, to any location within the City from a Mobile Marijuana Dispensary, regardless of where the Mobile Marijuana Dispensary is located, or engage in any operation for this purpose. C. Cultivation of medical marijuana is expressly prohibited in all areas of the City except as outlined below: Ordinance No. 347 4 GI Medical Marijuana 1. Medical marijuana for personal use may be cultivated in conformance with the following standards: a. By a qualified patient, cultivating marijuana pursuant to Section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code, if the area he or she uses to cultivate marijuana does not exceed 100 square feet and he or she cultivates marijuana for his or her personal medical use and does not sell, distribute, donate, or provide marijuana to any other person or entity. b. By a primary caregiver, cultivating marijuana pursuant to Section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code, if the area he or she uses to cultivate marijuana does not exceed 500 square feet and he or she cultivates marijuana exclusively for the personal medical use of no more than five (5) specified qualified patients for whom he or she is the primary caregiver and does not receive remuneration for these activities, except for compensation provided in full compliance with Health and Safety Code section 11362.765(c). c. A qualified patient may cultivate medical marijuana on the parcel where the qualified patient resides fulltime, and shall not participate in medical marijuana cultivation in any other location within the City. d. A primary caregiver may cultivate medical marijuana on the parcel where the primary caregiver resides fulltime, and shall not participate in medical marijuana cultivation in any other location within the City. e. Medical marijuana cultivation is permitted only on parcels developed with residential units. f. The use of gas products (including, without limitation, CO2, butane, propane, and natural gas) for indoor medical marijuana cultivation or processing is prohibited. g. Medical marijuana for sale is prohibited. Notwithstanding this section, a primary caregiver may recover from his or her qualified patient compensation provided in full compliance with Health and Safety Code section 11362.765(c). h. There shall be no exterior evidence of medical marijuana cultivation from any street, easement or designated trail. i. Any medical marijuana cultivated within a residence shall not create humidity, mold, or other nuisance conditions. j. The medical marijuana cultivation area shall not adversely affect the health or safety of the nearby residents by creating dust, glare, excessive light, noise, noxious gases, odor, smoke, vibration, or other impacts, and shall not be hazardous due to use or storage of materials, products, processes, or wastes. k. The cultivation of medical marijuana shall be in accordance with state and local laws related to land conversion, grading, electricity usage, water usage, agricultural discharges, and similar matters. 2. Processing marijuana for commercial sale is prohibited in all areas of the City. Section 17.29.030 Cultivation Registration. Prior to commencing any medical marijuana cultivation, the person(s) owning, leasing, renting, occupying, or having charge or possession of any Ordinance No. 347 5 11 Medical Marijuana legal parcel or premises where medical marijuana cultivation is proposed to occur must register for medical marijuana cultivation with the City. The following information will be required with the initial registration application and subsequent registration extensions: A. Notarized signature from the owner of the property consenting to the cultivation of marijuana at the premises on a form acceptable to the City. B. The name of each person owning, leasing, occupying, or having charge of any legal parcel or premises where medical marijuana will be cultivated. C. A copy of a current, valid identification card, as that term is defined by Health and Safety Code section 11362.7 et seq., and the name and of each qualified patient or primary caregiver who participates in the medical marijuana cultivation. D. The physical site address where the marijuana will be cultivated. E. A signed consent form, acceptable to the City, authorizing City Staff, including the Sheriff's Department, the authority to conduct an inspection of the site used for the cultivation of marijuana, upon twenty-four (24) hours' notice. F. The initial registration shall be valid for no more than two (2) years and may be extended in increments of two (2) years. G. The City Manager, or his or her designee, may, in his or her discretion, deny any application for a medical marijuana cultivation registration, or extension thereof, where he or she finds, based on articulated facts, that the issuance of such registration, or extension thereof, would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The City Manager shall deny an application for medical marijuana cultivation registration or extension thereof that does not demonstrate satisfaction of the minimum requirements of this chapter. The denial of any registration application or extension shall be subject to appeal by the Rolling Hills City Council. H. The City Council may establish a fee or fees required to be paid upon filing of an application for registration as provided by this chapter, which fees shall not exceed the reasonable cost of administering this chapter. Section 17.29.040 Exception. The Delivery of medical cannabis to qualified patients with valid identification cards or a verifiable written recommendation from a physician for medical cannabis, and primary caregivers with a valid identification card outside the premises of the medical cannabis dispensary, is permitted from a Dispensary with a fixed location operating outside of the City or a primary caregiver cultivating within the boundaries of the City. This exception does not include Deliveries made by Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries, as the term is defined in Section 17.29.010. Section 17.29.050 Public Nuisance. Any use or condition caused, or permitted to exist, in violation of any provision of this Article shall be, and hereby is declared to be, a public nuisance and may be summarily abated by the City pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 731 or any other remedy available to the City. Section 8. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences or clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 9. This Ordinance was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines (the Ordinance No. 347 6 @ Medical Marijuana Guidelines), and the environmental regulations of the City. The City Council hereby finds that under Section 15061(6)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that the provisions contained herein would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Section 10. The ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its passage. Section 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of , 2016. Mayor ATTEST: Heidi Luce, City Clerk Ordinance No. 347 7 Medical Marijuana STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING CHAPTER 17.29 IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE PERSONAL CULTIVATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND IMPOSE AN EXPRESS BAN ON COMMERCIAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE CITY IN ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01. Was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on , 2016 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. HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Ordinance No. 347 8 314 Medical Marijuana Tuesday, March 22, 2016 11:51 AM Subject: [GRAYMAIL] RE: Marijuana Ordinance Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 10:08 AM From: Daniel Beringer <DPBering@lasd.org> To: "Raymond R. Cruz" <rcruz@cityofrh.net> Cc: "hluce@cityofrh.net" <hluce@cityofrh.net> Upon reviewing the newly proposed ordinance, i believe that it will meet the needs of preserving the quality of life in the city, while allowing for those who have a proven medical need to cultivate in small quantities. It also falls in line with the intent of the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. The maximum cultivation areas of 10 0 and 500 square feet are sufficiently small as to not unfairly impinge upon the rights of the neighboring properties, given the distance between most homes in the city. I would not agree to personal cultivation in more densely populated urban communities, but Rolling Hills is unique. Due to limited access to the city from those without a lawful purpose, I would not suspect that theft of the plants would be a serious issue, due to the widespread availability of marijuana as a whole. While there may always be individuals who try to take advantage of the permitted cultivation, the issues can be abated as a public nuisance. Furthermore, I agree with the provision "There shall be no exterior evidence of medical marijuana cultivation from any street." Could that be broadened to include, "any public right of way?" While the cultivation may not be visible from the street, it could possibly be visible from trails. Captain Dan Beringer Lomita Station PH - (310) 891-3223 FAX - (323) 415-1991 MAR 2 2 2016 City of Rolling Hills By INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 11-A Mtg. Date: 03/28/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR KATHLEEN MCGOWAN, ENVIRONMENTAL CO ULTANT THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND THE CITIES OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, PALOS VERDES ESTATES, ROLLING HILLS, AND ROLLING HILLS ESTATES REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION AND COST SHARING FOR IMPLEMENTING THE COORDINATED INTEGRATED MONITORING PROGRAM (CIMP) FOR THE PENINSULA CIMP AGENCIES. DATE: MARCH 28, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: 1. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: 1) Approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, the County of Los Angeles, and the Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates to cooperatively fund and coordinate the payment and performance of monitoring and reporting services to implement the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) for the Peninsula Agencies. 2) Authorize the Mayor to sign the MOU. 0 BACKGROUND Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) Order No. R4-2012-0175, Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County (LA MS4 Permit), was issued to the City of Rolling Hills and the other agencies that are parties to the proposed MOU under the authority of the Federal Clean Water Act and the California Porter -Cologne Act. The LA MS4 Permit identifies conditions, requirements and programs that Permittees must meet to protect regional water resources from adverse impacts associated with pollutants in stormwater and non-stormwater runoff. These requirements include a monitoring and reporting program as described in Attachment E of the LA MS4 Permit, however, Permittees are afforded the flexibility to coordinate monitoring efforts on a watershed or subwatershed basis to increase cost -efficiency and effectiveness. The Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates, Rolling Hills and Palos Verdes Estates and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and County of Los Angeles (Peninsula CIMP Agencies) have been working under a previously executed MOU to develop a CIMP. The draft CIMP was submitted to the Regional Board on June 27, 2014, following approval by all participating agencies. The Rolling Hills City Council considered and approved the joint submittal of the draft CIMP at its meeting on June 9, 2014. After several revisions requested by the Regional Board a final approval of the Peninsula Agencies CIMP was confirmed by Regional Board staff on February 4, 2016. The Peninsula CIMP Agencies have now developed a new MOU to cooperatively share and fund the implementation of the CIMP (CIMP MOU) in order to carry out the monitoring and reporting program requirements of the LA MS4 Permit. Per LA MS4 Permit requirements, monitoring must commence within 90 days of CIMP approval by the Regional Board, or by April 21, 2016. In parallel with CIMP development and as required by the Regional Board as a condition of the City of Rolling Hills' participation in the CIMP without participation in the Peninsula Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP), the City of Rolling Hills prepared and submitted a Non -Storm Water Screening and Monitoring Program to the Regional Board on September 15, 2014. That program was approved with minor revisions on November 10, 2014. (The Non -Storm Water Screening and Monitoring Program and the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program reports are available at City Hall and may be viewed during regular business hours. The reports are also available electronically). DISCUSSION The CIMP MOU provides for the hiring of contractors to implement the Peninsula CIMP, prepare annual monitoring reports, and modify the CIMP as required by the LA MS4 Permit. The Peninsula CIMP addresses the required monitoring elements set forth in the LA MS4 Permit and as such is designed to: • Assess the chemical, physical, and biological impacts of stormwater and non- stormwater discharges on receiving waters. • Assess compliance with Receiving Water Limitations and Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations established to implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) • Characterize pollutant loads in municipal stormwater discharges. • Identify sources of pollutants in municipal stormwater discharges. • Measure and improve the effectiveness of pollutant controls implemented under the LA MS4 Permit. The major tasks for CIMP Implementation shown in Table 1 of Exhibit A of the CIMP MOU are described in detail in the Peninsula CIMP and are summarized briefly as follows: Receiving Water Monitoring_ The Peninsula CIMP includes sampling and analysis of a required suite of analytical parameters at two new near -shore monitoring locations in the Santa Monica Bay. Ongoing Coordinated Shoreline Monitoring along the Palos Verdes Peninsula, conducted by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County consistent with the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL, will continue at the same frequency and at the same five locations that have been monitored since 2004. The monitoring by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County is conducted at no cost to the Peninsula agencies and is not part of the CIMP field monitoring, however the data from this monitoring will be incorporated into annual reporting under the Peninsula CIMP. Outfall Monitoring: The Peninsula CIMP includes three stormwater outfall monitoring locations. Two of the locations are new and will be used to evaluate the quality of stormwater being discharged from the Palos Verdes Peninsula to Santa Monica Bay. A third location, already being used for Machado Lake TMDL monitoring, will also be utilized to meet LA MS4 Permit expanded monitoring requirements to evaluate the quality of stormwater being discharged from the Palos Verdes Peninsula to the Dominguez Channel Watershed, which includes both Machado Lake and the Greater Los Angeles Harbor. Ongoing Machado Lake TMDL monitoring currently being administered/contracted by the City of Rolling Hills Estates on behalf of all four Peninsula Cities has been incorporated into the Peninsula CIMP. Once the CIMP MOU is executed, this ongoing Machado Lake TMDL monitoring will be administered by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes under the CIMP MOU and Rolling Hills Estates will no longer serve as the lead agency for that work. Non-stormwater Outfall Monitoring; The Peninsula CIMP also includes an outfall screening and monitoring program to determine whether there are significant non- stormwater dry weather discharges to receiving waters that must be added to the outfall monitoring program. The City of Rolling Hills is not participating in this task, and is instead implementing a separate Non -Storm Water Screening and Monitoring Program as previously discussed under Background. Remaining Tasks: Remaining tasks shown in Table 1 of Exhibit A of the CIMP MOU include the preparation of an annual Integrated Monitoring Compliance Report (IMCR) for the Peninsula CIMP agencies. The IMCR will be based on data collected through CIMP monitoring as well as data provided by other agencies such as the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Effort for the development of the CIMP MOU and the request for proposals to carry out the Peninsula CIMP, along with related management and coordination of the contractor, are also included under Remaining Tasks. The CIMP MOU has a five-year term and provides for the parties to the MOU to contribute funds on an annual basis to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes who will act on behalf of the parties to procure a contractor for the CIMP implementation work. An administration fee of 5% will be paid to Rancho Palos Verdes out of the CIMP Implementation funds to compensate them for the cost of administering the work. Unless authorized by the parties in writing, the total annual shared cost for implementing the CIMP may not exceed $382,432 plus an adjustment for CPI. The total annual shared cost includes a five percent (5%) contract administration cost and a ten percent (10%) contingency. In order to establish the costs shown in Exhibit A of the CIMP MOU, the Peninsula CIMP Agencies collaboratively developed and issued a request for proposals to carry out the CIMP and received four proposals in response. The proposals were carefully reviewed and discussed by the Peninsula CIMP Agencies' staff representatives and stormwater consultants, and a contractor was selected to conduct the work based on the best value. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes will be awarding a contract to the selected contractor upon approval of the CIMP MOU by the other parties. The basis for cost sharing is illustrated in Tables 1, 2 and 3 in Exhibit A of the CIMP MOU. Having no jurisdiction over land use, but in consideration of its role as a co-Permittee and its responsibility for operation of significant portions of the storm drain system, the LACFCD has agreed to a 5% share of the CIMP implementation costs and consistent with its CIMP implementation cost -sharing agreements with other watershed groups under the LA MS4 Permit. Each of the other parties to the CIMP MOU is allocated a percentage share of the remaining Total CIMP Annual Implementation Cost (after subtraction of the LACFCD 5% cost share) based on each party's respective land area and whether it is participating in each of the key tasks, e.g., as shown in Table 3 of Exhibit A of the MOU the City of Rolling Hills is not participating in the Outfall Screening task or the cost sharing for that task because it is required to implement its own screening program. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is being credited for its up -front costs for development of the request for proposals and the CIMP MOU as well as for the Non-stormwater Screening that had to be conducted prior to execution of the CIMP MOU in accordance with LA MS4 Permit requirements. The CIMP MOU has been drafted and revised based on review and comment by the Peninsula CIMP Agencies' representatives and their attorneys. The final CIMP MOU provided for your consideration has been reviewed by the City Attorney and approved as to form. ALTERNATIVE The alternative to entering into this MOU would be for the City to undertake individual monitoring to meet the LA MS4 Permit requirements and this would be far more costly to the City and would be counter to its previously stated intent to the Regional Board to participate in a coordinated effort. FISCAL IMPACT The City of Rolling Hills' annual share of the costs under the CIMP MOU will not exceed $39,710. However as previously noted, the Peninsula CIMP incorporates the ongoing Machado Lake TMDL monitoring that has been conducted by the Peninsula CIMP agencies for the past five years. The City of Rolling Hills' annual share of the Machado Lake TMDL monitoring cost has been approximately $10,000 to 12,000 annually and since this will no longer be incurred after the CIMP MOU is executed, the net fiscal impact to the City of the CIMP MOU is approximately $30,000 annually. The cost estimates presented in Exhibit A of the CIMP MOU may be subject to change pursuant to new Regional Board requirements and/or unforeseen challenges in the field. Any such changes will require written approval of the parties, however as previously noted, a ten percent contingency has been included in the CIMP MOU to allow for such changes within limits without having to amend the MOU. CONCLUSION The CIMP MOU provides for carrying out monitoring requirements of the LA MS4 Permit that must be commenced by April 21, 2016. The Peninsula CIMP provides for coordination of monitoring efforts on a watershed basis to increase cost -efficiency and effectiveness of the monitoring requirements through a monitoring plan designed to support Enhanced Watershed Management Program implementation and adaptive management. KM:YS:h1 CIMP MOU Staff RprLdocx v THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 0 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND THE CITIES OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, PALOS VERDES ESTATES, ROLLING HILLS, AND ROLLING HILLS ESTATES REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION AND COST SHARING FOR IMPLEMENTING THE COORDINATED INTEGRATED MONITORING PROGRAM (CIMP) FOR THE PENINSULA CIMP AGENCIES This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), is made and entered into between THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a body corporate and politic, THE CITY OF PALOS VERDES ESTATES, a body corporate and politic, THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, a body corporate and politic, THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, a body corporate and politic, LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (LACFCD), a body corporate and politic, and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (COUNTY), a political subdivision of the State of California. Collectively, these entities shall be known herein as "PARTIES" or individually as "PARTY". WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Regional Board) adopted the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit Order No. R4-2012-0175 (MS4 Permit); and WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit became effective on December 28, 2012, and requires that the LACFCD, the COUNTY, and 84 of the 88 cities (excluding Avalon, Long Beach, Palmdale, and Lancaster) within Los Angeles County comply with the prescribed terms of the MS4 Permit; and WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit identified the PARTIES as permittees that are responsible for compliance with the MS4 Permit requirements pertaining to the Los Angeles Region's Watershed Management Area(s); and WHEREAS, the PARTIES entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on August 6, 2013 to collaborate in the development of a Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) for the Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel Watershed(s) within the Palos Verdes Peninsula Enhanced Watershed Management Program Area; and WHEREAS, the CIMP was submitted to the Regional Board by the PARTIES on June 27, 2014 and was approved by the Regional Board on February 4, 2016; and Page 1 of 14 0 WHEREAS, the PARTIES collaboratively selected contractors (CONTRACTORS) to assist the PARTIES with implementation of the CIMP, which is incorporated into this MOU by reference; and WHEREAS, the PARTIES propose to hire CONTRACTORS as set forth in Section 6(a) below, to implement the CIMP, prepare CIMP Annual Reports, and prepare any necessary revisions to the CIMP in compliance with the MS4 Permit; and WHEREAS, the PARTIES have determined that hiring CONTRACTORS to implement the CIMP will be beneficial to the PARTIES, and they have agreed to contribute funds to the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, who will act on behalf of the PARTIES to contract with the CONTRACTORS for the implementation of the CIMP; and WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed to cooperatively share and fully fund the actual costs of implementing the CIMP, as estimated in Table 1 of Exhibit A, based on the cost allocation formula contained in Table 2 of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed that the total annual cost for implementing the CIMP shall not exceed $382,432 which includes a five percent (5%) contract administration cost and a ten percent (10%) contingency; and WHEREAS, the PARTIES agree that each shall assume full and independent responsibility for ensuring its own compliance with the MS4 Permit despite the collaborative approach of the MOU. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by the PARTIES, and of the promises contained in this MOU, the PARTIES agree as follows: Section 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated into this MOU. Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of this MOU is to cooperatively fund the implementation of the CIMP and to coordinate the payment and performance of the monitoring and reporting services. Section 3. Cooperation. The PARTIES shall fully cooperate with one another to attain the purposes of this MOU. Section 4. Voluntary. This MOU is voluntarily entered into for the implementation of the CIMP. Section 5. Term. This MOU shall become effective on the last date of execution by a PARTY (EFFECTIVE DATE), and shall remain in effect for five (5) years from the EFFECTIVE DATE. Page 2 of 14 0 Section 6. The CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES agrees: a. Consultant Services. To select CONTRACTORS for implementation of the CIMP, and any subsequent changes to the CIMP as agreed upon by the PARTIES and approved by the Regional Board. The CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES will be compensated for the administration of the consultant services contracts at a rate of five percent (5%) of each PARTY's contract cost as described in Table 2 of Exhibit A. The CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES will comply with all of its procurement requirements applicable to said selection. b. LACFCD Facilities. To obtain any necessary permits from LACFCD for access to and construction within LACFCD storm drains, channels, catch basins, and similar properties (FACILITIES) and provide written notice seventy-two (72) hours in advance of entry to LACFCD's FACILITIES. c. Report. To submit reports to the Regional Board as described in the CIMP and distribute copies of the reports to the PARTIES for review and comment prior to submittal to the Regional Board. The CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES will provide the PARTIES with an electronic copy of the draft CIMP Annual Report and completed CIMP Annual Report within seven (7) business days after receipt from the CONTRACTORS. In addition, the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES will submit to the PARTIES the data used to prepare the reports. This data will be transmitted electronically in a Microsoft Excel format that contains the table structure and syntax agreed upon by the PARTIES. d. Invoice. To invoice the PARTIES in amounts not exceeding the invoice amounts shown in Table 2 of Exhibit A. The annual payments for the period of July 1 through June 30 will be invoiced in July of that year, except for the first invoice, which will be issued within thirty (30) days of the EFFECTIVE DATE. At the end of each fiscal year, any unused funds will be rolled over and used towards future years of CIMP implementation. e. Expenditure. To utilize the funds deposited by the PARTIES only for the administration of the consultant services contracts and the implementation of the CIMP. The CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES will provide an accounting of funds expended and remaining at the end of each fiscal year. f. Termination. To provide an accounting upon termination of this MOU. At the completion of the accounting, the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES shall retum any unused portion of all funds deposited with the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES in accordance with the cost allocation formula set forth in Table 2 of Exhibit A. g. Permits. To make a full -faith effort to work with the CONTRACTORS to obtain all necessary permits for installation of permanent infrastructure or modifications to Page 3 of 14 0 monitoring sites, and subsequent access during monitoring events and maintenance. Section 7. The LACFCD agrees: a. Access to LACFCD Facilities. To grant access to the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES and its CONTRACTORS to LACFCD FACILITIES to achieve the purposes of this MOU, provided the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES and its CONTRACTORS obtain a permit and provide written notice seventy-two (72) hours in advance of entry to LACFCD's FACILITIES. Section 8. The PARTIES further agree: a. Payment. To fund the cost of the implementation of the CIMP and to pay the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES for their proportional share of the estimated cost for the implementation of the CIMP and contract administration not exceeding the invoice amounts as shown in Table 2 of Exhibit A, within sixty (60) days of receipt of the invoice from the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES. The cost estimates presented in Exhibit A have been agreed upon by the PARTIES and are subject to changes in the CIMP pursuant to new Regional Board requirements and/or unforeseen challenges in the field. Any such changes proposed to the PARTIES' proportional share are subject to funding appropriation and will require written approval of the PARTIES. b. Documentation. To make a full -faith effort to cooperate with one another to achieve the purposes of this MOU by providing all requested information and documentation in their possession and available for release to the CONTRACTORS that is deemed necessary by the PARTIES to implement the CIMP. c. Access. Each PARTY will allow reasonable access and entry to the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES and its CONTRACTORS, on an as needed basis during the term of this MOU, to each PARTY's FACILITIES to achieve the purposes of this MOU, provided, however, that prior to entering any of the PARTY's FACILITIES, the CONTRACTORS shall obtain a permit (if required by PARTY) or other approval from such PARTY and provide written notice in advance of entry to the applicable PARTY (in accordance with LACFCD or the applicable agency's notification policy). d. Permit. Each PARTY will make a full -faith effort to work with the CONTRACTORS to obtain all necessary permits for installation of permanent infrastructure or modifications to stormwater monitoring sites within each PARTY's jurisdiction. Section 9. Indemnification. Page 4 of 14 a. Each PARTY shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless every other PARTY, including its special districts, elected and appointed officers, employees, agents, attorneys, and designated volunteers from and against any and all liability, including, but not limited to demands, claims, actions, fees, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorney's and expert witness fees), arising from or connected with the respective acts of that PARTY arising from or related to this MOU; provided, however, that no PARTY shall indemnify another PARTY for that PARTY's own negligence or willful misconduct. b. In light of the provisions of Section 895.2 of the Government Code of the State of California imposing certain tort liability jointly upon public entities solely by reason of such entities being parties to an agreement (as defined in Section 895 of said Code), each of the PARTIES hereto, pursuant to the authorization contained in Government Code Sections 895.4 and 895.6, shall assume the full liability imposed upon it or any of its officers, agents, or employees, by law for injury caused by any act or omission occurring in the performance of this MOU to the same extent such liability would be imposed in the absence of Section 895.2 of the Government Code. To achieve the above stated purpose, each PARTY indemnifies, defends, and holds harmless every other PARTY for any liability, cost, or expense that may be imposed upon such other PARTY solely by virtue of said Section 895.2. The provisions of Section 2778 of the California Civil Code are made a part hereof as if incorporated herein. Section 10. Termination and Withdrawal. a. This MOU may be terminated upon the express written agreement of all PARTIES. If this MOU is terminated, then all PARTIES must agree on the equitable redistribution of remaining funds deposited, if there are any, or payment of invoices due at the time of termination. Completed work shall be owned by the PARTY or PARTIES who fund the completion of such work. Rights to uncompleted work by the CONTRACTORS still under contract will be held by the PARTY or PARTIES who fund the completion of such work. b. If a PARTY wishes to withdraw from this MOU for any reason, that PARTY's governing body must adopt a resolution approving the PARTY's withdrawal, and that PARTY must give the other PARTIES and the Regional Board prior written notice of the withdrawal. The withdrawing PARTY shall be responsible for its share of the CIMP implementation cost through the end of the then current monitoring year (July 1 through June 30), including costs for reporting of data and results during the monitoring year which said PARTY withdraws. Moreover, unless the withdrawing PARTY provides written notice of withdrawal to the other PARTIES by March 1, the withdrawing PARTY shall also be responsible for its share of the CIMP implementation costs through the end of the following monitoring year (e.g., If a PARTY withdraws on or after March 2, 2016, said PARTY is responsible for its share of costs for both monitoring year 2015-2016 and monitoring year 2016-2017. Page 5 of 14 If the same PARTY withdraws on or before March 1, 2016, said PARTY is responsible for costs only for monitoring year 2015-2016, not for monitoring year 2016-2017.). Such CIMP implementation costs shall include the remaining fees of any CONTRACTORS retained by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes through the end of the applicable monitoring year(s). The effective date of withdrawal shall be the sixtieth (60th) day after the City of Rancho Palos Verdes receives written notice of a PARTY's intent to withdraw. Should any PARTY withdraw from this MOU, the remaining PARTIES' cost share allocation shall be adjusted in accordance with the cost allocation formula in Table 2 of Exhibit A. Each PARTY shall be responsible for its proportional share of the CIMP implementation costs incurred through the completion of all requirements of the monitoring year (e.g., completion of the annual report due December 15, 2016, covering the monitoring period from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016). Each PARTY shall also be responsible for the payment of its own fines, penalties and costs incurred as a result of the non-performance of the CIMP. c. If a PARTY fails to substantially comply with any of the terms or conditions of this MOU, then that PARTY shall forfeit its rights to work completed through this MOU, but no such forfeiture shall occur unless and until the defaulting PARTY has first been given notice of its default and a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged default. As used in this MOU, a "reasonable opportunity to cure" means within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notice of a default, or under circumstances where the default cannot reasonably be cured within a fourteen (14) day period, the PARTY fails to begin curing such default within the fourteen (14) day period, or fails to continue to diligently correct such default until finally cured. d. The CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES shall notify in writing all PARTIES, and may notify the Regional Board, within fourteen (14) days of any PARTY failing to cure an alleged default in compliance with the terms or conditions of this MOU. The non -delinquent PARTIES will determine the next course of action. The remaining cost will be distributed based on the existing cost allocation formula in Table 2 of Exhibit A, subject to annual funding availability. If the increase is more than the ten percent (10%) contingency, an amendment to this MOU must be executed to reflect the change in PARTIES and cost share. Section 11. General Provisions. a. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports relating to this MOU, and any request, demand, statement, or other communication required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the representatives of the PARTIES at the addresses set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The PARTIES shall promptly notify each other of any change of contact information, including personnel changes, provided in Exhibit B. Written notice shall include notice delivered via e-mail. A notice shall be deemed to have been received on (a) the date of delivery, if delivered by hand Page 6 of 14 during regular business hours, or by e-mail; or (b) on the third (3rd) business day following mailing by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested) to the addresses set forth in Exhibit B. b. Administration. For the purposes of this MOU, the PARTIES hereby designate as their respective PARTY representatives the persons named in Exhibit B. The designated PARTY representatives, or their respective designees, shall administer the terms and conditions of this MOU on behalf of their respective PARTY. Each of the persons signing below on behalf of a PARTY represents and warrants that he or she is authorized to sign this MOU on behalf of such PARTY. c. Relationship of the PARTIES. The PARTIES are, and shall at all times remain as to each other, wholly independent entities. No PARTY to this MOU shall have power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of any other PARTY unless expressly provided to the contrary by this MOU. No employee, agent, or officer of a PARTY shall be deemed for any purpose whatsoever to be an agent, employee, or officer of another PARTY. d. Binding Effect. This MOU shall be binding upon, and shall be to the benefit of the respective successors, heirs, and assigns of each PARTY; provided, however, no PARTY may assign its respective rights or obligations under this MOU without prior written consent of the other PARTIES. e. Amendment. The terms and provisions of this MOU may not be amended, modified, or waived, except by an instrument in writing signed by all non -delinquent PARTIES. A PARTY shall be considered delinquent if that PARTY fails to timely pay an invoice as required by Section 8(a), withdraws pursuant to Section 10(b), or fails to substantially comply with the terms and/or conditions of this MOU pursuant to Section 10(c). f. Law to Govern. This MOU is governed by, interpreted under, and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. g. Severabilitv. If any provision of this MOU shall be determined by any court to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable to any extent, then the remainder of this MOU shall not be affected, and this MOU shall be construed as if the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this MOU. h. Entire Agreement. This MOA constitutes the entire agreement of the PARTIES with respect to the subject matter hereof. i. Waiver. Waiver by any PARTY to this MOU of any term, condition, or covenant of this MOU must be express and in writing, and shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any PARTY to any breach of the provisions of this MOU must be express and in writing, and shall not constitute a Page 7 of 14 J• waiver of any other provision, nor a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this MOU. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument, provided, however, that such counterparts shall have been delivered to all PARTIES to this MOU. k. No Presumption in Drafting. All PARTIES have been represented by legal counsel in the preparation and negotiation of this MOU. Accordingly, this MOU shall be construed according to its fair language. Any ambiguities shall be resolved in a collaborative manner by the PARTIES and shall be rectified by amending this MOU as described in Section 11(e). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES hereto have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives and affixed as of the date of signature of the PARTIES: Page 8 of 14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES By GAIL FARBER, Director of Public Works Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: MARY C. WICKHAM Interim County Counsel By Deputy Date Page 9 of 14 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT By GAIL FARBER, Chief Engineer Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: MARY C. WICKHAM Interim County Counsel By Deputy Date Page 10 of 14 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Date: By: City Manager ATTEST: By: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: City Attorney Page 11 of 14 CITY OF PALOS VERDES ESTATES Date: By: James F. Goodhart, Mayor ATTEST: By: Vickie Kroneberger City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney By: Christi Hogan Page 12 of 14 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES Date: By: Steve Zuckerman, Mayor ATTEST: By: Doug Prichard City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney By: Donald M. Davis Page 13 of 14 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Date: By: Mayor ATTEST: By: Heidi Luce City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney By: Michael Jenkins 0) Page 14 of 14 EXHIBIT A Peninsula Watershed Management Group Funding Contributions for CIMP Implementation Table 1. Total CIMP Annual' Implementation Costs • Description Labor Analytical Equipment and ODC Total Cost Hours Hourly . Rate Cost Cost Cost Nonstormwater Screening Non -SW Screening/Source ID/Reporting $24,810 $24,810 Nonstormwater Screening Total $24,810 Receiving Water Monitoring Sampling Plan and Integrated Health and Safety Plan $7,600 . Receiving Water Sampling $20,200 Sample Analysis and QA/QC $50,300 Electronic Data Management and Reporting $11,700 Receiving Water Monitoring Total $89,800 Outfall Monitoring Sampling Plan and Integrated Health and Safety Plan $13,900 Outfall Sampling $119,750 2 Flowmeters (Optional) $18,450 Sample Analysis and QA/QC $24,200 Electronic Data Management and Reporting $6,200 Outfall Monitoring Total (with optional costs) $182,500 Remaining Tasks Project Initiation and Planning 20 $125 $2,500 $2,500 MOU/RFP Development 52 $125 $6,500 $6,500 Integrated Monitoring Compliance Report 200 $125 525,000 $25,000 Remaining Tasks Total $34,000 SubTotal Cost (without Contingency or Admin.) $331,110 Contingency Factor 10% Contingency $33,111 Administration Cost (5%)2 $18,211 Total Cost 5382,432 LACFCD Allocation (5%)3 $19,122 Total Remaining Cost for Participation and Area Based Allocation (Total Cost Less LACFCD 5%) $363,310 2 The annual costs for subsequent years are not to exceed this amount plus CPI. 2 Administration costs are estimated to be 5% of the estimated total cost plus contingency. 3 The Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) has committed to contributing 5% of the Total Cost for their share in the implementation of the CIMP. LACFCD's cost share equals 5% of (total cost + contingency + administrative costs). Page A-1 Party Area (Sq. mi.) Percent of Agency Areal Percent of City Area2 Total without Contingency or Admin Contingency3 Contract Administration (5%) Total Annual Cost' City of Rancho Palos Verdess 13.5 52.73% 54.22% 5168,793 516,879 59,284 5194,956 City of Palos Verdes Estates 4.8 18.75% 19.28% 560,015 56,002 53,301 569,318 City of Rolling Hills Estates 3.6 14.06% 14.46% $45,011 54,501 $2,476 $51,988 City of Rolling Hills' 3.0 11.72% 12.05% 534,381 53,438 51,891 539,710 County of Los Angeles? 0.7 2.73% N/A 56,354 $635 5349 $7,338 Area Allocated Total $363,310 LACFCD - - - 516,556 51,656 5910 $19,122 Total 25.6 100.00% 100.00% 5331,110 533,111 518,211 $382,432 1 Percent of Agency Area is the percent of total CIMP area including the County of Lo Angeles Unincorporated area. 2 Percent of City Area is the percent of CIMP area excluding the County of Los Angele Unincorporated area. 3 Contingency costs include 10% the total estimated implementation costs before administrative costs. 4 Total annual cost includes cost based on area plus administration costs for each agency. 6 The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has agreed to pay for the non-stormwater screening services and RFP/MOU development prior to MOU execution. 6 The City of Rolling Hills is paying for a separate nonstormwater screening; therefore, the nonstormwater screening costs are only applied to the agencies participating in those efforts. 7 The County of Los Angeles cost includes all services except for Receiving Water Monitoring. Table 3. Agency Participation Summary 1 Task RPV PVE RHE RH LAC LACFCD Receiving Water Monitoring Outfall Monitoring Outfall Screening RFP/MOU Development P P C C P P P P P P P P P P N P N P P P P P P P C P N RPV PVE Credited Participating Not Participating City of Rancho Palos Verdes City of Palos Verdes Estates RHE RH LAC LACFCD City of Rolling Hills Estates City of Rolling Hills County of Los Angeles LA County Flood Control District Page A-2 EXHIBIT B Peninsula Watershed Management Group CIMP MOU - Responsible Agencies Representatives 1. County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Watershed Management Division, 11th Floor 900 South Fremont Avenue Alhambra, CA 91803-1331 Party Representative: Angela George E-mail: AGEORGE@dpw.lacounty.gov Phone: (626) 458-4325 Fax: (626) 457-1526 2. Los Angeles County Flood Control District Department of Public Works, Watershed Management Division, 119' Floor 900 South Fremont Avenue Alhambra, CA 91803-1331 Party Representative: Terri Grant E-mail: TGRANT@dpw.lacounty.gov Phone: (626) 458-4309 Fax: (626) 457-1526 3. City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Party Representative: Andy Winje, Senior Engineer E-mail: andyw@rpv.com Phone: (310) 544-5249 Fax: (310) 544-5292 4. City of Palos Verdes Estates 340 Palos Verdes Drive West Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Party Representative: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager E-mail: adahlerbruch@pvestates.org Phone: (310) 378-0383 Fax: (310) 375-5918 Page B-1 5. City of Rolling Hills Estates 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Party Representative: Greg Grammer, Assistant City Manager E-mail: gregg@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us Phone: 310-377-1577 x-107 Fax: (310) 377-4468 6. City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Party Representative: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager E-mail: rcruz@cityofrh.net Phone: (310) 377-1521 Fax: (310) 377-7288 Page 8-2 a® INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 11-B Mtg. Date: 03/28/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERRY SHEA, FINANCE DIRECTOR �i THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER V SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 MID -YEAR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS DATE: MARCH 28, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: General Fund Summary Statement of Revenues and Expenditures Mid -Year Budget Adjustment #1 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council "receive and file" the Fiscal Year 2015-2016 mid -year budget review and approve the recommended budget adjustments. BACKGROUND On June 8, 2015 the City Council adopted Resolutions 1177 and 1178 for adoption of the 2015-16 (FY 15/16) budget and appropriations limit. The Adopted General Fund FY 15/16 budget included $1,779,550 in revenues, $1,756,780 in expenditures, $34,957 in transfers in and $367,900 in transfers out for a budgeted deficit of $310,173. DISCUSSION Mid -Year Budget Status At the mid -year point of the FY 15/16, total General Fund year-to-date revenues are $776,407 which is $23,414 more than expected with 50% of the year behind us. Expenditures are $680,977 which is $82,052 less than budgeted at mid -year. The FY 15/16 revenues compared to expenditures after transfers presents an increase of $170,320 compared to an anticipated, budgeted shortfall of $275,786 at mid -year. As such, the City is $105,466 better than anticipated at mid -year (Attachment 1). The budgeted mid -year shortfall is a direct correlation to cash flow; most revenues are received by the City later in the year. Total revenues are up slightly more than anticipated in property tax, property transfer tax and in licenses and permits, but due to the timing of remittances received from Los Angeles County, it is hard to project that revenue for the whole year. Total expenditures in Administration and Finance are as budgeted at mid -year. Total expenditures in Planning are less than anticipated due to the timing of the Los Angeles County and Willdan invoices for services. However, in Planning legal fees are over the projected mid -year amounts and will have to be increased. Mid -year Budget Adjustments We are proposing an increase in Real Estate Transfer Tax revenue of $10,000. In January and February we received our November and December remittances and we have received $8,946 for a year to date total of $35,223, which is higher than the original budget amount of $32,400., The General Fund proposed expenditure adjustments are an increase of $10,000 in Legal Expense -Other in Planning due to the increased need for City Attorney services. Included in the Legal Expense -Other in Planning are mediation fees associated with several cases and City Attorney costs associated with several complicated Committee on Trees and Views cases. The other reason that the Planning Legal Services account needs to be adjusted is due to the recent City Council action to appropriate over $13,000 to account for the underpayment for legal services to the firm Jenkins and Hogin associated to view impairment cases. The additional revenues of $10,000 will offset the increase in expenditures of $10,000. We are proposing a budget adjustment between Planning Department Salaries Full Time and Salaries Part Time for $21,600. Included in the Full Time Salaries was the Planning Assistant's salary for $59,600 for nine months. However, the position was not filled until January which will result in a budgeted savings of $22,000. The Part Time Salaries were budgeted for three months, but due to the timing of the hiring of the planning assistant, and the continued need for the services the position needs to be filled until May. CONCLUSION The FY 15/16 mid -year budget review shows the City has a positive budget variance of $105,466. The revenues are up $23,414, expenditures are down $82,052 and net transfers in (out) are equal. The proposed increase in revenues of $10,000 will offset the proposed expenditure increase of $10,000 and will leave a budgeted deficit of $310,173 for fiscal year 2015-16. It is recommended the City Council approve the proposed FY 15/16 mid -year budget adjustments for the General Fund. 3/24/2016 8:26 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES MID -YEAR REVIEW FY 2015-2016 VS FY 2014-2015 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADJUSTED ADJUSTED JULY JULY FY 15/16 SIX MONTH % ANNUAL DEC. DEC. VS FY 14/15 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 15/16 FY 14/15 Favorable FY 15/16 USED FY 15/16 USED (Unfavorable) GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES SUMMARY BEGINNING FUND BALANCE GENERAL FUND REVENUES $ 4.372,689 $ 4,372,689 TAXES 5 403,113 $ 379,355 $ 23,758 S 377,000 106.93% 5 889,600 45.31% OTHER AGENCIES 768 813 (45) 768 100.00% 180,000 0.43% LICENSES & PERMITS 317,385 210,529 106,856 307.000 103.38% 572,300 55.46% USE OF PROPERTY & MONEY 36,845 37,236 (391) 36,975 99.66% 74,950 49.16% OTHER REVENUES 18,296 27,133 (8)837) 31,250 58.515% 62,700 29.18% TOTAL REVENUES 5 776,407 5 655,066 5 121,311 S 752,993 103.11% 5 1,779,550 43.63% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 01 CITY ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEE SALARIES S 151,058 5 149,076 5 (1,982) 5 155,750 96.99% 5 311400 48.49% EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 68,917 58,429 (10,488) 67,175 102.59% 134,600 51.20% TOTAL PERSONNEL 219,975 207,505 (12,470) 222,925 98.68% 446,100 4931% _. MATERIA LS & SUPPLIES 38,616 33,117 (5,529) 17,063 82.12% 88,200 13.82% CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 29,953 39,026 9,073 36,550 81.95% 81,800 36.62% CAPITAI. OUTLAY - 6,911 6,911 - 0.00% 10,500 0.00% 01 TOTAL CITY ADMINISTRATION 5 288,574 S 286,559 5 (2,015) 316.558 91.14% 626,600 46.05/. 05 FINANCE MATERIALS & SUPPLIES - - - 0.00% 160 0.00% CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 46,714 55,002 8,288 58,300 80.13/. 116,120 40.23% CAPITAL OUTLAY 477 - (477) 500 0.00% 3,000 0.00% 05 TOTAL FINANCE S 47,191 S 55,002 S 7,811 $ 58,800 80.26% S 119,280 39.56% 15 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT EMPLOYEE SALARIES 5 71.513 5 66,702 5 (4,811) S 62,900 113.69% 5 177.200 40.36% EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 25,974 23,124 (2,850) 31,050 83.65% 66,200 39.24% TOTAL PERSONNEL 97,487 89,826 (7,661) 93,950 103.76% 243,400 40.05% MATERIALS&SUPPLIES 948 2,111 1,163 4,100 23.12% 8,200 11.56% CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 118,863 101,046 (17,817) 153,400 77.49% 411,700 28.87% - - - - - 0.00% 15 TOTAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT s 217,298 S 192,983 S (24,315) S 251,450 25 LAW ENFORCEMENT $ 89,136 5 74,992 $ (14,144) s 65 NON -DEPARTMENT 75 CITY PROPERTIES S 19,576 S 24,019 5 1,443 5 26,050 75.15% 5 52,600 37.22% 86.42% 5 663,300 94,691 94.13% S 230.400 32.76% 38.69% 5 19,202 5 28,280 5 9,078 5 25,500 75.30% 5 64,600 29.72% GENERAL FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES 5 680,977 5 661.835 5 (19,142) 5 763,029 89.25% 5 1,756,780 38.76% NET REVENUES BEFORE TRANSFERS $ 95,430 5 (6,769) 5 102,199 5 (10,036) 5 22,770 TRANSFERS 5 (265,750) s 8,800 $ (274.350) 5 (265,750) 100.00% S (332,943) 79.82% NET REVENUE(DEFICIT) AFTER TRANSFERS S (170,320) S 2,031 5 (172,351) S (275,786) $ (310,173) ENDING FUND BALANCE S 4,096,903 5 4,062,516 City of Rolling Hills 2015-2016 Br 324/2016 8:26 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES MID -YEAR REVIEW FY 2015-2016 VS FY 2014-2015 ACTUAL. ACTUAL ACTUAL ADJUSTED ADJUSTED JULY JULY FY 15/16 SIX MONTH % ANNUAL % DEC. DEC. VS FY 14/15 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 15/16 FY 14/15 Favorable FY 15/16 USED FY 15/16 USED (Unfavorable) GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES DETAIL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 4001 TAXES 401 Property Taxes S 375,967 S 355,739 S 20,228 S 360.000 101.41% S 853,300 14.06 405 Sales Tar 909 6,727 (5,818) 800 113.63% 3,900 23.31% 410 Real Estate Transfer Tax 26.237 16,889 9.348 16,200 161.96% 32.400 80.98% 4001 Total 403,113 379,355 23.758 377,000 106.93% 889,600 45.31% 4030 OTHER AGENCIES 420 Motor Vehicle in Lieu Tax -VLF 768 813 (45) 768 100.00% 180,000 0.43% 4050 LICENSES & PERMITS 440 Building & Other Permit Feel 284091 177.224 106.267 281,600 100.88% 512,000 55.49% 450 Variance, Planning & Zoning Fees 27,775 26,940 835 20,000 138.88% 40,000 69.14% 455 Animal Control Fees 522 796 (274) 650 80.31% 1,300 40.15% 460 Franchise Fees 4,997 4,969 28 4,750 105.20% 19,000 2630% 4050 Total 317385 210,529 106,856 307,000 103.38% 572.300 55.46% 4060 FINES & VIOLATIONS 480 Finn & Truffle Violations 8,906 4,229 4,677 6,150 144.81% 12,300 72.41% 5000 USE OF PROPERTY&MONEY 600 City Mall Leasehold RIICA 30,474 30,174 - 30,475 100.00% 60,950 50.00% 670 Interest Earned 6,371 6,762 (391) 6,500 98.02% 11,000 45.51% 5000 Total 36,845 37,236 (391) 36,975 99.65% r 71,950 19.16% 6000 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 601 Reimbursement GA M&O -RHCA - 602 Reimbursement PW M&O-RHCA 4,525 5,396 6000 Total 4,525 5,396 (871) (871) 4.500 100.56% 9.000 50.28% 4,500 100.56% 9.000 50.28% 650 PSAF & COPS 435 454 (19) 400 108.75% 800 5432% 655 Burglar Alarm Responses - 200 (200) 200 0.00% 600 0.00% 675 Miscellaneous 4,430 16,854 (12,424) 20,000 22.15% 40.000 11.08% 6700 Total 4,865 17,508 (12,643) 20,600 23.62% 11,400 11.75% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 5 776,107 S 655,066 S 121,341 5 752,993 103.11% 5 1,779,550 43.63% City of Rolling Hills 2015-2016 Bs 3/24/2016 8:26 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES MID -YEAR REVIEW FY 2015-2016 VS FY 2014-2015 • • ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADJUSTED ADJUSTED JULY JULY FY 15/16 SIX MONTH % ANNUAL DEC. DEC. VS FY 14/15 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 15/16 FY 14/15 Favorable FY 15/16 USED FY 15/16 USED (Unfovanbit) GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 01 CITY ADMINISTRATION 7001 Employee Salaries 702 Salaries Full Time S 151,058 S 149,076 5 (1,982) $ 155,750 96.99% S 311.500 48.49% 7001 Total 151,058 149,076 (1,982) 155,750 96.99% 311.500 48.49% 7005 Employee Benefits 710 Retirement CaIPERS- Employer 18,573 10,360 (8,213) 16,100 115.36% 32,200 57.68% 715 Workers Compensation Insurance 2,934 3,945 1,011 3,200 91.69% 6,400 45.84% 716 Group Insurance 27,714 26,051 (1,663) 28,000 98.98% 48,000 57.74•/. 717 Retiree Medical 8,578 8,991 413 9,000 95.31% 18,000 47.66% 718 Employer Payroll Taxes 8.102 8,202 100 8,100 100.02% 24,900 32.54% 719 Deferred Compensation 1,716 880 (836) 1,575 10&95% 2,700 63.56% 720 Auto Allowance 1,300 - (1,300) 1,200 108.33% 2,400 54.17% 7005 Total 68,917 58,429 (10.488) 67,175 10259% 134.600 51.20% 7500 Moteriab & Supplies 740 Office Supplies & Expense 6,874 7,039 165 7,500 91.65% 18,000 38.19% 745 Equipment Lensing Costs 1,931 1,124 (807) 1,250 154.48/ 2.500 77.24/ 750 Dues & Subscriptions 9,269 8,203 (1,066) 9,300 99.67% 11,000 84.26% 755 Conference Expense 4.681 1,451 (.3,210) 4,800 97.52% 8,200 57.09% 757 Meeting Expense 26 1,484 1,458 1,000 2.60% 2,000 130% 759 Training & Education - - - 750 0.00% 1,500 0.00% 761 Auto Mileage 44 284 240 325 13.54•/. 650 6.77% 765 Postage 3,000 6,194 3,194 7,500 40.00% 15,000 20.00/ 770 Telephone 2,940 2,878 (62) 3,033 96.93% 5,200 5654% 775 City Council Expense 3.471 629 (2,842) 5,000 69.42% 10,500 33.06% 780 Minutes Clerk Meetings 2,222 1,461 (761) 1,750 126.97% 3,500 63.49% 785 Codification 986 903 (83) 3,805 25.91% 6,050 16_10% 790 Advertising 490 - (490) 300 163.33% 600 0.00% 795 Other General Administrative Expense 2,712 1,467 (1,245) 750 361.60•/. 3.500 77.49% 7500 Total 38,646 33,117 (5,529) 47,063 82.12% 88,200 43.82% 8000 Contractual Services 801 City Attorney 20.327 28,729 8,402 25,000 81.31% 65,000 31.27% 802 Legal Expenses - Other - - - 2,250 0.00% 3,000 0.00% 820 Website 4,135 3,205 (930) 3,300 125.30% 6,000 6&92% 850 Election Expense City Council - 492 492 - 0.00% - 0.00% 890 Consulting Fees 5,491 6,600 1,109 6,000 91.52% 7,800 70.40% 8000 Total 29,953 39,026 9,073 36,550 81.95% 81,800 36.62% 9000 Capital Outlay 950 Capital Outlay - Equipment - 6,911 6,911 955 Capital Outlay - City Hail Improvements - 9000 Total 6,911 6,911 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 2,500 0.00% 8,000 0.00% 10,500 0.00% 01 TOTAL CITY ADMINISTRATION S 288,574 S 286.559 $ (2,015) $ 306,538 94.14% $ 626,600 46.05% City of Rolling Hills 2015-2016 Br 3242016 8:26 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES MID -YEAR REVIEW FY 2015-2016 VS FY 2014-2015 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADJUSTED ADJUSTED JULY JULY FY 15/16 SIX MONTH % ANNUAL % DEC. DEC. VS FY 14/15 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 15/16 FY 14/15 Favorable FY 15/16 USED FY 15/16 USED (Unfavorable) 05 FINANCE 7500 Materiab & Supplies 750 Dues&Subscriptions - - - 0.00% 160 0.00% 776 Miscellaneous Expense - - - 0.00% - 0.00% 7500 Total - - 0.00% 160 0.00% 8000 Contractual Services 810 Annual Audit 17,000 12,978 (4,022) 17,000 100.00% 17,000 100.0014 890 Consulting Fees 29,714 42,021 12,310 41,300 71.95/. 99,120 29.98% 8000 Total 46,714 55,002 8,288 58,300 80.13% 116,120 40.23% 9000 Capital Outlay 950 Capital Outlay -Equipment 177 - (477) 500 95.10% 3,000 15.90% 9000 Total Capital Outlay 177 (477) 500 95.40% 3,000 15.90% 05 TOTAL FINANCE 15 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT S 47,191 5 55,002 $ 7,811 5 58,800 80.26% S 119,280 56.13% 7001 Employee Salaries 702 Salaries Full Time S 54,791 S 53,654 S (1,137) $ 55,000 99.62% 3 169.300 32.36% 703 Salaries Part Time 16,722 13.048 (3,671) 7,900 211.67% 7,900 211.67% 7001 Total 71,513 66,702 (1,811) 62,900 113.69% 177,200 40.36•/. 7005 Employee Benefits 710 Retirement CaIPERS - Employer' 6,688 3,739 (2,949) 6,700 99.82% 17.500 38.22% 715 Workers Compensation Insurance 1,031 1,358 327 1,700 60.65/. 3,400 30.32% 716 Group Insurance 5,056 5,609 553 10,600 47.70% 21,200 23.85/. 718 Employer Payroll Taxes 5,570 4,935 (635) 7,100 78.45% 14,200 39.23% 719 Deferred Compensation 6,329 6,383 54 3,300 191.79% 6,600 95.89% 720 Auto Allowance 1,300 1,100 (200) 1,650 78.79% 3,300 39.39% 7005 Total 25,974 23,124 (2,850) 31,050 83.65% 66,200 39.24% 7500 Materials & Su pplies 758 Planning Commission Meeting 948 1,982 1,031 1,750 54.17% 3,500 27.09% 776 Miscellaneous Expenses - 129 129 2,350 0.00% 4,700 0.00% 7500 Total 948 2,111 1,163 4,100 23.12/. 8,200 11.56% 8000 Contractual Services 802 Legal Expense - Oilier 450 9,418 8,968 1,300 30.00% 3,000 15.00% 872 Property Development - Legal Expense 6,656 13,260 6,604 17,500 38.03% 35,000 19.02% 878 Build Inspection LA County/Wllldan 69,776 42,114 (27,662) 89,600 77.88% 215.000 32.45% 881 Storm Water Management 37,290 34,752 (2338) 40,000 93.23% 128,000 29.13% 882 Variance & CUP Expense 2,491 1,502 (989) 2,600 95.81% 5.200 47.90% 884 Special Project Study & Consultant 2.200 - (2,200) 2,200 100.00% 25.500 8.63% 8000 Total 118,863 101,046 (17,817) 153,400 77.49% 411,700 28.87% 15 TOTAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT $ 217.298 f 192,983 S 524,315) S 251,450 86.42/. $ 663,300 32.76% City of Rolling Hills 2015-2016 Bt 3/24/2016 8:26 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES MID -YEAR REVIEW FY 2015-2016 VS FY 2014-2015 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADJUSTED ADJUSTED JULY JULY FY 15/16 SIX MONTH % ANNUAL DEC. DEC. VS FY 14/15 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 15/16 FY 14/15 Favorable FY 15/16 USED , FY 15/16 USED (Unfavorable) 25 LAW ENFORCEMENT 8200 Law Enforcement 830 Law Enforcement $ 81.591 5 65328 S (16,063) 5 81,591 100.00% S 204100 39.96% 833 Other Law Enforcement Expenses 487 345 (142) 1.350 36.07% 2.700 18.04% 837 Wild Life Management & Pest Control 4,967 7,343 2.376 8,500 58.44% 17,000 29.22% 838 Animal Control Expense 2,091 1,776 (315) 3,250 64.34% 6,500 32.17% 8200 Total 89,136 74,992 (14,144) 94,691 94.13% 230,400 38.69% 25 TOTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 65 NON -DEPARTMENT 5 89,136 S 74,992 5 (14,144) 5 94,691 94.13% $ 230,400 38.69% 7500 Materiab & Supplies 901 South Bay Community Organization 5 2,000 5 3,600 5 1,600 S 2,100 100.00% 5 4,100 48.78% 985 Contingency 6,427 - (6,427) 12,500 51.42% 25.000 25.71% 750D Total 8,427 3,600 (4,827) 14,500 58.12% 29,100 28.96% 8000 Contractual Services 895 Insurance& Bond Expense 3,926 12.888 8,962 4,000 98.15/. 20,000 19.63% 8000 Total 3,926 12,888 8,962 4.000 T 98.15/. 20.000 19.63% 8500 Community Promotion 915 Community Recognition '5,349 6,206 857 n 5,500 97.25% 9,500 56.31/. 916 Civil Defense Expense '1,s00 . s 1,500 - 1.500 - 100.00% 1,500 100.00% 917 Emergency Preparedness - 4.086 4,086 0.00% 4.500 0.00% 8500 Total 6,849 11,792 4,943 7.000 97.84% 15,500 44.19% 65 TOTAL NON -DEPARTMENT 75 CITY PROPERTIES $ 19,202 5 28,280 5 9,078 5 25,500 7530% 5 64,600 29.72% 8000 Contractual Services 925 Utilities 5 10.738 S 13,474 S 2,736 5 10,750 99.89% S 22,000 48.81/. 930 Repairs &Maintenance 6,820 5373 (1,247) 7.000 97.43% 14.000 48.71% 932 Area Landscaping 2.018 4,972 2,954 8.300 2431% 16.600 12.16% 8000 Total 19376 24.019 4,443 26,050 75.15% 52,600 37.22% 75 TOTAL CITY PROPERTIES S 19.576 5 24,019 5 1,443 5 26.050 75.15/. $ 52,600 37.22% 131 GENERAL FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 680,977 5 661,835 5 (19._1122 S 763,029 89.25/. S 1,756,780 38.76% 11191 11 IMIP NET REVENUES BEFORE TRANSFERS 5 95,430 5 (6,769) S 102,199 5 (10,036) 13.86% 5 22,770 4.87% 699 Fund Transfers (OUT) IN Traffic Safety Fund 5 (27.750) $ 5 27,750 5 (27,750) 100.00% 5 (55.500) 50.00% Capital Improvement Fund - 0.00% 10,957 0.0D% Underground Utility Fund (250.000) (250,000) 100.00% (250.000) 100.00% Community Facilities Fund - - 0.00% (62,400) 0.00% Refuse Collection Fund 12,000 8,800 3,200 12,000 100.00% 24,000 50.00% 699 Total (265,750) 8,800 (274350) (265,750) 100.00% (332,943) 79.82% NET REVENUE(DEFICIT) AFTER TRANSFERS $ (170,320) $ 2,031 S (172,351) 5 (275,786) 113.86% 5 (310,173) 81.69% City of Rolling Hills 2015-2016 Br 3/24/2016 8:26 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES MID -YEAR REVIEW FY 2015-2016 VS FY 2014-2015 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADJUSTED ADJUSTED JULY JULY FY 15/16 SIX MONTH % ANNUAL DEC. DEC. VS FY 14/15 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 15/16 FY 14/15 Favorable FY 15/16 USED FY 15/16 USED (Unfavorable) FUND BALANCE Total to begin Total to begin -Adjustment Total to end Less reserve: Working capital Prepaids Budget contingency Encumbrance Total reserves S 4,105,630 S 3,831,115 $ 3,935,310 S 3,833,146 AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE AT $ 3,935,310 $ 3,833,146 END OF PERIOD S 4,105,630 S 4,105,630 S 3,829,844 $ 3,795,457 16,187 16,187 $ 3,829,844 S 3,779,270 City of Rolling Hills 2015-2016 Bt CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Ill GENERAL FUND REVENUES Account,/ Account Name Reason for Adjustment Adjusted Budget Mld-Year Budget FY 15/16 Adjustment FY 15/16 To increase revenues based on activity through 01-00-410 Real Estate Transfer Tax February S 32,400 S 10,000 S 42,400 Original General Fund Budget - Revenues 1,779,550 Adjusted General Pund Budget - Revenues S 1,789,550 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 01.15-802 Legal Expense -Other Increased activity S 35,000 S - 10,000 S 45,000 01-15-702 Salaries Full Time Decreased to timing of hiring 169,300 (21,600) 147,700 Increased to timing of hiring of Planning Assistant and 01-15-703 Salaries Pan Time increased activity 7,900 21600 29,500 10,000 Original General Fund Budget - Expenditure 1,756,780 Adjusted General Pund Budget - Expenditures 1,766,780 Original General Fund Budget - Net Transfers (332,943) Adjusted Fiscal Year 2015/16 Budget Surplus 5, (310,173) Prea{ed B Terryy manse Director Approved By: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager Budget Adjustment 2015-2016 3/24/2016 8:28 AM 9��►�Ihin NOISSIS cr18073 gar 0/ swat, gela INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 CLOSED SESSION Agenda Item No.: 15 Mtg. Date: 03/28/16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL / RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER"i/f�/j/ TERRY SHEA, FINANCE DIRECTOR CONSIDERATION OF IDENTIFIED CITY EMPLOYEE SALARY INCREASES WITH THEIR ASSOCIATED LONG-TERM CALPERS OBLIGATIONS. DATE: MARCH 28, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: Comprehensive Salary Survey of Nearby Cities Cost of 2%, 3%, 4% & 5% Salary & Benefit Increase Spreadsheets Salary Increases and Pension Benefit Analysis RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council approve the adjustments to the employees' salaries set forth by the Finance Director in order make the City competitive with its neighboring cities. We are proposing increases in salaries for certain positions. BACKGROUND At the April 13, 2015 meeting of the City Council Finance/Budget/ Audit Committee addressed recommended budget/work plan priorities for the FY 2015/16 fiscal year budget. One of the recommended items was a Compensation Study of City Employees. As part of the Employee Handbook and Personnel Policy Manual a Comprehensive Compensation Survey (Chapter V - Section 3) will be conducted from time to time to assure that the City's jobs are paid equitably against the labor market. The Survey will include each position and include labor market comparisons to the following cities: Carson, El Segundo, Hermosa Beach, Lawndale, Lomita, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates and Signal Hill. The City's compensation has not been reviewed since FY 2007 / 08 and should be reviewed again in order to make recommendations that are within budget constraints, consistent within the profession and agreed upon by the Finance/Budget/ Audit Committee, Personnel Committee and ultimately the City Council. As part of the FY 2015/16 Budget Adoption staff report to City Council on June 8, 2015 the City Manager stated the staff has not received a salary adjustment in several years and it is believed the City's salaries and benefits are not competitive with the nearby comparable cities. The City of Rolling Hills' staff often wears many more hats than most employees with similar positions in other cities and work within a busy and stressful work environment. The City's employees are expected to provide high quality services to a very demanding public. Within a reasonable and prudent framework, it is recommended the Budget and Personnel Committees, review the compensation of the employees and provide a salary to each employee that is commensurate to each employee's responsibilities and be competitive with our local municipalities. For employees to feel they are a valued asset to the City and its residents, keeping the employees' salaries within the 85th percentile of the average of the City's comparable cities should be considered. DISCUSSION Comprehensive Compensation Survey In July of 2015, Finance conducted the Comprehensive Compensation Survey (See Attached Exhibit 1). The Finance Director compared the current salaries to the average of the high and low average amounts for each of the positions. The City's salaries for the Administrative Assistant and the Associate Planner positions are comparable to that amount. The salaries for Planning Director and City Clerk/Executive Assistant are well below the average of the high and low salaries. Average of the Salaries- High and Low end of Tables Planning Director City Clerk/ Exec. Assist. Admin. Assistant Associate Planner Averge of the High and Low $ 131,630 $ 90,629 $ 55,040 $ 81,689 Rolling Hills Actual $ 106,640 $ 75,528 $ 50,358 $ 74,364 Differences $ (24,990) $ (15,101) $ (4,682) $ (7,325) The Finance Director also compared the City's actual salaries to 85% of the median number in the high -end range of the salaries schedule and the results are comparable with the above schedule. We used 85% of the median because we used the high end numbers only. Median of the High End of the Tables Planning Director City Clerk/ Exec. Assist. Admin. Assistant Associate Planner Median of High End $ 147,372 $ 113,988 $ 59,454 $ 92,541 85°% of the Median $ 125,266 $ 96,890 $ 50,536 $ 78,660 Rolling Hills Actual $ 106,640 $ 75,528 $ 50,358 $ 74,364 Differences $ (18,626) $ (21,362) $ (178) $ (4,296) The Finance Director and City Manager are proposing to increase the salaries for the Planning Director and the City Clerk/Executive Assistant positions. The Finance Director calculated a 2%, 3%, 4% and 5% increase for the indentified positions and have included worksheets to show the total costs of the increases. In addition, the Finance Director included a report that shows the additional PERS liability for each position for the proposed raises. Please see the Salary Increases & Pension Benefit Analysis attached. FY 15/16 Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) The FY 2015/16 COLA based on May 2015, Los Angeles/Orange County/Riverside Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all items per Employee Handbook and Personnel Policy Manual (Chapter V - Section 17) was 1.1 %. The FY 2015/16 COLA was budgeted for 2.0%. This leaves approximately $8,000 of budgeted salaries that are available to give staff increases that will not increase the bottom line. The City's' General Fund is in the financial position to absorb these salary increases as the City added $230,441 and $490,416 to its fund balance reserves for fiscal years 2012/13 and 2013/14, respectively and the increase for fiscal year 2014/15 is $541,574. Merit Advancement The Merit Advancement section of the Employee Handbook and Personnel Policy Manual (Chapter V - Section 5) states: The City Manager has the authority and discretion to adjust all Regular and part-time employee salaries within their range at any time (Effective 2009). The City Manager shall justify a salary change within the range with documentation and based on the performance and skill -level of the employee. FISCAL IMPACT Regardless of the funding scenario that City Council chooses to bring the employees to a competitive salary in the marketplace, the Finance Director believes the City has the revenues to sustain the compensation and associated Ca1PERS obligations. CONCLUSION After receiving the staff briefing in closed session and analyzing the information provided in this staff report, the City Council can make a decision on how it wants to proceed with the employee compensation issue. This can include setting a level of compensation for each step within the salary range for each employee or seek additional information from staff before making a final decision. TS:RC:hi Sal aryAdjuslmen t-staffreport.doex City of Rolling Hills Salary Schedules of Nearby Cities As of July 2015 Planning Director City Clerk/ Executive Assistant Administrative Assistant Associate Planner Low High Low High Low I High Low High Carson $ 112,476 $ 143,532 $ 92,340 $ 117,840 $ 50,592 $ 64,560 $ 70,380 $ 89,808 El Segundo 108,395 131,755 66,150 80,406 45,928 55,825 - - Hermosa Beach 117,456 135,972 57,864 70,356 57,864 70,356 69,600 84,552 Lawndale 112,080 136,236 96,816 117,684 47,520 57,768 74,340 90,360 Lomita NA NA # 95,412 118,200 47,412 58,932 • - I - Palos Verdes Estates 115,152 151,212 73,860 92,412 44,_60 56,364 74,364 94,908 Rancho Palos Verdes 90,575 153,365 84,809 143,593 50,637 65,753 70,104 91,051 Rolling Hills Estates 125,832 188,772 76,020 113,988 N/A N/A 70,476 105,708 Signal Hill 122,517 160,753 58,677 74,901 46,992 59,976 69,410 88,587 Average of the 9 Cities $ 113,060 $ 150,200 $ 77,994 $ 103,264 $ 48,888 $ 61,192 $ 71,239 $ 92,139 Average of Low/High $ 131,630 $ 90,629 $ 55,040 $ 81,689 Median $ 113,184 $ 147,372 $ 76,020 $ 113,988 $ 47,466 $ 59,454 $ 70,380 $ 90,360 Rolling Hills Table $ 83,544 $ 110,688 $ 58,572 $ 76,884 $ 39,384 $ . 52,188 74,364 94,908 Rolling Hills Actual $ 106,640 $ 75,528 $ 50,358 $ 74,364 Average of 8 cities #- Position is Assistant City Manager salary of $154,656 Average of 8 cities Average of 7 cities City of Rolling Hills Position Titles of Nearby Cities Canon Planning Manager Chief Deputy City Clerk Management Assist. Associate Planner El Segundo Planning Manager Deputy City Clerk II Admin. Specialist NA Hermosa Beach Senior Planner Deputy City Clerk Administrative Assistant Planning Associate Lawndale Associate Planner Assistant City Clerk Admin. Assistant 11 Associate Planner Lomita City Clerk Administrative Clerk IV NA Palos Verdes Estates Planner City Clerk/Exec. Assist. Office Specialist Planner Rancho Palos Verdes Principal Planner City Clerk Admin. Staff Assist. Associate Planner Rolling Hills Estates Senior Planner Deputy City Clerk No Position Associate Planner Signal Hill Planning Manager Exec, Assist/Deputy CC Administrative Assist. Associate Planner City of Rolling Hills Salary & Benefit Costs Increases Planning Director 7.51% 6.20% 1.45% Salary PERS FICA Medicare Total Current Salary $ 106,640.00 $ 8,008.66 $ 6,611.68 $ 1,546.28 $ 122,806.62 Additional 2,132.80 160.17 $ 132.23 30.93 2,456.13 $ 108,772.80 $ 8,168.84 $ 6,743.91 $ 1,577.21 $ 125,262.76 2.00% Current Salary $ 106,640.00 $ 8,008.66 $ 6,611.68 $ 1,546.28 $ 122,806.62 Additional 3,199.20 240.26 198.35 46.39 3,684.20 $ 109,839.20 $ 8,248.92 $ 6,810.03 $ 1,592.67 $ 126,490.82 3.00% Current Salary $ 106,640.00 $ 8,008.66 $ 6,611.68 $ 1,546.28 $ 122,806.62 Additional ... 4,265.60 320.35 264.47 61.85 4,912.26 $ 110,905.60 $ 8,329.01 $ 6,876.15 $ 1,608.13 $ 127,718.89 4.00% Current Salary $ 106,640.00 $ 8,008.66 $ 6,611.68 $ 1,546.28 $ 122,806.62 Additional 5,332.00 400.43 330.58 77.31 6,140.33 $ 111,972.00 $ 8,409.10 $ 6,942.26 $ 1,623.59 $ 128,946.96 5.00% City of Rolling Hills Salary & Benefit Costs Increases City Clerk/Executive Assistant 7.51% 6.20% 1.45% Salary PERS FICA Medicare Total Current Salary $ 75,528.00 $ 5,672.15 $ 4,682.74 $ 1,095.16 $ 86,978.04 Additional 1,510.56 113.44 $ 93.65 21.90 1,739.56 $ 77,038.56 $ 5,785.60 $ 4,776.39 $ 1,117.06 $ 88,717.61 2.00% Current Salary $ 75,528.00 $ 5,672.15 $ 4,682.74 $ 1,095.16 $ 86,978.04 Additional 2,265.84 170.16 140.48 32.85 2,609.34 $ 77,793.84 $ 5,842.32 $ 4,823.22 $ 1,128.01 $ 89,587.39 3.00% Current Salary $ 75,528.00 $ 5,672.15 $ 4,682.74 $ 1,095.16 $ 86,978.04 Additional 3,021.12 226.89 187.31 43.81 3,479.12 $ 78,549.12 $ 5,899.04 $ 4,870.05 $ 1,138.96 $ 90,457.17 4.00% Current Salary $ 75,528.00 $ 5,672.15 $ 4,682.74 $ 1,095.16 $ 86,978.04 Additional 3,776.40 283.61 234.14 54.76 4,348.90 $ 79,304.40 $ 5,955.76 $ 4,916.87 $ 1,149.91 $ 91,326.95 5.00% 0 City of Rolling Hills Salary & Benefit Costs Increases Administrative Assistant 7.51% 6.20% 1.45% Salary PERS FICA Medicare Total Current Salary $ 50,358.00 $ 3,781.89 $ 3,122.20 $ 730.19 $ 57,992.27 Additional 1,007.16 75.64 $ 62.44 14.60 1,159.85 $ 51,365.16 $ 3,857.52 $ 3,184.64 $ 744.79 $ 59,152.12 2.00% Current Salary $ 50,358.00 $ 3,781.89 $ 3,122.20 .$ 730.19 $ 57,992.27 Additional 1,510.74 113.46 93.67 21.91 1,739.77 $ 51,868.74 $ 3,895.34 $ 3,215.86 $ 752.10 $ 59,732.04 3.00% Current Salary $ 50,358.00 $ 3,781.89 $ 3,122.20 $ 730.19 $ 57,992.27 Additional 2,014.32 151.28 124.89 • 29.21 2,319.69 $ 52,372.32 $ 3,933.16 $ 3,247.08 $ 759.40 $ 60,311.96 4.00% Current Salary $ 50,358.00 $ 3,781.89 $ 3,122.20 $ 730.19 $ 57,992.27 Additional 2,517.90 189.09 156.11 36.51 2,899.61 $ 52,875.90 $ 3,970.98 $ 3,278.31 $ 766.70 $ 60,891.89 5.00% City of Rolling Hills Salary & Benefit Costs Increases Associate Planner 7.51% 6.20% 1.45% Salary PERS FICA Medicare Total Current Salary $ 74,364.00 $ 5,584.74 $ 4,610.57 $ 1,078.28 $ 85,637.58 Additional 1,487.28 111.69 $ 92.21 21.57 1,712.75 $ 75,851.28 $ 5,696.43 $ 4,702.78 $ 1,099.84 $ 87,350.33 2.00% Current Salary $ 74,364.00 $ 5,584.74 $ 4,610.57 $ 1,078.28 $ 85,637.58 Additional 2,230.92 167.54 138.32 32.35 2,569.13 $ 76,594.92 $ 5,752.28 $ 4,748.89 $ 1,110.63 $ 88,206.71 3.00% Current Salary $ 74,364.00 $ 5,584.74 $ 4,610.57 $ 1,078.28 $ 85,637.58 Additional 2,974.56 223.39 184.42 43.13. , _. 3,425.50 $ 77,338.56 $ 5,808.13 $ 4,794.99 $ 1,121.41 $ 89,063.09 4.00% Current Salary $ 74,364.00 $ 5,584.74 $ 4,610.57 $ 1,078.28 $ 85,637.58 Additional 3,718.20 279.24 230.53 53.91 4,281.88 $ 78,082.20 $ 5,863.97 $ 4,841.10 $ 1,132.19 $ 89,919.46 5.00% Govi nvest Salary Increases & Pension Benefit Analysis City of Rolling Hills March 2016 Scenario 3: Heidi Luce, 3% Salary Increase Member < Adjustmentss Salary - Reset • Salary Can - Reset A. Govnvest Heidi Luce Soc.. SS32. 2206 49 years old 6.4 years of service Miscellaneous PENSION _u _C.':0 CG=R' Member Liability 0 Acceded: Rolling Hills, CA Adr.'n ` $227.15K Adiusted: 5233.97K TIPIS The city's liability .r .: by:r -S.1.';.. 2016 2021 2026 203_ 2036 Expected cashflows: $0 $998.7 $4.5K $30.7K $44.4K Adjuster::: 50 ;1.o:C 84.6Y .....%4r Ze5.7K r. ..._. - 1: ...F.!T 2041 $52.1K 2a16 at:e 2023 2322 202c 2026 2'.25. 2020 2x2 2: t 2m6 222.. 2fYY0 23'2 2:/c Govi nvest lragh6b your financial lunno Scenario 4: Heidi Luce, 5% Salary Increase r• Member . r1 Adjustments Salary. +5 Reset Salary Cap - • R' et AI' . Gov't west Heidi Luce 49 years old 6.4 year of service Miscellaneous Expected cashflows: Adjusted: PENSION C':e _': -:oLDG T Member Liability 0 Accrued: Railing Hills. CA Adl'.n $227.15K Adit.sted: $238.51K The city's liability by :1'.f . r 2016 2021 2026 203. $0 8998.7 84.5K $30.7K SG St.OK 2'4.715 :.32.3K Accrued member liability: Arjcr •1 .rnuerr, it:: $0.00 `.':.00 E30< <20< <.:S: 2036 $44.4K 2041 $52.1K ;46,6•; 554.7K. ..,.._ 2C!B 2_23 2322 lift 2020 3025 2020 2'732 20.4 205 2035 210 2C'2 271 GoVrnivest Insights to your financial future Scenario 5: Yolanta Schwartz, 3% Salary Increase Member c. Adjustments Salary - -3 Reset • Salary Can • Rest 2& Govinvest Yolanta Schwartz 16.2 years of service Miscellaneous 64 years old PENSION OP:u L Member Liability o Accr,Jed: Rollin Hills. CA A&nn-- 5310.99K (> Adjusted: 5320.32K The city's liability` by;:5 :7•-..3K 2016 202_ 2026 203_ 2036 2041 Expected cashflows: $18.3K $24.8K $29.5K 527.8K 525.6K $17.8K ad usted: $i69K 5255K 53;J.A!t $2%.L}C 226.4K ::1%;4:: ;.L .J9.:. - i ' 1.4: 7t! 1018 2:20 2322 207e 2026 2225 2330 3032 c 2.—.J; 2335 2040 76-2 7:i.< S Govi nvest Insights to your financial future Scenario 6: Yolanta. Schwartz, 5% Salary Increase LG� Salary • Member t, Adjustments • +5 % Reset • Salary Cep - • P.etel A Govhlvesi Yolanta Schwartz 16.2 years of service Miscellaneous Expected cashflows: PENSION C .3 ...+472::32 64 years old Member Liability Q Accrued: Paine Hills. CA Ac; -,'m - $310.99K +„ Ad't.sted: 5326.54K The city's liability ;.r -r. by, ' _ 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 $18.3K $24.8K 529.5K $27.8K $25.6K 519.2K $2e.0K ....:'.'2;[ -.at: •.,, ::,26.S•ir Accrued member liability: .Sti,L.'rC nrmb IrCili`; 521 4OX ,22.4304 22L40K 212K 72 26 •o... 2:23 2722 202' 2026 20.23, 2330 230.2 23.23 20.6 2723 2040 031-2 2041 $17.8K :i'.tis 7K . Govi�nvest Insights to your financial lulus* Scenario 7: Ewa Nikodem, 3% Salary Increase d n (rD Member `s Adjustments Salary - Reset • Salary Coo - • E55.•:2E Reset AP Govinves Ewa Nikodem 12.6 years o' service Miscellaneous 50 years old PENSION _ _. U 0:3' Member Liability 0 AccrJed: Rolling Hills. U $190.50K /ttd-inn -. 0 Adjusted: 5196.21K The city's liability irct,_i e by $:22 . 2016 2021 2026 203: 2036 20c_ Expected cashflows: $125.9 $1.8K $10.0K $28.5K $34.8K $36.6K Ad pasted: 5'125.6 11.9K 510.3K .527.4K - $35.8i<. 3:37.7K .::.b .- :-.2c; .7 22 22 .:1,r;4r: ._1X Ye: 2:20 2322 2024 2026 202E 2320 2032 2224 2_... 2222'? 20X* 26-2 re" Govl nvest Insights to your financial future Scenario 8: Ewa Nikodem, 5% Salary Increase drjC'� Member < Adjustments Salary Reset • Spry Gap • Rr c,• Fr1 J Govinvest Ewa Nikodem 12.6 years o` service Miscellaneous Expected cashflows: Adjusted: 50 years old PENSION P_3 _c e'_%C'. c=t" Member Liability Q Accred: Rolling Hills. CA Malin • $190.50K Q Adjusted: $200.02K The city's liability by ?.is 2016 2021 2026 203: 2036 204'_ 8125.9 $1.8K $10.0K $28.5K 534.8K 836.6K ..;',132.2 51.9K 590.51( S29.;K :._5.5K 13&4K. 1.4•.`7.0 :�.�.. Accrued member liability: `+d,u...^•. ar_. _ .: .zat r: $35.78K $:17.5(.:( 135.78K int 52+3K S:On. u.. 2C:9 2223 2322 27' 2026 2325 2320 2032 2.^_.6 20."? TY--2 .,..a . Gov' nvest Insights to your financial future Scenario 9: Wendy Starks, 3% Salary Increase Member < Adjustments Salary- • .3 Reset • salary Car o<st: A. • L..9t92 Govinvest Wendy Starks 0.1 years of service Miscellaneous 49 years old Rallina Hills. CA PENSION G^Crf i'.':0''DO^� A'mn- Member Liability 0 Accrued: $169.44K (j Adjusted: $174.52K The city's liability ; ,r:' -or. :,,s by 5.`,"i 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Expected cashflows: $0 $610.1 $4.9K $17.6K $32.0K $43.3K Adjusted; ?0 $62.3.4 S5.OK Si3.2K 533.0K $4y,..{ 7:15 20ie 2@3 7322 2024 2t2,5 3_25 7330 2337 2O7 2_35 2315 ZC=3 2342 23' Ne Insights to your financial future Govinvest Scenario 10: Wendy Starks, 5% Salary Increase Member < Adjustments Salary .5 Reset Sabo( ray - Rese:lv Govh Nest Wendy Starks 0.1 years of service Miscellaneous 49 years old Rolling Mills. CA PENSION C:Ti %CCDig' Admits Member Liability 0 Accued: $169.44K L Adjusted: $177.91K The city's liability ::':l u..`.:i by cii . ii 2016 202'_ 2026 2031 2036 2041 Expected cashflows: $0 $610.1 $4.9K $17.6K $32.OK $43.3K 1-kilu,rtsci. $0 $640.6 5c.1K Si.s.i;Y: E23.61! $45.5K 2010 2223 2322 202' 2226 2:25 732_0 2012 2024 27.6 2335 2000 2J2 2'J< ovtnvest insights to your financial future Summary of Results n n't�J} r r r..irs, +? ?F'°uv�i�� y Tu(f "„k�' T C ei yf•.. �fK_� l •; t r rr /Mr 1LKf. 4. ?q x X 4. ,� „}vx� 3-j, i . .ta•3 4"mSf�n Change to Rolling Hills' Liability Over the e' r Employees Lifetime +}.j �k p4 j_'a(' �VtI •i .,. iI(.r• `''C ' r d= � s 1� i� bS ,A. % "° , �� Pdtt.'�..yl 't '�-y! r 41SM3. !`.• �y1sn w +�,p� 3y ,k3 -I °kr ' �. �.i_ . , ,<z� ue.' 3% Salary Increase 5% Salary Increase 1 as *-4r. : r ^ gl '«.,5's5 Cm �.4.-..i �.rn� •.vx.Tsnan.•i.ws<«.xe r:w..enn u+_d ds +i — �¢1 s' -: nycj � 'Ha i� rLuc +$6.81 K +$11.36K . ,r �� 51, uy rs -t„ y .µ I i'%c dF 1w f A tit u+W" ^t��y5�z�,��. iilr'.• y.. n K "'(Y = of t S`c �u ®' +$9.33K +$15.55K P ¢� `3 qi' �. _.��' ,p� . 1;�-?t;, >tfa .sv 0 r 4t:. y q .. +$572K +$953K R 1/2_414' � �Mv # +. Ky'"sii t, ° a �, �t� +$5.08K +$8.47K rt. � Gov, nvest Insights to your financial future