Loading...
City Council Agenda 04-25-2016MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2016 CALL TO ORDER An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Dieringer at 7:03 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Councilmembers Absent: Others Present: Black, Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Dieringer. None. Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Terry Shea, Finance Director. Jim Walker, Finance Consultant. Beate Kirmse, 2 Chuckwagon Road. John Nunn, 1 Crcst Road West. Mike and Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. Paul Mayhack, 52 Eastfield Drive. Mike Baumann, 25 Eastfield Drive. Dan Nguyen, 5 Buggy Whip Drive. Raghu Mendu, 1 Reata Lane. Howard Weinberg, Attorney Diana Nuccion, 18 Portuguese Bend Road. Hal Light, Attorney. Ruben Green, Consulting Arborist. Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road. Geraldine Belleville, 12 Crest Road East. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME None. 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 - Regular Meeting of April 11, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. Financial Statement for the Month of March, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. Consideration of approval of City employee compensation adjustments for the Administrative Assistant, City Clerk/Executive Assistant and Planning Director. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. E. City Council Fire Fuel Reduction Ad Hoc Committee meeting notes of March 31, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. C. D. Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as presented. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Q. PRESENTATION Supervisor Don Knabe County of Los Angeles — Board of Supervisors — Fourth District Supervisor Knabe addressed the City Council to ex�tress his appreciation to the City Council and the residents for their support during his 20 years as 4 District Supervisor. Mayor Dieringer presented a Certificate of Commendation to Supervisor Knabe in recognition of his dedication and commitment to the citizens of the County during his term as Supervisor. Mayor Dicringer suggested taking the items listed under Matters from Staff out of order recognizing that they would likely be brief matters. Hearing no objection, she so ordered. COMMISSION ITEMS None. MATTERS FROM STAFF QUARTERLY SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2016. Finance Director Shea presented the investment report for the quarter ending March 31, 2016. He stated that rates are higher than last year at .44% and active deposits are up approximately $333,000. He noted that the CaIPERS CERBT investment earnings are also up slightly. Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council receive and file the investment report for the quarter ending March 31, 2016 as presented. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. FY 2016/2017 BUDGET PREPARATION DOCUMENTS I) FY 2015/2016 YEAR-END REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS 2) FY 2015/2016 YEAR-END PROJECTIONS BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS 3) FY 2016/2017 CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (CPI) ADJUSTMENT FOR BUDGET AND SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES Jim Walker, Budget Consultant presented the staff report containing the 2016/17 budget preparation documents including the year-end revenue and expenditure projections, the proposed CPI increase for budget preparation and solid waste collection services; and the year-end budget adjustments. Following brief discussion, Mayor Pro Tem moved that the City Council receive and file the budget preparation documents as presented. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS INVESTMENT POLICY; FINANCIAL, BUDGET AND DEBT POLICIES; FUND BALANCE POLICY; AND RESOLUTION NO. 953 — ASSET CAPITALIZATION POLICY. Finance Director Shea presented the staff report pertaining to the City's financial policies. He stated that staff recommends that Treasury Direct Funds be removed from investment policy because those funds are not available; and with regard to the Finance, Budget and Debt Policy, that the policy be changed to eliminate submitting the City's annual budget to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) every other year and to submit the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) annually instead of every other year. Discussion ensued concerning the merits of submitting the CAFR to the GFOA for the annual award. Following brief discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council amend the financial, budget and debt policy to eliminate sending the Budget and CAFR to the GFOA for recognition. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council approve the investment policy as amended to eliminate Treasury Direct accounts; approve the financial, budget and debt policies as amended to eliminate sending the CAFR to the GFOA annually for recognition; and to approve the fund balance policy and asset capitalization policy as presented with no changes. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carved without objection. Minutes City Council Meeting 04-25-16 Recognizing that there were members of the community present to address the City Council regarding the items listed under New Business relating to the public forum on a possible ballot measure to repeal or amend Measure B, Mayor Dieringer suggested taking that matter out of order as well. Hearing no objection, she so ordered. NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC FORUM ON A POSSIBLE BALLOT MEASURE TO REPEAL OR AMEN) MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's introductory remarks. Planning Director Schwartz stated that there are two additional correspondence received after the agenda packet was prepared and they have been placed on the dais and made available for the public. She stated that one correspondence is from Lynn Gill proposing amended language for the View Preservation Ordinance. She further reviewed the background on this matter stating that this matter was agendized at the direction of the City Council to receive resident input relative to how they feel about Measure B — what is good about it and what needs revision. Mayor Dieringer called for public comments on this matter. Beate Kirmse, 2 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Council to ask what problems need to be addressed. She stated that in order to fix it, residents need to know what the problems are. In response, Mayor Dieringer stated that the information is available on the City's web site and reviewed the City Council's previous discussions on this matter. Councilmember Pieper further explained the background on the issue. Ms. Kirmse suggested that the City should have publicized this matter better. She stated that she does not believe trees should be cut to improve views. John Nunn, I Crest Road West addressed the City Council stating that he does not believe the original ordinance is balanced. He stated that the ordinance should include mandatory arbitration. He further stated that the current ordinance favors the view seeker and Measure B has restored a certain amount of fairness and is more balanced. a Mike Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council stating that the City should not be involved in the legal issues regarding view matters but rather the City should fund arbitration between the parties and not take a side in the matter. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council to take responsibility for Measure B and stated it was not her intent to cause ambiguity — she was simply trying to save trees. She stated that the City should be fair in this matter and not take a side. Paul Mai/tack, 52 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council stating that his issue isn't with existing trees, but rather new trees that are planted and allowed to grow into the view. Mike Baumann, 25 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council stating that his concern is with regard to the maturity issue. He stated that if the view existed and has been maintained mature trees should not be exempted from trimming. Dan Nguyen, 5 Buggy Whip Drive addressed the City Council stating that the City should be involved in the process and there needs to be clear, balanced definitions for everyone to follow. Raghu Mendu, I Reata Lane addressed the City Council stating that there should be balance between trees and views, but Measure B shifted the balance too far toward trees. He suggested that Measure B be repealed and rewritten. Howard Weinberg, Attorney addressed the City Council on behalf of the Occhipinti Family (Crest Road East). He stated that the way Measure B is written, it will slowly take views away completely and suggested that measure be placed on the ballot to undo Measure B and puts something in place to more precisely defines what a view is and what is allowed with regard to corridors. He suggested creating incentives for neighbors to work together. He further suggested there be specific measures in place to determine what view existed. Following public comment, the public forum on this matter was continued to the next City Council Minutes 'City Council Meeting 04-25-16 • • meeting scheduled for Monday, May 9, 2016 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council direct staff to place signs at the gates informing residents of the May 9'h public forum on this matter. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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 Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz presented the staff report and background on this matter. She stated that the first public hearing on this matter was held on November 23, 2015 and the City Council visited the properties on March 21, 2016. She stated that at thc field trip, the City Council determined that the Nuccions had a view from the designated viewing area as defined by the Zoning Ordinance and that the trees on the Hassoldt property do obstruct the view. She stated that today, the City Council will continue the public hearing, take public testimony and consider the information received. She further reviewed the information received including an aerial photograph and list of trees submitted by the Nuccions as requested by the City Council at the November meeting; a certification from Brandon Gill, Arborist regarding the measurement of the trees on the Hassoldt property submitted by the Nuccions today; a correspondence from Hal Light submitted on behalf of the Hassoldts containing aerial photographs of the area; a declaration from a Registered Consulting Arborist regarding the maturity issue submitted by Mr. Light; and a correspondence from Mr. Weinberg providing tree measurements and calculation extrapolating the age of the trees and height in 2010 based on the definition of mature previously adopted by the City Council. Ms. Schwartz stated that based on the appeals, the City Council should determine if the Nuccions established by clear and convincing evidence that the view existed in 2009 when they acquired the property; is thc view obstructed now; and were the trees mature in 2009. She stated the once those matters arc determined, if applicable, the City Council should structure any restorative action in such a way to provide view corridors not a panoramic view. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Black, Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the points on appeal which include: The appeal by Mr. and Mrs. Hassoldt (tree owners) has been filed on the basis that: The Nuccions have not established, by clear and convincing evidence or at all, the existence of a protected view over Number 15 (15 Portuguese Bend Road); Each of the trees subject to the complaint are exempt because they were mature on April 22, 2009 (when the Nuccions acquired the property); Other various bases for the appeal. o The Hassoldts were not properly noticed of the view complaint case filed by the Nuccions o The View Ordinance fails to provide procedure to require service of view complaint o Upholding the CTV resolution would be in excess of the jurisdiction of the City o The remediation actions will provide an unobstructed view and not "view corridors" to the Nuccions o No view existed when the Nuccions acquired the property and therefore the decision of the CTV is unlawful o The Nuccions have failed to establish by "clear and convincing evidence" that they had a view when they purchased the property and that the trees were not mature when they acquired the property. The appeal by Dr. and Mrs. Nuccion (complainants) has been filed on the basis that: Minutes City Council Meeting 04-25-16 • The Committee erred in its decision that the two Olive trees subject to the complaint were mature when the Nuccions purchased the property, and are therefore not eligible for remediation; and • The Committee abused its discretion by rejecting one arborist report that concluded that the Olive trees were not mature and accepting another arborist report that concluded that the Olive trees were mature; and that the decision of the Committee to render those trees mature is not supported by substantial evidence. In response to Mayor Dieringer regarding the second point in the Nuccion appeal, Mr. Weinberg stated that when the Committee came to its conclusion with regard to the issue of the maturity of the Olive trees was based on a feeling that the trees were mature; but since that time, the City Council adopted Resolution 1182 which provides guidelines as to how maturity is determined. He further stated that in using those guidelines to determine maturity of the Olive tree specifically, it was found during the photographic analysis that the trees were actually taller than the maximum height provided for in the definition, which indicates that the threshold needs to have flexibility. He suggested that the City Council could use its discretion to determine that the Olive trees may not be mature. In response to Mayor Dieringer, City Attorney Jenkins suggested that this would be the appropriate time to call for comments from the appellants in this matter; then hear from the public on the matter after which time the appellants could offer any rebuttal comments and then the City Council could engage in deliberation in the matter and ask for clarification from the parties where necessary. He further stated in response to Mayor Dieringer that if the City Council wishes to remand this case back to the Committee on Trees and Views to review based on the newly adopted standards, it would be appropriate to make that motion now, but the City Council is not obligated to do so. In response to Mayor Dieringer, Planning Director Schwartz stated that staff has no knowledge as to the accuracy of the tree height projections submitted by the Nuccions. Mayor Dieringer called for public comment. Diana Nuccion, 18 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the City Council stating that when they purchased their property in 2009 it was in a state of disarray and abandoned and they did not take photographs at that time because they were focused on finishing the house not documenting the view because Measure B did not exist at that time. She stated that the photographs she submitted as evidence of the view were taken after they moved into the house. Howard Weinberg, Attorney, addressed the City Council on behalf of the Nuccions to further explain the information that was submitted with regard to the tree height projections as they relate to the maturity of the trees. He stated that based on this evidence, the two Olive trees may be considered mature, but none of the other trees were mature in 2009. He stated that in their opinion, the City Council has received the evidence it needs to conclude that there was a view, that the trees impede that view, that the impairment should be remediated and that the trees were not mature with the exception of possibly the two Olive trees. Discussion ensued concerning the information that was submitted with regard to the tree height projections as they relate to the maturity of the trees. Mr. Weinberg reiterated his point that the City Council could use its discretion to determine that the Olive trees may not be mature based on the analysis presented. In response to Mayor Dieringer regarding the 2010 photographs submitted, Mr. Weinberg stated that with respect to the height of the trees in 2010, the Nuccions provided testimony that when they purchased the house, they owned it or lived there for a year before they took those photographs and no trees were cut between the time they bought the house and the time these photographs were taken. Further discussion ensued concerning the burden of proof related to the existence of the view and the maturity issue Hal Light, Attorney addressed the City Council on behalf of the Hassoldts stating that the burden of proof is for the applicant to provide clear and convincing evidence as to whether or not there was a view when they acquired the property. He further explained the details of their appeal stating that they assert that the Nuccions have not presented clear and convincing evidence that the view existed in 2009 when they acquired the property. He further explained the Google Earth images that were submitted as evidence that it was likely that the trees were topped in 2010 although the Nuccions testified that the trees were not trimmed until 2011. Mr. Light further pointed out that they believe there is a discrepancy as to the date the photographs submitted as evidence that the view existed in 2010 were taken. Mayor Pro Tem Black commented that when the previous City Council heard testimony related to the issues surrounding the Minutes City Council Meeting 04-25-16 undergrounding of the utility lines on the property (in the late 2000's), there were several reference made at that time to the property having a panoramic view and he observed the view as it existed. With regard to the maturity issue, Mr. Light stated that their arborist is present to address the City Council and answer questions. Mr. Light further explained the 1954 aerial photograph submitted which shows a ring of trees on the property at 15 Portuguese Bend Road stating that he believes the process whereby maturity is determined is flawed. Ruben Green, Registered Consulting Arborist addressed the City Council stating that it is not a standard practice to determine tree maturity solely based on a percentage of a maximum height and spread. He stated that factors need to be considered including the trees age, the climate, the specie and the condition of the tree. Discussion ensued concerning possible ways to determine maturity. Mayor Dieringer called for public comment. Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road addressed thc City Council to ask if it would be possible for the City to not make a decision if there is not enough evidence. She further suggested in the future using age as a determination of maturity and that the City encourage residents to document their views. Beate Kirmsc, 2 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Council to suggest that there should be photographic evidence of the view from 2009. Geraldine Bellville, 12 Crest Road East addressed the City Council to suggest that there should be a timeline on view cases and that more research be done with regard to the maturity issue. She askcd if the City Council has to make a decision. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council stating that thc View Ordinance has always favored views and serves to divide the City. He suggested the City should not be involved in view issues. Mayor Dieringer called for rebuttal comments. Mr. Light stated that the photo of the view submitted by the Nuccions as evidence from July 2010 appears, based on the metadata in the photograph, to actually have been taken in July 2011. He asked that Mr. Weinberg address this issue. He suggested that the photos are the same photograph. Mr. Light reasserted their position that the Nuccions have not submitted clear and convincing evidence that the view existed when they acquired the property in April 2009. Mr. Weinberg stated that the photos may have been taken around the same time, but they are not the same photograph. He stated that all of the photographs submitted as prior photographs show that there was a view previously. He stated that the City Council has been provided with photographic evidence and testimony from the Nuccions that they had a view. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Dieringer closed the public hearing. In response to Mrs. Belleville's inquiry, City Attorney Jenkins stated that an application has been made under the ordinance and the applicant is entitled to a decision. He stated that thc City Council's decision should be based on the evidence that has been presented and what is in the record of the proceedings. He further reviewed the matters before the City Council. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Black regarding previous public testimony and personal experience during consideration of an unrelated matter on this property asserting that the property did have a panoramic view, City Attorney Jenkins stated that absent definitive answers as to exactly when the testimony was given and when the view was seen, the City Council has to determine how much weight can be given to that evidence and its relevance to this proceeding. City Attorney Jenkins stated that the City Council may wish to focus on the evidence included in the packet and heard tonight. In response to Mayor Dieringer, City Attorney Jenkins stated that it is not unusual for land use decision - making bodies to not require testimony to be made under oath. He further explained the burden of proof requirements as they apply to the ordinance and Measure B specifically. Discussion ensued concerning the burden of proof with regard to the maturity issue. City Attorney Jenkins stated that as he interprets Measure B, the clear and convincing evidence standard does not apply to the issue of maturity. Minutes City Council Meeting 04-25-16 In response to Mayor Dicringer regarding establishing the protected view, City Attorney Jenkins stated that the City Council first needs to determine if there is a view, which has already been determined; and if there is a view, was that view there, by clear and convincing evidence, when the property was acquired. If yes, then the City Council would determine if the view is impaired by maturing or mature trees. Discussion ensued concerning the burden of proof with regard to the issue of mature vs. maturing. Councilmember Pieper commented that based on the evidence presented, he believes that only the Olive trees are considered mature; and moving forward based on that assumption, those trces would be exempted from action and the Nuccions would be provided with corridor views on either side of those trees, which is consistent with previous application of the ordinance. He further commented that the next issue to determine is what view existed in 2009 when the Nuccions acquired the property. He commented that he too remembers discussions about a panoramic view from this property when an unrelated matter was before the Planning Commission, but he is bothered by the inconsistent date stamp on the photos although he knows from experience that it is possible for a date stamp to be incorrect on a photograph. He stated that given the time and diligence that the Committee on Trees and Views put into this case and the new evidence submitted, he is inclined to deny both appeals and uphold the Committee's decision with regard to the maturity issue. Discussion ensued concerning the "2009" cut marks as referenced by the Comm ittee. Mayor Dieringer commented that she believes that the clear and convincing evidence standard should also apply to the issue of maturity and that if the trees were mature then there is no view. She further expressed concern that if there was trimming done in 2009 and the photos submitted were from 2010, then the photos don't accurately depict the view from 2009 and the data used to determine maturity is faulty. Further discussion ensued concerning whether or not the applicant has submitted evidence that the view existed in 2009 when they acquired the property. Mayor Pro Tem Black commented that everyone involved with the property knows there was a view although it isn't clear whether it was 2008 or 2009, but the City Council has received evidence and testimony from the Nuccions that the view existed in 2009. Councilmember Mirsch suggested that the City Council consider one item at a time; first, did a view exist in 2009? Further discussion ensued concerning whether or not the applicant has submitted evidence that the view existed in 2009 when they acquired the property and the discrepancy in the date stamp on the photos and the e-mail correspondence. Councilmember Mirsch commented, in response to a previous comment by Mr. Light, that she was not on the Committee on Trees & Views when this case was considered and she did not see this property's view prior to the City Council's consideration of this case. Further discussion ensued concerning what view existed when the Nuccions acquired the property in 2009 and the evidence submitted. Mayor Dieringer commented that in researching this matter personally, she found a photo from a real estate listing in 2011 that showed the trees having been topped. City Attorney Jenkins commented that since the photograph referenced isn't in the record, it shouldn't be taken into consideration. Following further discussion, consideration of the evidence presented and deliberation, the following motions were made: Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council find, based on the evidence, that the applicant had a view when they acquired the property. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion. Following discussion, the motion carried with Mayor Dieringer opposed. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council find, based on the evidence, that two Olive trees under consideration were mature when the Nuccions acquired the property and thus, exempt from remediation; that the remainder of the trees under consideration were not mature when the Nuccions acquired the property and further setting forth the restorative actions to abate the view impairment as determined by the Committee on Trees and Views. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. Following discussion, the motion carried with Mayor Dieringer opposed. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council direct staff to prepare a Resolution denying both appeals. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried with Mayor Dieringer opposed. OLD BUSINESS None. Minutes City Council Meeting 04-25-16 MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS Mayor Pro Tem Black suggested that in order to help residents understand the evolution of the tree and view issues, that staff be directed to prepare a poster showing the facts regarding the cases considered under the old view ordinance and the new one. Following brief discussion, staff was directed to prepare the poster. He further suggested that the City Council consider having a discussion in the future regarding placing a height limit on newly planted trees. CLOSED SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Dieringer adjourned the meeting at 11:12 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, May 9, 2016 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, aid. .tip Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, VAS ea Dieringer Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 04-25-16 �e* Subject Proponents Plan to qualify an Initlative Date: Sunday, April 24, 2016 6:13 PM From: Lynn GIII <lynn.gill@cex.net> 7b: "hluce@cltyofrh.net" <hiuce@cltyofrh.net' Cc: Richard Colyear <Rcelyearl@aol.com> Hello Heidi, R E C E I V t UTTION genda Iteem o: S -A APR 2 5 2015 City of Rolling Hills By Mtg. Date: 04/25/16 Richard Colyear notified the City Council on 4-42016 that he and other proponents plan to qualify an initiative on trees and views for the March 2017 City Ballot. I did not receive notice of the public forum scheduled for April 25, 2016 in time to get this into the packet for the City Council. Please make it available at the public hearing. Regards, Lynn Gill COMPARISON OF A PROPOSED TREES AND VIEWS ORDINANCE TO THE ORDINACE (Chapter 17.26) ADOPTED BY THE ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL DURING MARCH 2016 DESCRIPTION PROPOSED ORDINANCE SEC. CURRENT CHAPTER 17.026 SEC. Who pays for the legal costs of a view impairment claim? The Mew -seeker and the veeJvegetation owner each pay their own legal and other onus. 17.26.060 The city (taro -payers) pays for most of the legal casts of the view -seeker. The city pays for cots of litigation, and pays when the city Is sued as a party to the disputa The tree/ vegetation owner must pay their own legal and ether ace tses. 17.26.070 What legal recourse does the view -seeker and tree/ vegetation owner have? The Committee on Trees and Views provides assistance to the parties on a non -binding basis. if an ageenent Is not reached, the parties have recourse to appeal to Cty Counsel, arbitration, and litigation at their own egese. The city does not become a party to any legal adbrs and Incurs no legal cost,, 17.26.120 17.26.130 17.26.150 The decision of the Con lltee on Trees and Is legally binding. It may be appealed to the city by either party, and the City Council decision Is legally binding and legally enforced. The tree/vegetation owner has recourse to arbitration and litigation, at their own cost. The city pays most legal expense for the view - seeker. As a party to the dispute, the city has ehgosure of being sued. 17.26.050 What views may be preserved or restored? A view -seeker's view as It was when the view- seeker purchased their property, Including panceemic view. The view -seeker must act on a timely basis to protect their viva from Impairments by trees/vegetation growing on the property of a neighbor who owned their property at the time the view -seeker purchased their property. 17.26.010 17.26.030 A view -seekers view as it was when they purchased their property, except that unobstructed a panoramic News are not protected —only view corridors trough trees and vegetation are provided. 17.26.090 What property rights are provided to tree/vegetation owners? A bee/vegetation owner's trees and vegetation may be maintained in the same state -height and spread —as when they purchased their property. Mitigating facings to mediation actions are privacy, shade, slope stability, etc. for the tree/vegetation owner, and remedbton actions may not unreasonably Impact the envtrorrne t. 17.26.010 17.26.030 17.25.040 None, other than that the preservation/ restoration actions may not adversely affect the environment and may be subject to a CEQA ervhamertal review , and may not unreasonably detract from the prvay or enjoyment of the bee/vegetation owner's property. 17.06.050 Page I 1 4 i DESCRIPTION PROPOSED ORDINANCE SEC. CURRENT CHAPTER 17.026 SEC. What process should be The view -seeker must provide the 17.026.090 Not defined, except that the view -seeker must 17.026.040 followed by the vlewseeker treehegetation owner with a spedfic describe what efforts have been made by the and tree) vegetation owner proposal- which trees or vegetation, what view seeker to resolve the alleged view during irtannal initial adios requested, who pays for mediation Impairment issue when they file a view discussions? action;, and who pays for mairrhaumce candela with the dty. What evaivaflon criteria are Sped& aiteda we provided for detr3rrining 17.26.030 Criteria not defined, other than definition of 17.26.050 provided to the New-seelcer, tree/vegetation owner, Committee on Trees and unreasonable view Impalement, criteria for determining preservattoNresmration actions, and hierarchy of view preservation/ 17.26.040 17.26.050 what ls an established view, and definition of view impairment Renedlatbn actions may therefore vary among property owners ova Views, and decisiommaking bodes? restoraaan actions time, and as members of the Committee on Trees and Views and thy canal Wm over. What mediation adlons are Actions are plated: lacing, crown raking, crown reduction, and retinal as a last resort. 17.026.050 Remechation actions are prioritized: removal, pruning, topping, thinning or similar actions. 16.26.050 provided by the ordinance? Topping or heading bade of trees Is permitted only for a hedge, espalier, or pollard form as it can damage try and make then look usitv. Topping of trees is not permitted In roost cities What does the ordinance Nothing. My hee/vegeta ion that grows into Chapter 17.26 provides that views may not be 17.26.010 have to say about "maturing' and "mature trees and an established view is subject to remedlation, allowing for mitigating faders such as the diminished by "maiming' g' vegetation. Trees/vegetation that were already 'mature 17.026.90 vegetation? Provision of shade, priva y, slope stabllty, etc for the tree/vege ation owner. when a vlew-sed er purchased their property are exempt from Chapter 17.26. Ciy defines a "mahre'tree or vegetation as having reached 75% of the madrnum height and spread for that specie,, as defined by Sunset Western at Boat Therefore, mature trees/ vegetation may continue to grow after they became mature and sometimes Impat views. Page 12 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Agenda Item No: 6-A Mtg. Date: W25/16 A M IJu hI)I: Nip 2040 Pacific Coast Hwy.. Suite 214 Lomita, C:A Q0717 (31 0) 2574686 Fax (3 i 0} 2574606 RECEIVED Apra 21.2016 APR 2 5 2016 Howard Weinberg City of Rolling Hills The Weinberg Law Group By, 2550 Via Tejon, Suite 28 Palos Verdes Est. CA 90274 We have been retained by the Mucciors to measure the heights of certain trees located on the Hassoldt property at 15 Portuguese Bend Road in the City of Rolling Hills. California. During the month of February 2016, we measured the heights and canopy spread of thirteen trees that are listed and identified on the map attached to this letter as part 1. The height and canopy spread of each of the trees is set forth on the table attached to this letter as part 2. In performing the measurements al these trees, we applied the protocols and standards a'or such work consistent with industry practice and in a professional manner. Sincerely, Brandon GUI For American Arbor Care Q Tm. I. lur..11pnnetmpl{ut. 9 um • Wistroc61.Luna 9 Tn. 2 • N.ainrti ta.lan f imp • Wins mole C T. 1• ...wgw {mw.nnaY • TM 7•Mti..p.. QTR.{-awuumpou Q 7u.{• 6.a141n1.0 f Tact I p-7.'.ILut. nib ' Ins 11 • INayplund. TM 17• Iliathlen cant{_ T... 9•Oka naps Hassoidt Property Tree Survey Map Key ISA Certified Arborlsts: Brandon GIII (WE -6574A) l Luke Mldura (MN -4572A) Legal Description: M.B. 201-29-35 Roiling Hills Lot No. 78 ALL MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN FEBRUARY 2016 Tree # Species Common Name 1 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 2 Washinghmla robusta 3 Washingtonla robusta 4 Schinus mole 5 Olea eumpaea 6 Schinus mole 7 Acacia spp. 8 Olea empties 9 Ofee eumpaea 10 Schinus mole 11 Eucalyptus rudis Gum) 12 Eucalyptus cameldulensis Eucalyptus (Red Gum) 13 Olea europaea Olive :Eucalyptus (Red Gum) Fan Palm 'Fan Palm 'California Pepper Olive Caldomia Pepper Acacia Olive Olive .California Pepper 2016 Height Measured (Weston) Height Garden) 71.00 150 50.00 100 52.00 100 24.00 40 30.00 30 43.50 40 75% Max 2018 2016 Height Mature Height Canopy (Western Ogaden) (Y/N) Width Max Canopy 112.50 75.00 75.00 30.00 22.50 30.00 Yes 56 ' 40 30.00 (western Garden) No 50 105 No ' 10 10 No 10 10 No 32 ; 40 Yes 28 i 30 16.50 40 39.00 30 22.50 Yes 30 + 30 20.00 30 26.00 a 40 25.00 t 80 69.00 150 50.00 No 20 20 22.50 30.00 45.00 112.50 22.50 No 22 30 No 24 40 No 40 40 No 44 + 105 Yes 30 39 30 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 22"d day of April, 2016,1 serve the within City Council Meeting - 04/25/2016 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 IistSery Interested parties DELIVERED City Attorney City Manager CouncilMembers City Council Dieringer, Pieper, Black, Mirsch and Wilson 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 22"d day of April, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California. Ewa Nikodem Administrative Assistant 84 el Raffa, qeela INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING Next Resolution No. 1184 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. NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2016 7:00 P.M. 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 - Regular Meeting of April 11, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Financial Statement for the Month of March, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. D. Consideration of approval of City employee compensation adjustments for the Administrative Assistant, City Clerk/Executive Assistant and Planning Director. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. E. City Council Fire Fuel Reduction Ad Hoc Committee meeting notes of March 31, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. PRESENTATION Supervisor Don Knabe County of Los Angeles — Board of Supervisors — Fourth District 5. COMMISSION ITEMS NONE. Page I of 3 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 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 7. OLD BUSINESS NONE. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC FORUM ON A POSSIBLE BALLOT MEASURE TO REPEAL OR AMEND MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. 9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF A. QUARTERLY SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2016. B. FY 2016/2017 BUDGET PREPARATION DOCUMENTS 1) FY 2015/2016 YEAR-END REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS 2) FY 2015/2016 YEAR-END PROJECTIONS BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS 3) FY 2016/2017 CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (CPI) ADJUSTMENT FOR BUDGET AND SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES C. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS INVESTMENT POLICY; FINANCIAL, BUDGET AND DEBT POLICIES; FUND BALANCE POLICY; AND RESOLUTION NO. 953 — ASSET CAPITALIZATION POLICY. 11. CLOSED SESSION NONE. City Council Agenda 04/25/16 Page 2 of 3 12. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Monday, May 9, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item. Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the Deputy City Clerk at (310) 377- 1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting. City Council Agenda 04/25/16 Page 3 of 3 DRAFT Agenda Item No. 4-A Meeting Date: 04/25/16 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2016 CALL TO ORDER An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Dieringer at 7:02 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Black, Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Dieringer. Councilmembers Absent: None. Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Terry Shea, Finance Director. Charles Ramdsell, 8 Williamsburg Lane. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME None. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which niay be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmemher may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of March 28, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. City Council Finance/Budget/Audit Committee meeting notes of March 28, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. D. Consideration of the 2016-2017 City Council Committee Assignments. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. E. RESOLUTION NO. 1183 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN THE OSTRIKER/CHAISSON AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL CASE ORDERING THE DRAFT CONFINEMENT OF AZUL TO THE OWNERS' PROPERTY AND MODIFYING THE DECISION BY ALLOWING THE OWNER TO WALK AZUL WITHOUT A LEASH UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt as presented. CONSENT ITEMS FROM THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION: F. Consideration of a recommendation from the Traffic Commission to install "ALL WAY" plaques below the existing "STOP" signs at the intersection of Eastfield Drive and Hackamore Road. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. Councilmember Pieper asked that Item 4D Consideration of the 2016-2017 City Council Committee Assignments be removed from the consent calendar for individual consideration. Hearing no objection, Mayor Dieringer so ordered. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council approve the remaining items on the consent calendar as presented. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Consideration of the 2016-2017 City Council Committee Assignments. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council add an ad hoc committee to address stormwater related issues and further appoint Mayor Pro Tem Black and himself to that committee. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Councilmember Pieper further moved that the City Council amend the proposed committee assignments to place Councilmembers Mirsch and Pieper on the Personnel Committee instead of Mayor Dieringer and Councilmember Mirsch. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion. Following lengthy discussion, Councilmember Pieper called the question. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion to call the question, which carried with Mayor Dieringer opposed. Councilmember Pieper's motion to amend the proposed committee assignments to place Councilmembers Mirsch and Pieper on the Personnel Committee carried with Councilmember Mirsch and Mayor Dieringer opposed. Following further discussion, Mayor Dieringer moved that the City Council amend the proposed committee assignments to place Councilmember Mirsch on the Finance Committee instead of Councilmember Pieper. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council approve the remaining committee assignments as presented. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried without objection. COMMISSION ITEMS RESOLUTION NO. 2016-05. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH TWO GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, A SWIMMING POOL/SPA, KOI POND, KOI POND GAZEBO, VARIOUS HEIGHTS BUT NOT TO EXCEED 5' HIGH RETAINING WALLS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; AND VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH Minutes City Council Meeting 04-11-16 DRAFT A PORTION OF THE NEW RESIDENCE AND COVERED PORCHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 69 -A1 -MS), (JANKOVICH). Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to construct a new residence and various other structures in Zoning Case No. 897 at 77 Crest Road East. She reviewed the history on this property stating that the lot is 10 acres is size as the result of two lots being combined previously and the applicant also received previous approval to construct a stable and corral on the combined lot. She further reviewed the applicant's request stating that the residence is proposed at 6,631 sq. ft. with two, two car garages for a total of 1,308 sq. ft. to be located on each side of the house. She stated that applicant also proposes a swimming pool and covered porches as well as a koi pond and gazebo. She stated that the applicant is also requesting a variance for a portion of the new residence and porch to encroach into the sideyard set back in a situation where the existing house currently also encroaches into the setback. She further reviewed the details of the applicant's request and stated that the development standards are within the Zoning Code requirements. She stated that the Planning Commission approved the applicant's request including the variance given the impact on the grading if it were to be moved out of the setback. Mayor Dieringer questioned the need for the variance and suggested that the house could be expanded on the other side without getting into the slope. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Black as to why the applicant is proposing a biofiltration system, Planning Director Schwartz stated it is a requirement of the City's Low Impact Development Ordinance that was adopted as a result of State requirements regarding storm water management. Brief discussion ensued concerning the encroachment. Following discussion, Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-05 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 897 at 77 Crest Road East. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which with Mayor Dieringer opposed. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR A NEW CABANA, GRADING, ABOVE GRADE DECK, RETAINING WALLS, POOL AND RELATED STRUCTURES AND FOR ENCROACHMENT WITH A PORTION OF THE RAISED DECK, WALLS, POOL EQUIPMENT AREA AND FIRE PLACE INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK; TO RETAIN TWO EXISTING SHEDS, PORTION OF TRELLIS AND BARBEQUE IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK; TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE AND TOTAL COVERAGE OF THE LOT AND TO SET ASIDE AN AREA FOR A FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 893 AT 66 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 107-EF), (THOMAS). Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to construct a cabana, pool, above grade deck and various other structures in Zoning Case No. 893 at 66 Eastfield Drive. She stated that the applicant is further requesting variances to locate some of the structures in the setback and reviewed the variances being requested. She stated that the Planning Commission approved the applicant's request with a condition that there be no further development without Planning Commission review. Councilmember Mirsch stated for the record that she was present at the site visit and at the first Planning Commission hearing on this matter. Minutes City Council Meeting 04-11-16 DRAFT In response to Mayor Dieringer regarding the need expressed for the variances, Planning Director Schwartz stated that the justification was that the only other location where the structures could be located would be in the front which would also require a Variance and the Planning Commission felt that the proposed location was a better option. Mayor Dieringer expressed concern regarding the variances being requested and the as built structures. Following brief discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 893 at 66 Eastfield Drive. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried with Mayor Dieringer opposed. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-07. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF TWO LOTS AT 11 SADDLEBACK ROAD (APN: 7569-004-022) AND THE VACANT LOT SOUTH THEREOF (APN: 7569-004-023) TO CREATE ONE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 896-A, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-02, (WARREN). AND RESOLUTION NO. 2016-08. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DRESSAGE ARENA, STABLE WITH A LOFT AND CORRAL; A NEW RESIDENCE AND GARAGE, VARIOUS RETAINING WALLS, SWIMMING POOL AND RELATED PATIOS AND DECKS; TO LOCATE THE EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 896 AT 11 SADDLEBACK ROAD, (WARREN) Councilmember Pieper recused himself from consideration of these two items due to the proximity of his property to the subject property and left the dais. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request stating that this request is two applications for one project at 11 Saddleback Road. She stated that the first application is for a lot merger to combine two adjacent lots into one lot resulting in a lot 3.25 acres gross and 2.2 acres net after the roadway easements are deducted. She stated that Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-07 approves the request to merge the lots. Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-07 granting approval of the applicant's request for a lot line adjustment in Zoning Case No. 896-A at 11 Saddleback Road. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the second application is to construct a new residence, garage, pool, stable, dressage arena and various other structures on the merged lot. She reviewed the applicant's request stating that the Planning Commission approved the request with certain conditions as shown in the resolution. She further reviewed the grading and development standards stating that that a large portion of the disturbance is for the dressage arena. Minutes City Council Meeting 04-11-16 DRAFT Following brief discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-08 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 896 at 11 Saddleback Road. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Councilmember Pieper returned the dais. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 BUDGET PRIORTIIES. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz reviewed the budget priorities identified by staff for the FY 2016-2017 which include: finalize the Update to the City's Hazard Mitigation Plan (State -mandated); Refurbish Tennis Courts and Common Area for ADA Compliance; Various Zoning Code Modifications; Investigate Fully Funding CaIPERS Retirement Liability; City Hall ADA Compliance Project; Civic Center Landscaping/Hardscape Replacement Repair; 2017 Election; Identify City and Regional Storm Water Retention and Cleanup Projects; Financial System Upgrade; Initiate the Development of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan and Stage 2 of Shutter Installation at City Hall. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council receive and file the FY 2016-2017 budget priorities as presented. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS CONSIDERATION OF AN APPROPRIATION FOR A PENINSULA CITIES AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE RECOGNITION (ALPR) CAMERA PROJECT TO COMBAT CRIME IN THE REGION. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz presented the staff report stating that the Palos Verdes Peninsula Regional Law Enforcement Committee in an effort to combat crime in the area has recommended installing ALPR cameras throughout the region, including in Palos Verdes Estates; and has directed the City Managers to come up with the locations and a funding plan to be approved by each of the four City Councils. He stated that the recommendation is to install 45 cameras and provides funding formula to determine each city's proportionate share of the associated cost. He stated the there are proposed to be three cameras installed in Rolling Hills — one to capture vehicles coming in to the city through each of the three gates. He stated that this project was presented to the Minutes City Council Meeting 04-11-16 DRAFT RHCA Board of Directors last week since the cameras will be installed at their gatehouses and it was approved in concept. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council approve an appropriation in the amount of $44,319.01 for FY 15/16 and $1,108.08 per year for the next four years for participation in the Peninsula Cities Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) camera project to combat crime in the region. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried without objection. The City Manager was further directed to return with an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the purchase and installation of Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) cameras with Vigilant Solutions in conjunction with the four Peninsula cities; and, to return with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the four Peninsula cities for the Peninsula Cities ALPR Camera Project. DISCUSSION REGARDING PURCHASING A FAUX SHERIFF SQUAD CAR TO SERVE AS A DETERRENT TO CRIME. (ORAL ONLY) Councilmember Pieper stated that he received a suggestion from a resident that the City purchase a faux sheriff squad car to serve as a deterrent to crime given that burglaries keep increasing. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she is not opposed to this concept, but it is her hope that once the Volunteers on Patrol program is up an running it would serve as a similar deterrent to crime and purchasing a faux squad car may not be necessary. Following brief discussion, the City Council decided to give the Volunteers on Patrol Program a chance to affect change before making another purchase. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF PLACING A MEASURE ON THE MARCH 2017 BALLOT THAT WOULD AMEND MEASURE B. (ORAL ONLY) Councilmember Pieper suggested that the City Council have a discussion on a future City Council agenda to consider drafting a ballot measure to either repeal or amend Measure B so that residents have a more clear understanding of the City's view regulations. He stated that the goal is to have something reasonable and fair that balances both sides of the issue - trees and views. Following brief discussion, the City Council directed staff to agendize a discussion and public forum pertaining to drafting a ballot measure for the City Council meetings on April 25, 2016 and May 9, 2016. DISCUSSION REGARDING FUNDING AN AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT TRANSITION PLAN FOR CITY HALL AND CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX IN ORDER TO MAKE IT COMPLIANT WITH THE ACT. (ORAL ONLY) Mayor Dieringer stated that this item is regarding the American with Disabilities Act and making the City Center compliant. City Manager Cruz stated that this matter was identified as a priority for the FY 15/16 budget, but it hasn't yet been implemented. He stated that it was previously suggested that staff work with a resident who has knowledge in this area. He stated that the CJPIA also has resources for consultants that can help develop a transition plan. Following brief discussion, the City Council directed staff to contact Clint Patterson for assistance in developing a transition plan for ADA compliance. DISCUSSION CONCERNING DEVELOPING A PROCESS FOR RESPONDING TO CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTS. (ORAL ONLY) Minutes City Council Meeting 04-11-16 DRAFT Mayor Dieringer stated that this item was originally brought up by Councilmember Mirsch and she concurs that it would be a good idea to have a process for responding to resident correspondence or suggestions. In response to Councilmember Wilson, City Manager Cruz reviewed the City's current process for responding to resident correspondence and stated that most correspondence/inquires are responded to. Following discussion, the City Manager was directed to either respond to correspondence or forward to the City Council for consideration as appropriate. MATTERS FROM STAFF CONSIDERATION OF AN APPROPRIATION AMENDMENT FROM THE UTILITY FUND TO ASSIST EIGHT (8) WILLIAMSBURG LANE HOMEOWNERS IN PAYING FOR THE ENGINEERING DESIGN DEPOSIT ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEAD UTILITIES. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz reviewed the background and history related to this potential undergrounding project stating that in 2015, the City Council allocated $29,500 toward this project. He stated that subsequent to that allocation, there was a meeting held with the property owners in the affected area and given limited interest in the project, the project was reduced in scope to only include the eight homes on the West side of the street and the utilities have submitted revised estimates for the engineering and design deposit requirement accordingly with the revised total being $19,335. Mayor Dieringer called for public comment. Charles Ramdsell, 8 Williamsburg Lane addressed the City Council regarding the project stating that he and his wife have been supportive of the project since the beginning but he is concerned that there is not consensus amongst the rest of the neighbors. He stated that he believes that the utilities should pay the cost of undergrounding given the scope of the undergrounding project on Blackwater Canyon Road. Councilmember Pieper explained the Blackwater Canyon Road project and further explained why that project doesn't include any undergrounding on Williamsburg Lane. Following discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council appropriate 50% of the total cost of $19,335 to assist in paying for the engineering design cost associated with Williamsburg Lane undergrounding of overhead utilities project if RHCA does not contribute toward the project; or 33 1/3% if RHCA does contribute 33 1/3% to the project. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS (cont.) OTHER MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL Following discussion regarding the additional information that was request by Mayor Dieringer regarding the Planning Commission cases on this agenda, the City Council directed staff to investigate placing and storing the Planning Commission agenda packets in Dropbox using Dropbox Pro for the City Council's reference. Minutes City Council Meeting 04-11-16 DRAFT Mayor Dieringer expressed concern regarding the number of variances that are granted and stated that the City Council may need to review its policies with regard to development. Following discussion, the City Council directed staff to schedule a joint meeting with Planning Commission/City Council. In response to Mayor Dieringer regarding the view case that is currently under appeal, City Attorney Jenkins stated that he does not believe the City Council is obligated to remand the case back to the Committee on Trees and Views but it may do so if it chooses when the hearing is before the City Council. He further stated that parties may request a remand if they so desire. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS None. 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 The City Council recessed into closed session at 9:43 p.m. to discuss the matter listed above. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION Mayor Dieringer called the meeting back to order in open session at 10:50 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION (ORAL REPORT). ACTION: City Attorney Jenkins reported that during the closed session, the City Council discussed the matter listed on the closed session agenda and there was no reportable action but direction was given. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Dieringer adjourned the meeting at 10:51 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, April 25, 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 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-11-16 DRAFT Approved, Bea Dieringer Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 04-I1-16 CHECK CHECK fig DATE 24282 24283 24284 24285 24286 24287 24288 24289 24290 24291 24292 24293 24294 24295 24296 24297 24298 • PR LINE: • PR LINK City (peal h4/h Agenda Item No: 4-13 Mtg. Date: 04/25/16 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 4252016 -CHECK RUN PAYEE 04/25/2016 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO. 04/25/2016 CCCA 04252016 DAILY BREEZE 04252016 GOVINVEST, INC. 04/25/2016 GROUNDWORKS LANDSCAPE INC. 04/25/2016 JENKINS @ HOGIN, LLP 04/25/2016 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS 04252016 LA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT 04/25/2016 MANERI SIGN CO., INC. 04/25/2016 REMOTE SATELLITE SYS INTL 04252016 THE GAS COMPANY 04252016 04/25/2016 05/01/2016 05/01/2016 05/01/2016 05/01/2016 4/15/2016 4/15/2016 USCM VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS - CALPERS HEALTHSMART BENEFIT SOLUTIONS METLIFE SBC SUN LIFE PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING PR LINK - PAYROLL 8 & PR TAXES Total DESCRIPTION BILLING PERIOD 227/16-325/16 CITY MANAGER MEETTNG 3/24/16 ADVERTISING MARCH 2016 COUNCIL PRESENTATION MULCH SLOPE ATTORNEY MARCH 2016 MAINT FOR COPIER 4/112016 LAW ENFORCEMENT MARCH 2016 PAINTED SIGN SATELLITE PHONES MAY 2016 BILLING PERIOD 3/11/16-4/11/16 PAY PERIOD 4/29/16 PAY PERIOD'4292016 HEALTH 1145 MAY 2016 VISION INS MAY 2016 DENTAL INS MAY 2016 LIFE INS MAY 2016 Processing Fee Pay Period - March 30, 2016 Through Apnl 12, 2016 1, 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' 161,976.24 for the payment ofabave items. — Raymond Jt. Cruz • Previously Disbursed t ity Manager NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 3771521 FAX: (310) 3777288 AMOUNT 1,674.99 39.75 327.42 250.00 731.00 4,414.40 105.88 23,476.50 213.10 97.90 58.37 2,790.00 1,092.00 7,191.17 176.47 642.27 294.11 49.95 18,350.96 S 61,976.24 ® Printed on Recycled Paper GENERAL & CAPITAL FUND ASSETS Cash & Cash Equivalents S Cash & Cash Equivalents - Capital Project Fund Poppy Trail Grading Bond Accounts Receivable Prepaid Expense & Deposits LIABILITIES FUND BALANCE 4,463,286 S 10,956 6 929 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS BALANCE SHEET March 31, 2016 /,„1 y MUNICIPAL DEPOSIT - OPEB COPS@ COMMON. SELF. FUND l TRUST CLEEP FACILITIES INSUR. • 4 1,771 5 36,367 S 126,060 S 23,182 S 260,374 S 351,305 S (1,984) S 118,763 S 986,507 REFUSE TRAFFIC TRANSIT UTILITY COLLECT. SAFETY PROP A. C.M FUND @ TIM 305,000 222,332 94,352 TOTAL ASSETS $ 4,481,171 S 306,771 S 36,367 S 126,060 S 23,182 5 482,706 S 445,657 $ (1,984) S 118,763 S 986,507 Accounts & Contract Payable $ - 5 S - S - S S - 5 188,995 S $ Available for OPEB - 36,367 Deposits 18,803 306,771 Deferred Revenues 34,058 Employees Benefits Payable 2 538 - TOTAL LIABILITIES 55,399 306,771 36,367 188,995 Unassigned Fund Balance 4,425,772 126060 23182 482706 256662 (1,984) S 118763 986507 TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE 4,425,772 126 060 23 182 482 706 256,662 (1,984) 118 763 986,507 TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE @LIAMalt 5 4,481,171 E 306,771 S 36,367 5 126,060 S 23,182 3 482,706 5 445,657 5 (1,984) S 118,763 5 986,507 COMPOSITION OF CASH Petty Cash S OPUS Bank - Checking Account OPUS Bank - Interest Checking Account OPUS Bank - Money Market Calif. Slate Local Agency Investment Fund Malaga Bank - CDARS - CD's 1,500 23,139 1,099,743 1,000,873 4,006,332 245,000 S 6,376,587 Prepared By: Teny Shea, Finance Director Date YID TOTAL E 6,365,631 10,956 305,000 316,684 6.929 BEGINNING OF YEAR TOTAL 5 6,061,616 10,956 305,000 381,398 27.797 3 7,005,200 $ 6,786,767 S • 188,995 S 128,965 36,367 325,574 331,574 34,058 6,340 2538 587,532 466.879 6,417,668 6,319,888 6 417 668 6319.888 5 7,005,200 6,786,767 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Actual Compared to Annual Budget July 1, 2015 to March 31, 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 (Worse) Annual Budget & Adj. Remaining Budget $ 1,122,810 1,016,154 $ 1,014,617 1,007,953 $ 108,193 (8,201.00) 1,779,550 1,756,780 $ 656,740 740,626 106,656 (15,455) 6,664 13,200 99,992.00 (28,655) 22,770 (332,943) (83,886) (317,488) 91,201 19,864 71,337.00 (310,173) (401,374) 114,618 78,273 106,230 48,800 8,388.00 - (29,473) 100,200 ' 't 104,500 (14,418) 26,227 36,345 - 57,430 (21,085) (4,300) (40,645) 0 36,345 57,430 (21,085) (4,300) (40,645) - 354.00 - - (354.00) 100 57,700 100 57,346 (354.00) - - (354.00) - (57.600) 62,400 (57,246) 62,400.00 (354.00) (354.00) 4,800 5,154 235 4,380 4,145 228,332 228,096.70 (235) (4,380) 4,145 (228,332) (228,096.70) (235) (4,380) 4,145 (228,332) (228,096.70) 577,168 566,985 607,997 578,805 (30,829) 771,800 11,820 755,980 194,632 188,995 10,183 (18,000) 29,192 (13,200) (19,009) 15,820 (4,800) (24,000) 5,637 (6,000) (7,817) 15,992 (23,809) (8,180) (363) - 35,439 - 17,207 • r 50 • 50 (18,232) • 55,550 F' • 20,111 (35,439) 33,455 (17,207) - (18,232) _ (55,500) 33,455 • 55,500 , (20,061) 22,045 (1,984) (17,207) 15,223 1,984 63,499 62,013 1,486 84,141 20,642 63,499 62,013 1,486 84,141 20,642 63,499 62,013 1,486 84,141 20,642 33,800 - (33,800) 150,000 116,200.00 (33,800) _ • (33,800) - (150,000) 250,000 (116,200.00) 250,000.00 (33,800) - (33,800) 100,000 133,800.00 1,878,094 1,731,240 1,790,856 1,657,145 •87,238 (74,095) c t 2,735,841 _1 3,108,842 857,746 1,377,602 146,855 _ 133,712 - 13,143 - •• (373,001) 10,957 (519,856) 10,957 $ 146,855 $ 133,712 $ 13,143 $ (383,958) $ (530,813) .I gar al ZO& 9 gela INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 4-D Mtg. Date: 04/25/16 TO: FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CITY EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, CITY CLERIC/EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT, AND PLANNING DIRECTOR HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL DATE: April 25, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: Salary and Benefit Costs Increases Spreadsheet RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council approve the adjustments to the salaries and benefits of the Administrative Assistant, City Clerk/Executive Assistant and Planning Director as set forth by the City Council that is detailed in Attachment A to the staff report as a result of a comprehensive compensation survey. 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 will be conducted from time to time to assure that the City's jobs are paid equitably against the labor market. The City's compensation has not been reviewed since FY 2007 / 08 and needed to be reviewed again in order to make recommendations that are within budget constraints, consistent within the profession and agreed upon by the 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 was recommended the Personnel Committee, review the compensation of the employees and recommend a salary to each employee that is commensurate to each employee's responsibilities and be competitive with our local municipalities. DISCUSSION In July of 2015, the Finance staff conducted a comprehensive compensation survey. 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. After reviewing a number of salary scenarios and associated Ca1PERS obligations, the Personnel Committee referred the item so it could be discussed by the entire City Council for a decision. After reviewing the compensation survey and salary scenarios with the associated CaIPERS obligations at their March 28 and April 11 meetings, the City Council is proposing to make salary adjustments for the following positions: Administrative Assistant 1% Increase City Clerk/Executive Assistant 3% Increase Planning Director 3% Increase FISCAL IMPACT The annual cost for the proposed raises for salaries and benefits is $6,873.46 as detailed in the attached schedule. This increase would be effective the date of the City Council approval. The Finance Director confirms the City has the revenues to sustain the compensation increases and associated long-term Ca1PERS obligations. The salaries and benefits increases can be accommodated through the Contingency Account for the remainder of FY 15/16 and will be budgeted for FY 16/17. TS:RC:hi SalaryAdjushnent-stafjreport.docx City of Rolling Hills Salary & Benefit Costs Increases 7.51% 6.20% 1.45% Salary PERS FICA Medicare Total Planning Director 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% City Cerk/Executive Assist. 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% Administrative Assist. Current Salary $ 50,358.00 $ 3,781.89 $ 3,122.20 $ 730.19 $ 57,992.27 Additional 503.58 37.82 31.22 7.30 579.92 $ 50,861.58 $ 3,819.70 $ 3,153.42 $ 737.49 $ 58,572.20 1.00% Total Annual Increase $ 5,968.62 $ 448.24 $ 370.05 $ 86.54 $ 6,873.46 Agenda Item No. 4-E Meeting Date: 04/25/16 City of Rolling Hills City Council Fire Fuel Reduction Meeting Notes March 31, 2016 7:30 PM City Manager's Office Participants Bea Dieringer, Mayor Pat Wilson, Councilmember Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager J. Lopez, LA County Fire Department, Assistant Chief Scott Hale, LA County Fire Department, Assistant Chief Dave Whitney, LA County Fire Department, Captain The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. Community Wildfire Protection Plan Staff from the LA County Fire Department provided the City Council Fire Fuel Reduction Committee a presentation on the steps it takes to initiate a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). The CWPP was explained to serve as a guide for future actions of the Los Angeles County Fire Department, the City and residents in their efforts to reduce wildfire risks and hazards. Through the production of the CWPP, the aim is to protect the community from the effects of wildfire thorough outreach, education, strategic planning, and action. The CWPP will do this by accomplishing the following: 1. Identify strategies to reduce structure ignitibility while protecting the environmental integrity of the City of Rolling Hills, and 2. Identify priority projects to reduce risks and hazards from wildfire at the neighborhood or community scale. When developing the Plan, residents will have a significant role in providing feedback through public forums. It is an interactive process where residents provide recommendations on wildfire mitigation priorities. Each forum usually starts with a fire expert giving a lecture on a particular wildfire topic that engages the public for a good discussion. The Fire officials gave an overview on how Nevada County and Santa Monica Mountains Region CWPP's involved their communities and how they are good examples of developing a comprehensive CWPP. It is estimated that the plan will take two years to complete where four community meetings will most likely need to be held in order to complete the CWPP. The Committee Members wanted to know how much staff time and resources it would take to develop the Plan. The Los Angeles County Fire Department will take lead in conducting the community meetings and developing the CWPP. City staff provides a coordination role in conducting the community meetings with the assistance of the RHCA. There will be a nominal cost for various mailers and reproducing drafts of the CWPP. The Committee Members agreed that developing a CWPP is a good idea and gave direction to staff to commence with the process. The Fire Department is aiming to have its first community meeting concerning the CWPP to be held in June. The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. l�l ger, aitR� g INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJECT: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 6-A Mtg. Date: 04/25/16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING OF TWO APPEALS OF COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS DECISION: LOCATION OF TREES: 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD PROPERTY OWNER: MR.AND MRS. HASSOLDT COMPLAINANTS: DR. AND MRS. NUCCION 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD DATE PUBLISHED: November 12, 2015 ATTACHMENTS: List of Trees & Aerial Plan submitted 03/16/16 Previous List - Aerial Plan Appeal Application Photographs j City Council Resolution No. 1182 - Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B - Correspondence received since the last regular City Council meeting and the City Council Field Trip RECOMMENDATION 1. The City Council, in response to the appeals, visited both properties on March 21, 2016. It is recommended that following staff's brief presentation, the City Council receive public testimony and discuss the findings made in the field, the information and facts of the appeals submitted to date and provide direction to staff. F&A Federal Credit Union i 9- 3L 53 - S C 6� - a �' _800.222.11226 fafcu.org = I 1 F &A Federal Creation s;yAl 1 1I 33. 52- 5-ir corg 800. 222. 1226 4 fafcu.org 1 1 PREVIOUS MEETINGS, DOCUMENTATION AND REQUEST: 2. The City Council held a public hearing on November 23, 2015 and a field trip on March 21, 2016 in the matter of two appeals of a decision of the Committee and Trees and Views in the above case. At the field trip the City Council determined that there is a view from 18 Portuguese Bend Road from the outside north patio above the pool and that the view is obstructed by trees located at 15 Portuguese bend Road. 3. At the field trip Councilmembers directed staff to check with the City Attorney regarding the process for going forward, given the fact that recently new regulations and interpretation of certain terms in the Zoning Ordinance and Measure B were adopted. Members of the Council questioned whether the Council should continue deliberating this case or remand it back to the Committee on Trees and Views, and whether the newly adopted regulations and interpretation of certain terms should be applied in consideration of this case or should this case be considered under the old regulations. The City Attorney opined that the City Council should apply the newly adopted ordinance and interpretation of Measure B to this case. Additionally, if members of the City Council think that it would benefit from the review and direction from the Committee on Trees and Views, it could remand this case to them, but it is not required or necessary. 4. As requested by the City Council, prior to the field trip, the owners of 18 Portuguese Bend Rd. submitted trees aerial and a list of trees subject to the complaint, which is enclosed. Since the methodology and depiction of the trees on the current survey differ from the survey of trees submitted by the Nuccions to the CTV in their initial application, enclosed is also the aerial photo and the list previously submitted. The new list contains a column that relates each NEW tree number to the old numbering system. {Tree #10 and tree #7 on the new aerial and list are not part of this appeal). Also enclosed with this report are pictures submitted by the initial complainants for the request for a hearing to the Committee on Trees and Views. 5. Before the City Council are two appeals of a decision of the Committee on Trees and Views ("Committee") adopted on October 7, 2015. The appeals were filed by the property owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road on whose property the trees are located and by the complainants at 18 Portuguese Bend Road. Section 17.54.060(B -C) of the Municipal Code provides the City Council with the authority to uphold, overturn or otherwise modify the Committee's original action; or remand the application back to the Committee for further review and direction. 6. Appeals PLEASE REFER TO THE DOCUMENTS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION PROVIDED TO YOU FOR THE NOVEMBER 23, 2015 MEETING. A. The appeal by Mr. and Mrs. Hassoldt (tree owners) has been filed on the basis: • The Nuccions have not established, by clear and convincing evidence or at all, the existence of a protected view over Number 15 (15 Portuguese Bend Road); • Each of the trees subject to the complaint are exempt because they were mature on April 22, 2009 (when the Nuccions acquired the property) • Other various bases for the appeal. i. The Hassoldts were not properly noticed of the view complaint case filed by the Nuccions ii. The View Ordinance fails to provide procedure to require service of view complaint iii. Upholding the CTV resolution would be in excess of the jurisdiction of the City iv. The remediation actions will provide an unobstructed view and not "view corridors" to the Nuccions v. No view existed when the Nuccions acquired the property and therefore the decision of the CTV is unlawful vi. The Nuccions have failed to establish by "clear and convincing evidence" that they had a view when they purchased the property and that the trees were not mature when they acquired the property. The details of the statement of Appeal are enclosed as Attachment C to the report provided to you for the 11-23-15 City Council meeting. B. The appeal by Dr. and Mrs. Nuccion (complainants) has been filed on the basis that: • The Committee erred in its decision that the two Olive trees subject to the complaint were mature when the Nuccions purchased the property, and are therefore not eligible for remediation; and • The Committee abused its discretion by rejecting one arborist report that concluded that the Olive trees were not mature and accepting another arborist report that concluded that the Olive trees were mature; and that the decision of the Committee to render those trees mature is not supported by substantial evidence. The details of the statement of Appeal are enclosed as an Attachment D to the report provided to you for the 11-23-15 City Council meeting. 7. Mr. Harold Light, Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Hassoldt submitted a letter and aerial photographs of the properties and the area in the vicinity from 2009, 2010 and 1954, which are enclosed. In addition, his correspondence dated February 3, 2016 is also attached. Mr. Howard Weinberg, Attorney for Dr. and Mrs. Nuccion submitted a report, enclosed. In the report he states that they have retained two consultants, an arborist who measured the height and spread of 13 trees on the Hassoldts property; and a photometric expert who analyzed the trees for their height as of 2010. In her analysis, she reports that based on the calculations recently adopted by the City Council for administrative interpretation of Measure B, all but 2 trees were not mature when the Nuccions purchased the property. In the report, Mr. Weinberg argues that the two Olive Trees, which based on the calculations and analysis by the expert, would be considered mature, should not be considered mature because their current height is greater than the height this species could achieve as set forth in the Sunset Western Garden Book. Therefore, he states, the maximum height shown in the Sunset Western Garden Book is too low and requests that the City Council consider a higher maximum height for the Olive Trees, such as 50 feet. 8. Pursuant to Section 17.54.060 of the Zoning Ordinance, the appeal hearing shall be limited to the issues raised by the appellants identified above and conducted as a de novo hearing, meaning that a new hearing shall be held and new evidence may be considered; however, the scope of the City Council's review shall be limited to those issues identified in the two appeals. The City Council shall consider all information in the Committee's record, as well as additional information presented at the appeal hearings, before taking action. 9. The City Council, in response to the appeal, is requested to consider the record on this case including observations in the field, receive public testimony and additional information, if any, and provide direction to staff. Based on the appeals and the provisions of Measure B, given that the City Council established in the field that there is a view from the Nucciori s residene and that the view is obstructed, the City Council should determine as follows: • Did the Nuccions establish by "clear and convincing evidence" that they had a view when they acquired the property in April 2009 • If the answer is "yes", do the trees obstruct the view the Nuccions had in 2009 • If the answer is "yes", were the trees mature or maturing in 2009; and which trees were mature and which were maturing • Were the two Olive trees mature when the Nuccions purchased the property; (The CTV deemed those two trees mature, which made them ineligible for restorative action) • If it is determined that the trees (or some of them) were not mature; then, pursuant to Measure B, structure the restorative action in such a way that it would establish view corridors and view through trees and not provide a panoramic view • If it is determined that the trees (or some of them) were mature in April 2009, then the mature trees would not be eligible for restorative action The City Council could also remand the case back to the Committee on Trees and Views or uphold their decision. 10. Staff consulted with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) regarding whether the location of Mayor Pieper's home within 500 feet of 15 Portuguese Bend Road creates a conflict requiring recusal. The FPPC determined that no conflict exists and Mayor Pieper may participate in the proceedings. BRIEF BACKGROUND (A detailed report was provided to the City Council for the 11/23/15 meeting) 11. On April 24, 2014, Dr. and Mrs. Nuccion, the owners of 18 Portuguese Bend Road ("Complainants"), filed a View Impairment Complaint ("Complaint") against trees located on property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Hassoldt at 15 Portuguese Bend Road. The Complaint was referred to a mediator and after that mediation failed to achieve an agreement, on December 22, 2014, with clarified request letter and other information, on February 4, 2015 the Complainants applied to the City for resolution of the complaint before the Committee on Trees and Views. 12. In the application, the complainants requested that their view be restored to the cut lines that existed when they purchased the property, which (they stated) are clearly visible on the trees. They stated that to the best of their ability they are providing pictures of their view and how it is obstructed (at time of application submittal). The complainants purchased the property in April 2009 and proof of purchase was submitted to the City. The applicants stated that the trees block the view of the City lights to the north of Rolling Hills. They stated that in the past they had a clear view from Santa Monica to Mt. Baldy and that their primary viewing areas are the rooms on the north side of the residence and the patio immediately adjacent thereto. 13. Between March 2015 and October 2015 the Committee held several public hearings including a field trip on April 21, 2015 to both properties. 14. Following the public hearings and the field visit, the Committee found that: a. a view as defined in the Municipal Code existed from 18 Portuguese Bend Road when the Complainants acquired the property, b. the view from the Complainants' property is significantly impaired because 11 trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road impair the view of the City lights from the Designated Viewing Areas, and c. restorative action is necessary to abate the view impairment by creating view corridors and views through trees. 15. At its April 21, 2015 meeting, the Committee directed staff to bring a Resolution addressing 11 trees at 15 Portuguese Bend Road. Those trees were to be laced, trimmed and lowered to the previous cuts. Mr. and Mrs. Hassoldt attorney submitted a letter challenging the resolution on the following points: 1) that the Committee should have been provided with additional evidence regarding the tree including an independent arborists' report and a civil engineer's report and 2) that the Committee did not consider or discuss the maturity of the trees. The Assistant City Attorney advised the Committee that they should make a finding regarding maturity. At the meeting staff reiterated that the Ordinance as amended by Measure B, does not differentiate with regard to the type of restorative action when it exempts mature trees and does not provide guidance as to the determination of maturity when trees have been trimmed in the past. The Committee decided that an independent arborist should be consulted to determine the maturity of the trees. Staff was directed to procure an independent Arborist to conduct a study of the subject trees and return with findings. 16. After several postponements of the meetings and challenges by the parties, the City selected David De La Torre as the independent arborist. Both parties presented to the Committee Arborist Reports prepared by their selected arborist. The findings in those reports were conflicting; and both the applicants and the owners of the trees urged the Committee to consider their arborist's report. 17. At the September 22, 2015 Committee meeting, Mr. De La Torre presented his findings where he concluded that of the 11 trees at issue, only two (Tree #4A and #7, both Olive Trees) were not mature in 2009, and the remainder were mature and would therefore be ineligible for remediation under Measure B. However, he also found that many of the trees that he deemed mature show signs of "TOPPING" trim method prohibiting the tree's "NATURAL" height potential and he recommended trimming of those trees. 18. The City's arborist used an acceptable methodology in the field of arboriculture to determine whether a tree is mature or not. The applicants and tree owners' arborists disputed City arborist's conclusion, but none showed how they came to their conclusion that the trees in question were either mature or not mature (mature - Hassoldts arborist; not mature-Nuccions arborists). In their report they relied on their experience, literature and knowledge of the field to make their case. One of the arborists provided a definition of maturity as when a tree reaches its highest potential height, but did not substantiate what that is in the case of the trees in question. [See Arborists reports in Attachment E-2, CTV Staff Reports dated 7/7/15, 7/21/15 and 9/22/15 of your Agenda Item 5B of the Appeal packet -(binder) dated 11/23/15]. 19. Notwithstanding Mr. De La Torre's findings, and considering the other reports, the Committee reviewed historical photographs in ROLLING HILLS The Early Years, by A.E. Hanson (1978), and determined that the photographs of the general area of the property at 15 Portuguese Bend Road shows that only two (tree #9 and #9A on the old list and #8 and #13 on the new list) of the obstructing trees, both Olive trees, existed at the time of the photograph and therefore were mature when the Complainants acquired their property in 2009, and are therefore ineligible for remediation under Measure B. The Committee found the remaining nine trees not to be mature and ordered restorative action as follows: TYPE OF TREE & TREE # LOCATION ACTION MAINTENANCE 1 Eucalyptus NO ACTION NO ACTION 2 Eucalyptus- along Roadway easement -front Lace, shape & crown reduce to no higher than the current height of Palm Trees Every two years 3 Washington Fan Palm - along N/E side of property Remove the dead fronds Every two years 3 -A Washington Fan Palm - along N/E side of property Remove the dead fronds Every two years 4 Eucalyptus & various volunteers- S/W corner of lot Lower the canopy and trim to old cuts for city view Every two years 4-A Olive & various volunteers- S/W corner of lot Lower the canopy and trim to old cuts for city view Every two years 5 Eucalyptus- by garage Reduce crown to the height of top of pole Every two years 6 California Pepper- along front Shape & reduce canopy to old cuts Every two years 6-A California Pepper -along front Shape & reduce canopy to old cuts Every two years 7 Olive along front; O li corner Shape, reduce crown and balance to 2009 view Every two years 8 Acacia NO ACTION NO ACTION 9 Olive Tree- Lawn area NO ACTION NO ACTION 9-A Olive Tree- lawn area NO ACTION NO ACTION TOTAL 9 Trees Subject to Initial Restorative Action The initial action is to be completed at the cost of the owners of 18 Portuguese Bend Road, the initial complainants in this case; and the two-year maintenance is to be implemented by the owners of the trees. Hassoldt Property Tree Survey Mao Key ISA Certified Arborists: Brandon Gill (WE -6574A) / Luke Midura (MN -4572A) Legal Description: M.B. 201-29-35 Rolling Hills Lot No. 78 Tree # Species Common Name Old List #s 1 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 2 Washingtonia robusta 3 Washingtonia robusta 4 Schinus molle 5 Olea europaea 6 Schinus molle 7 Acacia spp. 8 Olea europaea 9 Olea europaea 10 Schinus molle 11 Eucalyptus rudis 12 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 13 Olee europaea Eucalyptus (Red Gum) Fan Palm Fan Palm California Pepper Olive rCalifomia Pepper Acacia Olive Olive California Pepper Gum) 'Eucalyptus (Red Gum) Olive 2 3 3A 6 7 6A 8 9A 4A not on old list 4 5 9 No # Eucalyptus camaldulensis Eucalyptus (Red Gum) 1 - removed RECttV c MAR 1 a ZIA City off,H0 '�"'- t' By Hassoldt Properly Onabnon Tune nnat.mn act rWeaea Spar *owlets -enwrml * wrYen eglonaeier cat 7Ot.A36 eere Nrtarw 9 Tree 1 - Eucalyptus camaldu .. 9 Tree 2- Washingtaie rebuat. 9 Tree 3- Weshingtooia robust. 9 Tree a- Schinus male 9 Tree 6- ota tampon 9 Tree 6- Schemes mat 9 Tres 7 -Acacia app. 9 Tree 8.Ores europsee 9Tree 9-deeeuropium 9 Tree 10-Schinos mat 9 Tree 11 - Eucalyptus nags 9 Tree 12 - Eualyptue calmul.. 9 Tree I3 - Wee europeee e ea • a ,• fr 4 t - /`rig' "Cp s ' • ee ti P One j 4 // 4M 1 s COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS ORDER FOR RESTORATIVE ACTION —OCTOBER 2015. TYPE OF TREE AND TREE # LOCATION ACTION MAINTENANCE 1 Eucalyptus NO ACTION NO ACTION 2 Eucalyptus- along Roadway easement -front Lace, shape & crown reduce to no higher than the current height of Palm Trees Every two years 3 Washington Fan Palm- along N/E side of property Remove the dead fronds Every two years 3-A Washington Fan Palm- along N/E side of property Remove the dead fronds Every two years 4 Eucalyptus & various volunteers- S/W corner of lot Lower the canopy and trim to old cuts for city view Every two years 4-A Olive & various volunteers- S/W corner of lot Lower the canopy and trim to old cuts for city view Every two years 5 Eucalyptus- by garage Reduce crown to the height of top of pole Every two years 6 California Pepper- along front Shape & reduce canopy to old cuts Every two years 6-A California Pepper -along front Shape & reduce canopy to old cuts Every two years 7 Olive Tree- along front; S/E comer Shape, reduce crown and balance to 2009 view Every two years 8 Acacia NO ACTION NO ACTION 9 Olive Tree- lawn area NO ACTION NO ACTION 9-A Olive Tree- lawn area NO ACTION NO ACTION TOTAL 9 Trees Subject to Initial Restorative Action @ 2/ co laity N co —q) r 2 lit y of -?oiling HiU Q LT„ le'Crt G�iy Save home Save image X Close -OA- _____,.,( i #-0 (t/e)-1 618 Save home Save image X Close 1(y 4-5 -lam DC 2 ?a City of Rolling Hills By 7/8 RECEIVtL FEB 0 4 2015 City of Rolling Hills By 3/19 T ^ n RECtI V GI) FEB 0 4 2015 City of Rolling Hills By 'Ziede. aoll 4/19 RECEIVED FEB 0 4 2015 City of Rolling Hills By r" Ma 5/19 FEB 0 4 2015 City of Rolling Hills By 4.0cay 6/19 aiwtitCw FEB C 4 2015 City of Rolling Hips By 7/19 RECEIVED Arra FEB 04 2015 City of Rolling Hills By � . p �^i rt.: . r J 1 J r 8/19 4 <i ,'` ii1'Ji t `� a i �C C re, 44 es h6 r , -17.,C1VED FEB 042015 City of Rolling Hills By '4A I. .rir►r rrr, 1 . •‘..._,. ; FEB Q ; 2015 Crty of Rotltng Hi s By I+ N poR Ofr V RECEIVkc FEB Pi 2015 City of Rolling Hills By FEB 0 4 2015 City of Rolling Hills By RESOLUTION NO. 1182 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. In June 1988, the City adopted a View Preservation Ordinance. The ordinance established preservation of views as a primary value of the community and created a process by which a property owner could seek to abate an obstructed view. In November 2003, the ordinance was modified relative to the composition of the Committee on Views and Trees, the body designated to consider view applications. Section 2 In March 2013, the residents of Rolling Hills passed Measure B to amend the View Preservation Ordinance. The principal effect of Measure B was to shift the protection of the ordinance from views that are capable of being enjoyed from a property to views that were actually enjoyed from a property when the ptup.., ty owner acquired the property. In particular, the initiative amended the ordinance as follows: Only a view that existed when the current property owner "actually acquired" the property may be restored; Abatement of view impairment is limited to obstructions caused by trees that were "maturing" at the date of acquisition and trees that were "mature" at the time of property acquisition are excluded from consideration; • Measure B specified that abatement of view impairment is intended to create "view corridors" and views through trees, and not unobstructed views; • Measure B specified that its provisions are to be applied retroactively. Section 3. Measure B contains various ambiguities that have resulted in uncertainty in its application in view obstruction cases submitted to the City's Committee on Trees and View for consideration. Measure B can only be amended by the voters; however, the City may adopt administrative regulations providing guidance and interpreting ambiguities in voter initiatives in order to assure uniformity in the application of Measure B to future view complaint cases Based on this authority and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the City Council reviewed, discussed and developed a policy interpreting Measure B. Section 4 The City Council finds that Attachment A titled City of Rolling Hills Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation clarify the initiative and is hereby adopted: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 141" DAY OF MARCH, 2016. MAYOR ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Resolution No.1182 Measure B Interpretation STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1182 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 14, 2016 by the following mll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Pieper. NOES: Councilmembers Black and Dieringer. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. Resolution No.1182 Measure B Interpretation /1 Pm HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERIC Attachment A City of Rolling Hills Administrative Revolatlon&Jnternretlna Measure B Relating to View Preservation Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Date of Property Acquisition "Mature" versus "Maturing" Trees Retroactivity of Measure B Chapter 1 DATE OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION Section 1001. Interpretation of the Date of Acquisition of Property. Measure B provides that a person may only apply to restore the view existing from the date that the current owner of the property actually acquired the property. The City interprets this provision to mean that the protectable view under the ordinance is the view possessed by the property on the date it was most recently purchased for fair market value. Hence, in determining the date on or after which the protecmble view is established, the acquisition date shall be the most recent date title to the property was conveyed for fair market value (as evidenced by a deed) through an arms -length purchase and sale. Chapter 2 "MATURE" VERSUS "MATURING" TREES Section 2001. • Definition of "Mature" Trees For purposes of RHMC Section 17.26.090 (2) a tree will be considered mature if at the time the party claiming view impairment acquired the property the tree had achieved 75% of its maximum canopy ' height and width (spread). Maximum canopy height and width will be as set forth in the latest edition of the Sunset Western Garden Book that contains the tree species under consideration. The Sunset Western Garden Book is a trusted reference guide on trees. plants and other vegetation pres®t in the region and displays a plant species' height ranges and other characteristics. Should the Rolling Hills Committee on Trees and Views, City Council or any of the parties involved in a view complaint case require or wish to obtain an expert opinion on maturity of trees, such opinion shall be provided by a certified consulting arborist who is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA). For the purpose of measuring the height of a tree, the height shall be measured between the base of the tree and the tip of the highest branch on the tree. The base of the tree is the point of' the tree where the pith (center) of the tree intersects the ground surface. The width (spread) of a tree canopy shall be measured across the canopy from the tip of the outermost branch at one end of the tree to the tip of the outermost broach at the opposite side of the tree (from dripline to dripline). Section 2002. Definition of "Maturing" Trees Trees and other vegetation that are not "mature" as specified in these regulations are "maturing." Chapter 3 RETROACTIVITY OF MEASURE B Section 3001. Retroactive Application. Any resolution of the City of Rolling Hills adjudicating any complaint regarding view impairments adopted by the Committee on Trees and Views, or the City Council on appeal, prior to March 18, 2013, is hereby considered void and will not be enforced by the City. Resolution No.1 182 Measure B Interpretation THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 0 LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD J. LIGHT 11355 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD. SUITE 300 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90064-1614 TELEPHONE (310) 473-2233 ' FAX 13101 473-0077 February 2, 2016 Via Overnight Delivery RECEIVED FEB 032016 City of Rolling Hills By Our File No: 2122.05 City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: Appeal of Resolution No. 2015-03-CTV of the Committee on Trees and Views to the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills Filed By William and Judith Hassoldt Number 15 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills Consideration of Ordinance No. 346 Amending Title 17. 0 the Rolling Hills Municipal Code Relating to View Preservation In Zoning Case No. 881 and Zoning Code Amendment No. 2015-03 Dear City Staff: As you know, this office represents the owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road in the City of Rolling Hills ("No. 15 PBR"), William and Judith Hassoldt (the "Hassoldts") . in connection with the referenced appeal from the decision of the City's Committee on Trees and Views. In connection with that appeal and the appeal by Steve and Diana Nuccion from that same decision (the "Appeals"), enclosed please find a declaration of Registered Consulting Arborist, Ruben Green ("Mr. Green"). At the November 23, 2015 meeting, Council Member Black inquired whether there was any impediment to the Hassoldts' trimming trees on No. 15 PBR during the pendency of this process and the City Attorney responded that there was not. Accordingly, as they have always made clear they intended to do, the Hassoldts have caused restorative trimming to be performed on trees located at No. 15 PBR. In an effort to make certain that such trimming would be done in a way that was best for the health and safe growth of the trees, the Hassoldts retained Mr. Green to oversee the trimming on their property. In the enclosed declaration, Mr. Green discusses the trimming of the Hassoldts' trees and also addresses the issue(s) surrounding the determination of whether any City of Rolling Hills February 2, 2016 Page 2 particular tree on No. 15 PBR (and/or within the City) should be considered "mature". While Mr. Green's analysis, stated under oath, is relevant to the Appeals, it also has direct application to the City's evaluation of proposed changes to the View Ordinance. For that reason, the Hassoldts respectfully request that the City Council also receive and consider Mr. Green's declaration in connection with its analysis of the issues surrounding the proposed amendment(s) to the City's View Ordinance. In order to facilitate the City Council's consideration of Mr. Green's declaration in connection with both of the above referenced matters, I am enclosing sixteen (16) copies of Mr. Green's declaration. Eight (8) of the copies -have a face page which reads "Declaration of Arborist Ruben Green Re: Appeals from Resolution No. 2015-03-CTV of the Committee on Trees and Views to the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills". The other eight (8) copies have have a face page which reads "Declaration of Arborist Ruben Green Re: The Rolling Hills City Council's Consideration of Ordinance No. 346 Amending Title 17 of the Rolling Hills: . Municipal Code Relating to View Preservation in Zoning Case No. 881 and Zoning Code Amendment No. 2015-03". If anyone from the City has any questions about Mr. Green's declaration, or anything else, they should not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD J. LIGHT HJL:akb Enclosures DECLARATION OF ARBORIST RUBEN GREEN RE: APPEALS FROM RESOLUTION NO. 2015-03-CTV OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RECEIVE[? FEB 032016 City of Roiling Hills By 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF RUBEN M. GREEN I, Ruben M. Green, declare as follows: 1. I know the facts set forth in this declaration of my own personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to such facts under oath. 2. I am an arborist and the president of Evergreen Arborists Consultants, Inc. An arborist is a tree specialist who uses his or her education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees through pruning. I have been retained to oversee the pruning services in connection with trees and palms located on property owned by William and Judith Hassoldt (the "Hassoldts") located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road in the City of Rolling Hills (the "Hassoldt Property"). I have also been asked to opine on the issue of how arborists define "mature" trees. My Education, Training and Experience 3. I have over 30 years of experience in the landscape industry. My background includes hands-on experience in tree care, landscape maintenance, construction, and irrigation management. I have a Master's Degree in plant science from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. I provide detailed investigations, independent analysis, and, since 2003, expert witness testimony. I am a Registered Consulting Arborist with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, a certified arborist and a certified tree risk assessor with the International Society of Arboriculture ("ISA"), licensed pesticide applicator with the state of California, and a C-27 licensed California contractor. A true and correct copy of my curriculum vitae is attached to this declaration as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as if set forth here in full. 4. I have examined thousands of trees and performed hundreds of forensic examinations on trees. I am knowledgeable and have experience in tree pruning. I have Declaration of Ruben M. Green 1 lectured at ISA sponsored events and taught classes on tree pruning at tree industry 1 events. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 My Site Visits to the Hassoldt Property 5. On December 9, 2015, December 29, 2015, and again on January 27, 2016, I conducted site inspections of trees on the Hassoldt Property. I understand that the adjacent, uphill property is owned by Diana Nuccion and Steve Nuccion (the "Nuccions") and is located at 18 Portuguese Bend Road in the City of Rolling Hills (the "Nuccion Property"). The Pruning of the Hassoldts' Trees 6. I supervised tree and palm pruning at the Hassoldt Property on January 27, 2016. The objective of this pruning was to maximize the stability of the trees' structures by preventing (or minimizing) the creation of internal and external defects. The pruning method used on the Hassoldts' trees is referred to as "cleaning", which involves the selective removal of dead, diseased, detached, and crossing/rubbing and broken branches. This is the preferred pruning method for mature trees because it does not remove live branches unnecessarily and does not remove branches indiscriminately. This method of pruning was chosen to reduce the risk of branch failure, promote safety, provide clearance, increase light exposure, maintain tree health, and to adequately support the weight of the branches, leaves, and fruit, and reduce the effects of wind, as much as possible. 7. Because the trees which were trimmed at the Hassoldt Property (other than the Palms) had previously been topped, in order to improve the health and structural stability of the trees it is very important that great care be exercised in pruning. For this reason, in overseeing the pruning I made certain that standard arboricultural pruning guidelines -- such as the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) Z1 33.1 Standard, Declaration of Rube M. Green 2 L. 'tit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the National Arborist Association pruning standards, and the Western Chapter ISA Pruning Standards -- were followed in order to maximize the structural stability (and otherwise seek to preserve the health) of the trees. The Definition Of "Mature" Trees 8. In the course of my retention to oversee the trimming of trees on the Hassoldt Property, it came to my attention that the Nuccions' had retained an arborist, Kevin Eckert ("Mr. Eckert"), to opine that the trees are not mature. At the outset, there is no basis for the suggestion that Mr. Eckert's claimed expertise in connection with the ISA "Glossary of Arboricultural Terms" gives him special insight into the definition of the words "mature" and "maturing". In this regard, it is important to note that the ISA does NOT provide a definition of a mature tree. That is, neither "mature" nor "maturing" is defined in the 2015 ISA "Glossary of Arboricultural Terms". 9. Mr. Eckert has apparently suggested that the determination of whether or not a tree is "mature" is based on the "maximum height that a plant is likely to reach if the conditions of the planting site are favorable". In adopting this position, Mr. Eckert seems to be suggesting that the definition of "mature height" determines the definition of what is a "mature tree." This is simply not accurate. The issue of assessing a tree's mature height is for the purpose of determining how tall a tree is likely to grow, and it involves an evaluation of the range of heights a particular species of tree may achieve depending on conditions. A tree's mature height does not, in and of itself, define the maturity of a tree and is not consistent with industry standard or predominantly accepted by arborists in determining whether any particular tree is "mature." 10. Moreover, it is neither logical nor accurate to say that maturity should be only when a tree reaches the maximum of "mature height." As an example of the impropriety of Mr. Eckert's suggestion that we should tie the definition to such a narrow finding, we need look no further than the Cal Poly site which Mr. Eckert references. This Declaration of Ruben M. Green 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 site is also the Official Registry of California Big Trees. By Mr. Eckert's definition, only 353 trees in California would qualify as mature trees. 11. I was also surprised to see Mr. Eckert comparing tree heights referencing Wikipedia. I do not consider Wikipedia to be a particularly reliable source. Indeed, the Wikipedia "Terms of Use" state that citation to Wikipedia in research may be considered unacceptable. That is because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source. 12. Finally, Mr. Eckert neither visited the site nor conducted any examination of the surrounding trees, but only "reviewed all of the photographs dated 2010 and 2011" and "reviewed the live video feed from the Nuccion property to consider the status of all 11 of the subject trees." Although I do not have access to these photographs or the video, in my experience, attempting to assess living trees from photographs or video without actually seeing those trees in person is extremely difficult and should be avoided. 13. In contrast to Mr. Eckert, I visited the Hassoldt property on three occasions. Height alone is an inadequate and insufficient criteria for assessing whether a tree is mature. If height were the only consideration, a "mature" tree that breaks from wind loads would be shorter and because of the reduction in height would no longer be "mature". Such an analysis of maturity would be nonsensical. Likewise, the suggestion that an otherwise mature tree which has had its crown reduced is no longer "mature" on account of the crown reduction makes no sense whatsoever. Other factors such as a tree trunk's diameter and the age of the tree must be considered in determining whether a tree in a particular area is mature. In this regard, several studies and analyses have been done which evaluate whether trees are mature taking into account other than the maximum height a tree is expected to grow.' In addition, trees must be compared with 1 For example, an analysis of trunk diameter was included in Management Guidelines for Mature Trees, (2014), Greening, Landscape and Tree Management Section, The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: Development Bureau. See also, Gupta, P.K., and Durzan, D.J., (1985), "Shoot multiplication from mature trees of Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana)," Plant Cell Reports, University of California, Davis, CA, for an analysis of maturity based on the age of the tree. Declaration of Ruben M. Green 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 similar species within the specific area with similar conditions (i.e., in the community of Rolling Hills). 14. In order to assist in my evaluation of the Hassoldts' trees, on December 29, 2015, I surveyed Red Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) trees within Rolling Hills. The results of my survey, when combined with my experience, made clear to me that the Eucalyptus trees which were trimmed with my oversight are unquestionably mature. Likewise, viewing the Olive and Palm trees and researching historical photographs also clearly demonstrates that those species on the Hassoldt Property which were pruned are also mature trees. For example, it is clear that two of the Olive trees on the Hassoldt Property are at least 75 years old and any suggestion that trees of that age are not mature is not supportable under any analysis. 15. I have been informed that the City of Rolling Hills has been asked to pass an ordinance declaring that a tree cannot be considered "mature" if it has been previously trimmed, and therefore would not be subject to certain protections already contained in the municipal code. However, regular pruning and clearing of trees is a part of good tree maintenance and has absolutely no bearing on whether those trees are mature. In this regard, it is important to note that failure properly to maintain trees can result in very significant property damage, personal injuries, and even deaths. Accordingly, in my opinion it would be imprudent to pass an ordinance that discourages proper tree maintenance. Interference With Pruning by Neighbor at the Nuccion Property 16. At the time of the trimming on January 27, 2016, I was informed by the tree trimming crew that a woman, who stated that she was the owner of the Nuccion Property, stopped the crew shortly after they began pruning the Eucalyptus tree on the southwest corner of the Hassoldt Property, claiming that they were crossing onto the neighbor's property to pick up cut branches, and she refused to allow them to do so. This prevented Declaration of Ruben M. Green 5 %il 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the crew from properly pruning the tree and additional work ceased on that tree. In my opinion, to maintain the best health of this tree, both sides of the tree should be pruned and it is not good for only half of the tree to be trimmed. Accordingly, it was my recommendation that unless we could trim the entire tree, the tree trimmers should stop trimming the tree altogether and that is what happened. Of all the trees on the Hassoldt Property, in my opinion the one that the neighbor would not allow us to trim is the one that needs the most pruning. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on February 2, 2016, at Mission Viejo, California. Ruben M. Green Declaration of Ruben M. Green 6 EXHIBIT A CURRICULUM VITAE 2015 Ruben M. Green, M.S. President, Evergreen Arborists Consultants, Inc. Forensic & Consulting Arbor1st rgreen@greenarborists.com www.greenarborists.com Ruben Green, president of Evergreen Arborists Consultants, Inc. has over 30 years of experience in the landscape industry. His background includes hands-on experience in tree care, landscape maintenance, construction, and irrigation management. His problem solving approach, make him an excellent choice as a technical consultant or expert witness on a wide variety of tree and landscape related issues. He provides detailed investigations, independent analysis and expert witness testimony in support of litigation for premises liability, MSJ, trespass, inverse condemnation, eminent domain, worker safety, and tree nuisance cases. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE He has served as an expert witness, technical consultant or forensic investigator for cases and claims in California, Idaho, and Hawaii. Mr. Green has testified at over 85 depositions, 80 mediations, three arbitrations, six bench and eight jury trials. He has performed over 3,000 tree appraisals, tree risk 8. hazard assessments, and over 500 urban and wildfire fire damage claims, tree protection reports for construction projects, tree root analysis, and personal injury and property damage cases. Percentage of designated expert witness case work since 2010 is approximately 50% for defense and 50% for plaintiff. EDUCATION M.S. Plant Science 2011, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. PARTIAL LISTING AS LITIGATION CONSULTANT OR EXPERT WITNESS Harrington, Foxx, Dubrow & Canter, LLP Description: Jury trial 2014. Tree worker safety. Law Office of Martin Holly, LLP Description: Jury trial 2010. Utility pruning and property damage. The Ball Law Firm Description: Jury trial 2008. Tree and landscape appraisals. Los Angeles 818.986.0137 Law Office of Leviton, Diaz & Ginocchio Description: Bench trial worker injury. 2010. Law Office of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP Description: Bench trial 2009. View obstruction and slope stability. Law Office of Archer Norris Description: Trespass tree appraisals Orange County Palo Alto 949.837.7700' 650.644.6115 PARTIAL LISTING AS LITIGATION CONSULTANT OR EXPERT WITNESS, cont'd Low Office of Callahan, McCune 8. Willis Description: Jury trial 2008. Tree appraisals due to chemical spill. Law Office of Brent C. Scott. Description: Jury trial 2008. View obstruction personal injury. Law Office of Watten, Discoe, Bassett 8. McMains. Description: Bench trial 2007. Trespass tree appraisals. Law Office of: Barton, Petrini & Conron, LLP. Description: Jury trial 2006. View and tree palm appraisals. Law Office of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP. Description: Arbitration 2010. View obstruction. Law Office of Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. Description: Approximately 350 Wildfire tree, landscape, irrigation, and nursery evaluations. Law Office of Thorpe & Howell Description: Trespass tree appraisals, tree poisoning, and tree root damage. Law Office of Bremer, Whyte, Brown & O'Meara. Description: Landscape construction defect and tree roots Law Office of Richards, Watson & Gershon. Description: Eminent domain nursery evaluations. Law Office of P.K. Schrieffer, LLP. Description: Wildfire tree, landscape, irrigation evaluations and trespass tree appraisals. Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman. Description: Wildfire tree landscape, irrigation and cases. Los Angeles 818.986.0137 Law Office of Michael Hearn. Description: Landscape construction defect slope failures. Law Office of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Description: Personal injury, construction defect. Law Office of Nelson & Griffen, LLP. Description: Jury trial. Trespass tree appraisals. Law Office of Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Description: Tree removals, worker accident, tree roots, and landscape construction defect. Reed Smith LLP. Description: Trespass tree appraisals. Law Office of Wesierski & Zurek. Description: Worker injury and standard of care cases. Law Office of Prout & LeVangie Description: Tree root displacement and personal injury. Low Office of Coddington, Hicks & Danforth. Description: Trespass tree appraisal cases. Law Office of M. C. Hall & Associates Description: Tree risk assessment, view obstruction, trespass and nuisance. Law Office of Chong & Chong Description: Tree failure and wrongful death tort. RPM Law Group. Description: Tree failure and tree root cases Law Office of Williams and Associates Description: Construction defect. Orange County 949.837.7700 Palo Alto 650.644.6115 PARTIAL LISTING OF CLIENTS and PROJECTS Southem California Gas Company SDG&E AT&T Caltrans, Department of Transportation City of Los Angeles Six Flags Magic Mountain County of Los Angeles Los Angeles Department of Water and Power City of Mission Viejo Weisman Design Group Westmont College, Santa Barbara Parsons Engineering and Construction Jameson Products Puente Hills Habitat Preservation Tru Green America's Tire Company Kimley-Horn Carts, Jr. PARTIAL LISTING OF INSURANCE COMPANIES Travelers Insurance AAA Insurance USAA Insurance Kemper Insurance Fireman's Fund Farmers Insurance Nationwide Fidelity Insurance Universal Studios Park County of San Mateo Huntington Library and Botanical Garden Santa Barbara Botanic Gardens Occidental Petroleum J. F. Shea Construction Davey Tree RAND Corporation David Maman Design RJM Design Group Atwell Group Nakae 8, Associates The Forum Alhambra Golf Course Valley Crest Bank of America UPS Studio Pali Fekete Architects Mercury Insurance Chubb Insurance Liberty Mutual Safeco Insurance Allstate 2151 Century State Farm CERTIFICATIONS, LICENSES, and PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Certified Arborist, International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Registered Consulting Arborist No. 559, American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Certified Tree Risk Assessor, International Society of Arboriculture (TRAQ) California Licensed Pesticide Applicator, (QAL) Licensed California Landscape Contractor, (C-27) California ReLeaf, Board member Los Angeles Orange County Palo Alto 818.986.0137 949.837.7700 650.644.6115 LECTURES • Pesticide Applicators Professional Association, 2011 - 2015. • Turf and Landscape Institute, Topics: Assessing Damaged Trees from Wildfires, 2013. Why Some Trees Fail and Others Don't, 2012. Managing Trees for Wind. 2011. Effects of Below Grade Planting on Trees and Structural Tree Defects, 2009. • Guest lecturer, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. 2006 - 2011. • Canopy, Palo Alto. Tree Walk Lecturer, 2009 - 2014. • Western Turfgrass and Landscape Expo, Topics: Wind and Trees, 2010. Understanding Tree Roots in the Urban Environment, 2009. • UC Riverside, Extension, Instructor. Introduction to Arboriculture 10 week class, 2009. • Landscape Expo. Topic: Windthrow: Why Some Trees Fail & Others Don't. 2013. • International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist Prep Class Instructor, 2013, Topics: Tree Risk Assessment Tree Planting and Establishment • Desert Green Conference, Topics: Sustainability in Urban Trees through Tree Risk Assessment, 2013 Assessing Tree Roots, 2013 • Landscape Architecture Show, February 2014, Topic: Tree Selection Guidelines for the Urban Forest. NOTICE: attorney's designation of Evergreen Arborists Consultants. Inc. (EVG) or Ruben M. Green as expert constitutes acceptance of retainer and acknowledgment that specified retainer amount is owed. Attorney is prohibited from using EVG or Ruben M. Green and designating him as their expert or "possible expert" without first formally retaining him. He does not give permission to use his name in any manner connected to any case unless his non-refundable retainer fee is paid. Attorney is prohibited from using his name and designating him as their expert without first formally retaining him. Los Angeles 818.986.0137 Orange County 949.837.7700 Palo Alto 650.644.6115 LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD J. LIGHT 11355 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD. SUITE 300 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90064-1614 TELEPHONE (310) 973-2233 FAX (310) 473-0077 April 14, 2016 Via Overnight Delivery City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 rista •F �ar s AN 1 8 2016 City o•1 Rolling Hills By_ ur File No: 2122.05 Re: Appeal of Resolution No. 2015-03-CTV of the Committee on Trees and Views to the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills Filed By William and Judith Hassoldt Number 15 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills Dear City Staff: As you know, this office represents the owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road in the City of Rolling Hills ("No. 15 PBR"), William and Judith Hassoldt (the "Hassoldts") in connection with the referenced appeal from the decision of the City's Committee on Trees and Views. In connection with that appeal and the appeal by Steve and Diana Nuccion from that same decision (the "Appeals"), enclosed please find color copies of Aerial photographs of No. 15 PBR from the years 2009, 2010 and 1954. We have enclosed eight (8) copies of the referenced photographs for your and the City Council's consideration at the hearing scheduled for April 25, 2016. If anyone from the City has any questions about the enclosed photographs, or anything else, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, W OFFICES OF HAROLD J. LIGHT RO D J. LI HJL:akb Enclosures AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD FROM 2009, 2010 AND 1954 SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH APPEALS FROM RESOLUTION NO. 2015-03-CTV OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RECEIVED APR 1 8 2016 City of Rolling Hills By Submitted by: Law Offices of Harold J. Light Harold J. Light 11355 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone (310) 473-2233 Facsimile (310) 473-0077 Attorney for William and Judith Hassoldt 1 HISTO RIC AERIALS 1954 I THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RECEIVED The Weinberg Law Group APR 21 2016 City of Rolling Hills By April 20, 2016 Via Email and Hand Delivery City Council City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: 18 Portuguese Bend Rd. (Nuccion) - Appeal Regarding Resolution by Planning Commission CTV Councilmembers: We represent Steven and Diana Nuccion, Trustees of The Nuccion Family Trust, under trust dated October 2007 (the "Nuccions"), the owners and residents of 18 Portuguese Bend Road (the "Property") in the City of Rolling Hills. On April 24, 2014, the Nuccions filed a view impairment claim against the owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills (the "Hassoldts"), consistent with Section 17.26 (the "View Restoration Law") of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC"). The Tree and View Committee has conducted a series of public hearings on the matter. There have been numerous hearings on this matter, and recently, the City Council visited the Nuccion property for a site visit on March 21, 2016. We believe that the only remaining unresolved issue on appeal is whether any of the trees located on the Hassoldt property were "Mature" in 2009, when the Nuccions first acquired the Nuccion Property. In March, 2016, the City adopted Resolution 1 182 Adopting Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation ("Resolution 1182"). According to Resolution 1182, the City now considers trees to be "Mature" (for purposes of the View Ordinance) if both (a) the height of the tree was 75% of the maximum height for the species set forth in the Sunset Western Garden Book and (b) the canopy of the tree was 75% of the maximum canopy spread for the species set forth in the Sunset Western Garden Book. In this case, there is oral testimony and written testimony confirming that in the opinion of the Nuccions, none of the Hassoldt trees was mature when they acquired their home in 2009. In addition, the visual evidence presented to the City includes a series of pictures from 2010, showing the various trees as they existed at that time. City Council City of Rolling Hills April 20, 0216 Page 2 Accordingly, in order to establish what was the height and canopy spread of the Hassoldt trees in 2010 (as shown in the photos), we have retained two consultants to help us develop substantial evidence of these facts. First, we retained American Arbor Care, an arborist, to go to the Hassoldt property and measure the existing height and canopy spread of each of the thirteen trees. Those measurements from American Arbor Care are set forth on Schedule #I to this letter. Second, we retained an expert in photometric analysis to review the 2010 photos, analyze them based on current known facts, distances, tree heights, etc., and then also use satellite imagery from 2016 and from 2010 as a third factual data set to compare the tree heights. Attached to this letter as Schedule #2 is the report by Anastasia Kostiuk, a photometric analyst, who used the 2010 photographs that are part of the administrative record to calculate the height of the trees in those 2010 photographs. Please review the report in detail. We only asked the photo analyst to calculate tree height (not canopy width). In 2010, if a tree was not as tall as 75% of the maximum height of its tree species, then regardless of canopy width, that tree cannot be considered "Mature" at that date. All of this analysis is based on photographs from 2010. The Nuccions purchased their home in 2009. Technically, the View Ordinance seeks to establish whether a tree was Mature on the date of property acquisition, in this case, 2009. As we do not have any photographic evidence from 2009, we must rely on 2010 photographs. This Council has received oral testimony from the Nuccions that they did not cut any trees on the Hassoldt property between the date in 2009 when they acquired their home and the date of the 2010 photographs. Accordingly, it is reasonable (indeed mandatory) to assume that the trees were all shorter in 2009 than they appear in the photos in 2010. {remainder of page is blank} City Council City of Rolling Hills April 20, 0216 Page 3 Only the Two Olive Trees were Mature in 2009. The summary of Ms. Kostiuk's conclusions are set forth in the table below. You will see that in 2010, only two of the trees had heights that exceeded 75% of the maximum height for the species. Thus, only those two trees could be considered "Mature" in 2009 (i.e. the Olive Trees #8 and #13). 2010 CALCULATED HEIGHTS - ANASTASIA KOSTIUK Tree p ! Species 1 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 2 Washingtonia robusta 3 'Washington/a robusta 4 Schinus molle 5 Olea europaea 6 Schinus molls 7 Acacia spp. 8 Olea europaea ALT - 8 Olea europaea 9 Olea europaea 10 Schinus molle 11 Eucalyptus mdis 12 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 13 Olea europaea ALT - 13 Olea europaea 1 I Common Name Eucalyptus (Red Gun) Fan Palm Fan Palm 'California Pepper Olive 'California Pepper Acacia Olive Olive Olive Gardenia Pepper Eucalyptus (Flood Gun) Eucalyptus (Red Gun) Olive Olive 2010 Photo ) 2016 Calculated Height 58 43 44 22 15 24 14 31 31 WA WA WA 57 37 37 Measured Height 71 50 52 24 30 43.5 16.5 39 39 WA WA N/A 69 50 50 I Max Height 75% Max Height Mature Height (Western Garden) (Wester Garden) 1 In 20097 (yin) 150 112.5 100 75 100 75 40 30 30 22.5 40 30 40 30 22.5 37.5 WA N/A N/A 112.5 22.5 37.5 30 50 WA N/A WA 150 30 50 No No No No No No No Yes 143 WA WA WA No Yes No One can see from the table above that both Olive Trees were taller than the Sunset Western Garden Book purported "maximum" height for that species. The stated maximum height for the species is 30 feet. However, Olive Tree #8 was measured in 2016 at 39 feet and Olive Tree #13 was measured in 2016 at 50 feet. Thus, the maximum height in the Sunset Western Garden Book is obviously too low. These two random olive trees both exceed this maximum, one by 130% and the other by 167%. We urge the City Council to consider the typical maximum height for this Olive Tree species (when grown on the hill in Palos Verdes) to be 50 feet (not 30 feet). If the Council will adopt this modified maximum height for the Olive Tree species, then both Olive Trees were shorter than 75% of 50 feet in 2009 (as shown in the table above in the rows labeled ALT -8 and ALT -13). Thus, this Council could reasonably conclude that both Olive Trees were not "Mature" in 2009 and thus are subject to remediation under this view restoration case. We respectfully request that this City Council make the finding that Olive Tree #8 and Olive Tree #13 were NOT Mature, and include the crown reduction and trimming of the Olive Trees as additional remediation measures in the resolution. City Council City of Rolling Hills April 20, 0216 Page 4 The Burden of Proof Regarding Mature Trees Rests on the Hassoldts. RHMC Section 17.26.090.(3) regarding View Impairment states: "The burden of proof to show that any view is impaired shall be upon the party claiming such impairment, and the standard shall be by `clear and convincing evidence.' Evidence shall be weighted in the following order of priority: a. Photographs; b. Expert testimony; and lastly c. Other evidence." RHMC Section 17.26.090.(2) states: "Chapter [Section] 17.26.010 provides that the intent of the Ordinance is to protect views from "maturing" vegetation. As such, in addition to the limitations otherwise set forth in Chapter 17.26, including but limited to this Section 17.26.090, any vegetation which is already mature at the time any party claiming a view impairment actually acquired the property shall be exempt from Chapter 17.26. `Mature' versus `Maturing' shall be defined by industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists." The normal judicial approach to the interpretation of statutory language requires that plain meaning be applied to words, and that additional meaning not be inferred for text that is not present in the statute. In this case, the View Ordinance is quite clear that it places on the applicant the burden of proof for proving view impairment (17.26.090.(3)). To the contrary, the prior section I7.26.090.(2) does NOT discuss burden of proof regarding Mature trees. The allegation that a tree is "Mature" is in the nature of a defense that can be raised by the property owner with the trees that may be trimmed. Thus, to assert the defense that a tree is Mature, the property owner with the trees would bear the burden to prove that the tree was, in fact, Mature on the date in question. In this case, the Hassoldts have provided no evidence at all of the height or canopy spread of the trees in question as they existed in 2009. Indeed, the Hassoldts acquired their home years after 2009, and thus we do not believe that the Hassoldts can provide any such evidence. Therefore, they cannot carry their burden of proof to show that any of the trees were Mature in 2009. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the administrative record or before this Council that would allow the Council to make a finding that any of the trees in question were Mature in 2009. Thus, the Council should not exempt any of the trees on the Hassoldt property from the remedial action that will be required to restore the Nuccion views. City Council City of Rolling Hills April 20, 0216 Page 5 Nonetheless, the applicant has completed the photo analysis discussed above and, as part of that analysis has measured the two Olive Trees. The applicant is willing, against its best interest, to concede that Olive Tree #8 and Olive Tree #13 were both "Mature" in 2009, but only according to the newly adopted Resolution 1182. As stated above, we urge the Council to make a finding that, in this case and for the Olive Trees species only, they were not Mature in 2009 and are thus subject to remediation. CONCLUSIONS. 1. The Nuccions had a protectable and panoramic view in 2009 — as established by substantial evidence in this long and extensive administrative record. 2. The Trees on the Hassoldt Property substantially impair the Nuccion's protected view — as established by substantial evidence in this long and extensive administrative record. 3. Only two of the Hassoldt trees were potentially "Mature" in 2009. 4. This Council can make a finding that even the two Olive Trees was NOT Mature in 2009. 5. All of the Hassoldt trees that were not Mature in 2009 are subject to remediation. 6. All of the findings of the Tree and View Committee are correct and should be adopted by the City Council. 7. The Resolution proposed by staff for this case should be adopted by the City Council in its entirety, and should be modified to include the remediation of Olive Trees #8 and Olive Tree #13. We very much appreciate your continued consideration of this matter. The Nuccions look forward to once again enjoying the unspoiled view from their Property. Sincerely, W/ The Weinberg Law Group C: Steven Nuccion Yolanta Schwartz City Council City of Rolling Hills April 20, 0216 Page 6 SCHEDULE #1 American Arbor Care Measured Tree Height and Canopy Spread Hassoldt Property Tree Survey Map Key ISA Certified Arborists: Brandon Gill (WE -6574A) / Luke Midura (MN -4572A) Legal Description: M.B. 201-29-35 Rolling Hills Lot No. 78 j ALL MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN FEBRUARY 2016 L Height 75% Max 2018 2016 Max Canopy (Western Height Mature Height Canopy (western Garden) (Western Garden) (Y/N) Width Garden) Tree # Species Common Name 2016 Measured Height 1 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 2 Washingtonia robusta 3 Washingtonia robusta 4 Schinus molle 5 Olea europaea 6 Schinus molle 7 Acacia spp. 8 Olea europaea 9 Olea europaea 10 Schinus molle 11 Eucalyptus rudis 12 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 13 Olea europaea Eucalyptus (Red Gum) Fan Palm Fan Palm California Pepper Olive Califomia Pepper Acacia Olive Olive California Pepper Gum) Eucalyptus (Red Gum) Olive 71.00 50.00 52.00 24.00 150 100 100 40 112.50 75.00 75.00 30.00 No No No No 50 10 10 32 105 10 10 40 .30.00 43.50 16.50 39.00 20.00 26.00 25.00 69.00 50.00 30 40 40 30 30 40 60 150 30 22.50 30.00 30.00 22.50 22.50 30.00 45.00 112.50 22.50 Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes 28 56 20 30 22 24 40 44 39 30 40 20 30 30 40 40 105 30 l City Council City of Rolling Hills April 20, 0216 Page 7 SCHEDULE #2 Report on Photo Analysis to Determine Tree Heights in 2010 PHOTOMTERIC ANALYSIS Trees Located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA April 16, 2016 Howard Weinberg The Weinberg Law Group 2550 Via Tejon, Suite 2B Palos Verdes Est., CA 90274 I have been retained by your firm to review certain photographs of trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California and determine, mathematically, what was the height of such trees on the date of the photographs. You have informed me that the photographs were taken in 2010. Accordingly, I have obtained satellite imagery of the property from 2010, which shows the trees and their locations and shadows. You have also provided to me the following data on which I have relied to perform my analysis: (1) A aerial photograph and map of the property, with trees numbered 1 to 13 on such map; (2) A tree survey list (that I am told is dated March 2016), that lists each tree shown on the map, as well as a height and canopy spread for each tree. I am informed that the height and canopy spread for these trees shown on the tree survey are based on field measurements performed by an arborist with a laser range finder, that established the heights and width to within a one -foot tolerance. (3) A group of photographs that I am informed were taken in April 2016, showing the current height and canopy spread of the trees. In most of these 2016 photographs, there is a yard -stick shown, that identifies precisely the distance of one inch, one foot and on yard in each of the 2016 photographs. (4) The 2010 photographs. In addition, I obtained the following data' on which I have relied to perform my analysis: (5) An aerial photograph created by a satellite, dated February 2016, that shows the property in question, each of the trees, and their shadows and other features. (6) An aerial photograph created by a satellite, dated June 2010, that shows the property in question, each of the trees, and their shadows and other features. Method of Analysis. Attached to this report is a topographic image of the property, showing terrain heights, that was created based on the data in the 2016 satellite image. 2 1 then used the ground -based photographs from 2016 (which include images of the ruler) to use a three dimensional computer modeling program to convert the two dimensional photographic images into three dimensional space. The three dimensions were then confirmed back to the scale shown on the ruler in the 2016 photographs. As an example of the conversion from a two dimensional image into a three dimensional virtual space, I attach to this report a copy of one reconstructed image of the pool bench in the yard. This image shows that that virtual three dimensional space is accurate in all three dimensions. I used this mathematical model method of "averaged curves" to reconstruct the virtual three dimensional dimensions for each tree, as well as for the buildings located on the property. Based on measurements for building heights provided by the City records, together with the arborist measured heights in 2016 for each of the trees on the property, I was able to create a triangulated confirmation of height for each tree based on the length of the shadow in the 2016 satellite image. Said differently, each tree and its shadow in 2016 in the satellite image creates two sides of a triangle. The height of a tree is the x side of a triangle and the shadow length is the y side of the triangle. On the 2016 satellite image, the building also casts a shadow. Thus, on that day, at that time, I am able to cross reference the height of the building and the length of its shadow. This then defines a slope of the hypotenuse of the triangle for the house/shadow triangle. Accordingly, each tree on that day at that time must also have the same hypotenuse of the triangle for the tree/shadow triangle. Thus, when I measure the length of a tree shadow in the 2016 satellite image, and I know the slope of the hypotenuse of the triangle for the tree/shadow triangle, then these pieces of data define the height of the tree. In measuring all 13 of the trees in the 2016 satellite image, I have confirmed that ' Satellite data were taken from open public sources: Google Map, Yahoo Map, Yandex Map 2 The computer software used in this analysis includes Fotoscan; AgiSoft Professional Edition ver. 1.2.3; and Autodesk 3Ds Max 2015 their heights matched the stated heights in the arborist report of the tree survey to within two feet (2') margin of error — or less than a 3% average discrepancy. Thus, I was able to confirm the heights of each of the 13 trees in 2016, with cross reference to (a) the known height of the roof line, (b) the measured height of each tree as stated in the tree survey, (c) the calculated shadow length for each tree as described above, and (d) the topographic analysis created in the virtual three-dimensional space, using the average curve methodology. Knowing the valid, measured tree heights and tree locations in 2016, I was then able to apply this data to the 2010 photographs. I then used to 2010 satellite image to perform the same calculations for each tree as of 2010. The calculated 2010 tree heights were then compared to the tree heights in the 2016 satellite image for consistency. Each of the trees with their respective 2010 and 2016 triangle calculations is shown in the images attached to this report (and each image indicates the applicable tree number). Based on all of the foregoing, it is my professional opinion that the height of each of the trees as depicted in the 2010 photographs is as set forth in the table below. 2010 CALCULATED HEIGHTS ANASTASIA KOSTIUK Tree # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Species Eucalyptus camaldulensis Washingtonia robusta Washingtonia robusta Schinus mope Olea europaea Schinus molle Acacia sop. Common Name Eucalyptus (Red Gum) Fan Palm Fan Palm California Pepper Olive California Pepper Acacia Olive 31 Olive California Pepper Eucalyptus (Flood Gum) Eucalyptus (Red Gum) Olive 8 Olea europaea 9 Olea europaea 10 Schinus moile 11 Eucalyptus nrdis 12 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 13 Olea europaea Sincere' 2010 Photo Calculated Height 58 43 44 22 15 24 14 0 2016 Measured Height 71 50 52 24 32 43.5 16.5 WA WA N/A 57 37 39 WA N/A WA 69 50 ATTACHMENTS TO PHOTOMTERIC ANALYSIS Trees Located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 9 Ten 1 EuWypOn camalOd _ 9 Ten 2 WUMepttnaa eoEUW 9 Ten 3 Waae:ptonia robins 9 Trio a . Splra. mobs 9 Ten 5.OW wppna 9 Ten S • Schema mono 9 Tin 7 /au app. 9Tree S Okanotion 9 Trim Oka wop.n Tree 10 Sdamwmfl O Trn 11 Eucalyptus !Ws 9 Ten 12 EuWyptusulmel 9 Ten 13 Oka Mops" Hassoldt Property Tree Survey Map Key ISA Certified Arborists: Brandon Gill (WE -6574A) / Luke Midura (MN -4572A) Legal Description: M.B. 201-29-35 Rolling Hills Lot No. 78 Tree # Species Common Name Measured Height Height (Western Garden) j 75% Max Height (Westem Garden) Max Canopy Mature Height Canopy (Western in 2016 (YIN) Width Garden) 1 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 2 Washingtonia robusta 3 Washingtonia robusta 4 Schinus molle 5 Olea europaea 6 Schinus molle 7 Acacia spp. 8 Olea europaea 9 Olea europaea 10 Schinus molle 11 Eucalyptus nrdis 12 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 13 Olea europaea 'Eucalyptus (Red Gum) 1 71.00 1 150 'Fan Palm IFan Palm 'California Pepper (Olive ICalifomia Pepper (Acacia Olive I Olive 1California Pepper 'Gum) (Eucalyptus (Red Gum) Olive 50.00 52.00 24.00 30.00 43.50 16.50 39.00 20.00 26.00 25.00 69.00 50.00 100 100 40 30 40 40 30 30 40 60 150 30 112.50 75.00 75.00 30.00 22.50 30.00 30.00 22.50 22.50 30.00 45.00 112.50 22.50 No 1 50 I 105 No No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes 10 I 10 10 I 10 32 1 40 28 I 30 56 1 40 20 I 20 30 I 30 22 1 30 24 1 40 40 1 40 44 I 105 39 I 30 1 /13 PHOTOGRAPHS 2010 r • 4/21 cy h/)cri- UA7t✓ ydOfr1. p57 \ MfiaPhi ,o, PHOTOGRAPHS 2016 1; <JLz 4 :, zitiv ��' 4,10w CREDENTIALS Credentials E-mail: one2know@gmail.com Professional Experience: Education: 2015 - present Kostiuk Consulting 3D Engineer Provide consulting services to design, develop, program and implement 2D and 3D laser systems, 3D printing modules, virtual graphics implementations. Photometric analysis and design, including conversion of 20 images into 3D virtual space. 2006 — 2015 3D Engineer Duwe-3d AG Lindau, Germany Develop engineering solutions for 3D printing, including volumetric analysis, calculation of virtual space, engineering and design layouts for designed objects, Polygraphy, technical illustration. Develop two and three dimensional designs for laser cutting. Masters of Engineering - Far Eastern National University Associate of Arts - Primorye College of Art 1 eit, Rdllee, sl INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 8-A Mtg. Date: 04/25/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR (19 THROUGH: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC FORUM ON A POSSIBLE BALLOT MEASURE TO REPEAL OR AMEND MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. ATTACHMENTS: A. RHMC 17.20.220 & 17.26 View Preservation, as amended B. Resolution No. 1182 of the City Council adopting administrative regulations interpreting Measure B BACKGROUND 1. In March 2013, the residents of Rolling Hills passed Measure B, an initiative that amended the City's View Preservation Ordinance in several respects. Most notably, Measure B: 1) limited the view that may be restored to the view that existed when the current owner of a property actually acquired the property; 2) exempted trees that were mature at the time of property acquisition from the Ordinance; and 3) specified that the purpose of the Ordinance is to create "view corridors" and views through trees, rather than unobstructed views. In addition, Measure B specified that its provisions apply retroactively. 2. As Measure B contained several ambiguities that have resulted in uncertainty in its application, the City Council following public hearings adopted administrative regulations interpreting Measure B in order to achieve uniformity (and eliminate the potential for inconsistent case -by -case determinations) in the consideration of view complaints. As a voter -approved initiative, Measure B cannot be amended by the City Council, but may only be amended by the voters. However, to the extent that Measure B is unclear or susceptible to interpretation, the City Council adopted clarification of the measure. The resolution adopting the administrative interpretation is attached. Concurrently with the adoption of the interpretation of Measure B, the City Council, following Planning Commissions public hearings and recommendations for amendments, held public hearings and amended the View Preservation Ordinance to correct and clarify some of the ambiguous and uncertain provisions and to better reflect the provisions that were not amended by Measure B. The amended Zoning Ordinance is attached. 3. During the public hearings, as different views were expressed, it became apparent that the provisions of the Measure B, no matter how they were to be interpreted, caused a conflict because of its practical difficulties in interpretation. 4. At the April 11, 2016 City Council meeting, Councilmember Pieper expressed a desire to place a Measure on the March 2017 election to cure some of the problems and suggested that public forums be held to provide the residents of Rolling Hills an opportunity to voice their opinion regarding the provisions and how to amend them. 5. Should it be decided that a ballot measure should be placed on the March 2017 election, it is necessary that the City Council provide the City Attorney with specific directions in a timely fashion on how to proceed and what amendments to make. 6. Some of the options the City Council could explore to remedy the difficulties of Measure B and the ordinance include: 1. Repeal Measure B in its entirety and simultaneously amend the Municipal Code View Preservation Ordinance to incorporate desired provisions, including those from the current Measure B. 2. Place a new Measure on the ballot modifying the current Measure. 3. Leave Measure B as is and apply the recently adopted administrative interpretation to each view complaint case. It is important to note that a voter approved initiative cannot be changed by City Council via the public hearing process, but must be voted on by the voters, whereas provisions in an Ordinance could be amended by the City through the public hearing process. RECOMMENDATION 7. It is recommended that the City Council convene the public forum, receive public testimony, and commence deliberation on how to proceed. NOTIFICATION 8. Notice of this public forum to inform the community was published in the agenda portion of the City's Newsletter and a short announcement about the public forums was also included in the Newsletter. The agenda was emailed to those residents who previously expressed interest in this topic together with the link to the website, where the staff report is available. The staff report and the agenda was also provided to the RHCA. 17.12.220 - "V" words, terms and phrases. "Variance" means permission, granted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, to depart from a literal provision of this title when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, strict application of title provisions deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning. Any variance granted will assure that the adjustment granted will not constitute a special privilege. "View" means a view from a principal residence, but not including from garages or closets, and any immediately adjoining patio or deck area at the same elevation as the residence which consists of a visually impressive scene or vista not located in the immediate vicinity of the residence, such as a scene of the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, city lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills or Los Angeles Harbor. "View corridor" means a view from a designated viewing area broken into segments by vegetation. "View impairment" means a significant interference with and obstruction of a view by landscaping, trees or any other planted vegetation. (Ord. 239 § 11(part), 1993). (Ord. No. 346, § 6A, 2-8-2016) Page 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 17.26 - VIEW PRESERVATION Sections: 17.26.010 - Intent and purpose. The City recognizes the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the City. Views of the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island, City lights and Los Angeles Harbor are a special quality of property ownership for many residential lots in the City. These views have the potential to be diminished or eliminated by maturing landscaping located on private property. The purpose of this chapter is to protect this important community asset by establishing procedures for the protection of views and abatement of view obstructions created by landscaping, while at the same time protecting natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal. (Ord. 239 §1 apart), 1993). (Ord. No. 346, § 6B, 2-8-2016) 17.26.020 - Committee on trees and views. A Committee on Trees and Views is established for the purpose of administering the provisions of this chapter. The Committee shall be composed of three members of the Planning Commission appointed by the Commission annually at the same time as the Commission selects its officers, or whenever a vacancy occurs. Committee meetings shall be scheduled as adjourned or special meetings of the Commission. The Committee is authorized to consult with City officials and with specialists such as landscape architects and arborists as required, but shall not incur any expense on behalf of the City without prior approval of the City Council. (Ord. 292 §4, 2003: Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 17.26.030 - Desirable and undesirable trees. The Committee is authorized and directed to prepare lists of types of desirable and undesirable trees for planting within the City. The list shall be based upon tree size and shape, rate of growth, depth of roots, fall rate of leaves or bark or fruit or branches, and other factors related to safety, maintenance and appearance. The purpose of this provision is to make information available to property owners which may serve to avoid future occasion for permits, complaints, and other proceedings authorized by this chapter. (Ord. 239 §1 apart), 1993). 17.26.040 - Abatement of view impairment —Procedure. Any person who owns or has lawful possession of a residence from which a view is impaired, pursuant to the definition of "view impairment" in Section 17.12.220 of this title, by vegetation growing on property other than their own may seek abatement of the view impairment under the following procedure: A. Mediation Application. The complainant shall submit a complete application for abatement of view impairment by mediation on a form provided by the City. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as provided for in Section 17.30.030 of this title. The complainant shall describe in the application what efforts have been made by the complainant to resolve the view impairment prior to filing the mediation application. An application shall not be accepted for filing Page 1 unless the complainant can demonstrate that the owner of the view -impairing vegetation has been given notice of the impairment and a reasonable opportunity to abate it, but has refused to do so. B. Eligibility. A person shall not be precluded from filing an application for abatement of view impairment on grounds that vegetation located on the complainant's property contributes to impairment of the requested view. A person who has obtained an order abating impairment of a view against a property shall not be precluded from filing a subsequent application to abate impairment of the same view by vegetation on another property. An application may be filed to abate impairment of one or more distinct views listed in Section 17.12.220 "View;" however, if multiple views are identified, each must be disjointed and observable from a separate viewing area. C. Mediation. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application as complete, the City Manager shall refer the matter to a mediator for conduct of a mediation session to abate the view impairment. The mediator shall be responsible for notifying the property owner of the view -impairing vegetation of the application and for scheduling and managing the mediation process. At the conclusion of mediation, the mediator shall advise the City Manager as to whether the complaint has been resolved. Agreement reached through mediation shall be reflected in an executed contract and implemented in accordance with the terms of the agreement. D. Public Hearing Application. In the event mediation fails to achieve agreement, the complainant may submit an application and accompanying fee as provided for in Section 17.30.030 of this title for a public hearing. Upon receipt and acceptance of an application for a public hearing as complete, the City Manager shall schedule the matter for a public hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views. If a complete application for a public hearing is not received within sixty days of the mediator's notification set forth in Section 17.26.040(C), the City shall terminate, without prejudice, all proceedings related to the application. (Ord. 292 §5, 2003; Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). (Ord. No. 346, § 6C, 2-8-2016) 17.26.050 - Hearing procedure and findings. A. Notice Required. Public notice of the hearing shall be given a minimum of fifteen days prior to the hearing. The hearing shall not proceed unless proof is shown that the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation received notice of the hearing as provided herein: 1. Notice shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner of the tree or other obstructing vegetation and to the complainant; 2. Notice shall be given by first class mail to all property owners within one thousand feet of the exterior boundary of the property on which the tree or other obstructing vegetation are located and to other persons who, in the Committee's judgment, might be affected. B. Content of Notice. The notice shall state the name of the complaining party, the name of the property owner against whom the complaint is filed, the location of the tree or other vegetation, and the time and place of hearing. The notice shall invite written comments to be submitted prior to or at the hearing. C. Conduct of Hearing. The Committee shall adopt rules for the conduct of required hearings. At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written and oral testimony and evidence presented in connection with the application. If during the course of the proceedings it is discovered that information submitted in an application is inaccurate or incomplete such that it could be misleading, or a significant change has occurred impacting either the view or the obstruction, an applicant may be directed to amend the application or submit supplemental information. In the event the Committee requires expert advice in consideration of the matter, the cost of obtaining such evidence shall be Page 2 borne by the complainant, pursuant to written agreement with the City. The City shall select such expert and enter into an agreement only upon receipt of a payment for the selected service from the party. An application shall be deemed withdrawn and all proceedings shall be terminated with respect thereto, without prejudice, if the parties to a complaint notify the City that it has been voluntarily resolved, or if the complainant fails or refuses to provide supplemental information requested by the City or fails or refuses to pay the cost of the expert services, or the complainant requests a delay of the proceedings for more than one hundred eighty days unless good cause exists for the delay. D. Findings. Based on the evidence received and considered, the Committee may find any of the following: 1. That no view exists within the meaning of this chapter; 2. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter, but that the view is not significantly impaired; or 3. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter and that it is significantly impaired. 4. The Committee shall make specific written findings in support of the foregoing determinations. E. Action. If the Committee makes finding of subsection (D)(3) of this section, it shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment, including, but not limited to, removal, pruning, topping, thinning or similar alteration of the vegetation. Such order is not intended to create an unobstructed view for applicants. Instead it is intended to create view corridors and a view through trees. The Committee may impose conditions as are necessary to prevent future view impairments. In no event shall restorative action be required if such action would adversely affect the environment or would unreason -ably detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the property on which the objectionable vegetation is located. If restorative action is precluded by the existence of one or more such limiting factors, the Committee shall make specific written findings to that effect. F. Environmental Review. If the Committee makes finding of subsection (D)(3) of this section and orders restorative action, the proposed order shall be reviewed by City staff to determine the appropriate level of environmental review. If the action is determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a resolution containing the Committee's written findings shall be presented for adoption at the Committee's next meeting. If the action is determined not to be exempt from CEQA, the complainant shall bear the City's reasonable costs of environmental review and CEQA compliance, including consultant fees. G. Finality of Decision. The Committee's decision shall be final on the date the Committee adopts a resolution setting forth its decision. The decision shall become effective thirty days after adoption of the resolution, unless an appeal has been filed to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.54. For purposes of such an appeal, references to the Planning Commission in Chapter 17.54 shall be interpreted as inclusive of the Committee on Trees and Views. (Ord. 295 §7 (Exh. B (part)), 2004; Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993) (Ord. No. 333 (Measure B), 3-18-2013; Ord. No. 346, § 6D, 2-8-2016) 17.26.060 - Implementation of restorative action. A. The complainant shall bear the cost of the initial restorative action. Within thirty days of a final decision ordering restorative action, the complainant shall obtain and present to the owner of the obstructing vegetation three bids from licensed and qualified contractors for performance of the work, as well as cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. In order to qualify, the contractors must provide insurance, which protects and indemnifies the City and the complainant from damages attributable to negligent or wrongful performance of the work. Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of the City. Page 3 B. The owner of the obstructing vegetation may select any licensed and qualified contractor to perform the restorative action (as long as the insurance requirements of subsection A of this section are satisfied), but shall be responsible for any cost above the amount of the cash deposit. The work shall be completed no more than ninety days from receipt of the cash deposit or if additional time is necessary due to weather or unique conditions of the vegetation, at the earliest date recommended by the contractor, but no later than one year, and shall be approved by the City Manager. C. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be performed at the cost and expense of the owner of the property on which the vegetation is growing. The vegetation shall be maintained in accordance with the final decision so as not to allow for future view impairments. (Ord. 239 §1 apart), 1993). (Ord. No. 346, § 6E, 2-8-2016) 17.26.070 - Enforcement. A. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter or to comply with any provision of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars or six months in County Jail, or both. Failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter shall further constitute a public nuisance which may be abated in accordance with the procedure contained in Chapter 8.24. B. A final decision rendered under this chapter may be enforced civilly by way of action for injunctive or other appropriate relief, in which event the prevailing party may be awarded attomey's fees and costs as determined by the court. C. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the prosecution of any civil cause of action under the law by any person with respect to the matters covered herein. (Ord. 239 §1 apart), 1993). 17.26.080 - Notification of subsequent owners. Within thirty days of the final decision of the Committee, or the City Council on appeal, a document shall be recorded against the title of the property on which the offending vegetation exists and the complainant's property, on a form provided by the City, which shall run with the land and be binding upon all successors in interest. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). (Ord. No. 346, § 6F, 2-8-2016) 17.26.090 - Preservation of views defined. Notwithstanding any other provision of Chapter 17.26.010 to 17.26.080 inclusive, the following provision shall apply and supersede in priority any other provision. 1. A view is defined in Chapter [Section] 17.12.220 and only applies to that view existing from the date any current owner of a property in the City of Rolling actually acquired the property. 2. Chapter [Section] 17.26.010 provides that the intent of the Ordinance is to protect views from "maturing" vegetation. As such, in addition to the limitations otherwise set forth in Chapter 17.26, including but limited to this Section 17.26.090, any vegetation which is already mature at the time any party claiming a view impairment actually acquired the property shall be exempt Page 4 from Chapter 17.26. "Mature" versus "Maturing" shall be defined by industry standards predominantly accepted by arborists. 3. The burden of proof to show that any view is impaired shall be upon the party claiming such impairment, and the standard shall be by "clear and convincing evidence". Evidence shall be weighted in the following order of priority: a. Photographs; b. Expert testimony; and lastly c. Other evidence. (Ord. No. 333 (Measure B), 3-18-2013) Editor's note— Ord. No. 333 (Measure B) which added the provisions set out herein, was adopted March 18, 2013, as a result of a vote of the electorate and thus cannot be changed except by another vote. Said ordinance states, "This Section 17.26.090 shall be effective retroactively to the date Chapter 17.26 was first made an Ordinance to the City of Rolling Hills." Page 5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RESOLUTION NO. 1182 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does hereby resolve and order as follows: - Section 1. In lime 1988, the City adopted a View Preservation Ordinance. The ordinance established preservation of views as a primary value of the community and created a process by which a property owner could seek to abate an obstructed view. In November 2003, the ordinance was modified relative to the composition of the Committee on Views and Trees, the body designated to consider view applications. Section 2 In March 2013, the residents of Rolling Hills passed Measure B to amend the View Preservation Ordinance. The principal effect of Measure B was to shift the protection of the ordinance from views that are capable of being enjoyed from a property to views that were actually enjoyed from a property when the property owner acquired the property. In particular, the initiative amended the ordinance as follows: • Only a view that existed when the current property owner "actually acquired" the property may be restored; • Abatement of view impairment is limited to obstructions caused by trees that were "maturing" at the date of acquisition and trees that were "mature" at the time of property acquisition are excluded from consideration; • Measure B specified that abatement of view impairment is intended to create "view condors" and views through trees, and not unobstructed views; • Measure B specified that its provisions are to be applied retroactively. Section 3. Measure B contains various ambiguities that have resulted in uncertainty in its application in view obstruction cases submitted to the City's Committee on Trees and View for consideration. Measure B can only be amended by the voters; however, the City may adopt administrative regulations providing guidance and interpreting ambiguities in voter initiatives in order to assure uniformity in the application of Measure B to future view complaint cases. Based on this authority and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the City Council reviewed, discussed and developed a policy interpreting Measure B. Section 4. The City Council finds that Attachment A titled City of Rolling Hills Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation clarify the initiative and is hereby adopted: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS le DAY OF MARCH, 2016. ATTEST: '� pp� �.� ,� Pl,(.�ltath HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Resolution No.1182 1 Measure B Interpretation STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1 182 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 14, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Coundimembers Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Pieper. NOES: Councilmembets Black and Dieringer. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. cliteliji HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Resolution No.1 182 2 Measure B Interpretation Attachment A City of Rolling Hllla /Administrative Reputations Interaretina Measure 11 Relating to View Preservation Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Date of Property Acquisition "Mature" versus "Maturing" Trees Retroactivity of Measure B Chapter 1 DATE OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION Section 1001. Interpretation of the Date of Acquisition of Property. Measure B provides that a person may only apply to restore the view existing from the date that the current owner of the property actually acquired the property. The City interprets this provision to mean that the protectable view under the ordinance is the view possessed by the property on the date it was most recently purchased for fair market value. Hence, in determining the date on or after which the protectable view is established, the acquisition date shall be the most recent date title to the property was conveyed for fair market value (as evidenced by a deed) through an arms -length purchase and sale. Chapter 2 "MATURE" VERSUS "MATURING" TREES Section 2001. Definition of"Mature" Trees For purposes of RHMC Section 17.26.090 (2) a tree will be considered mature if at the time the party claiming view impairment acquired the property the tree had achieved 75% of its maximum canopy ' height and width (spread). Maximum canopy height and width will be as set forth in the latest edition of the Sunset Western Garden Book that contains the tree species under consideration. The Sunset Western Garden Book is a trusted reference guide on trees, plants and other vegetation present in the region and displays a plant species' height ranges and other characteristics. Should the Rolling Hills Committee on Trees and Views, City Council or any of the parties involved in a view complaint case require or wish to obtain an expert opinion on maturity of trees, such opinion shall be provided by a certified consulting arborist who is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA). For the purpose of measuring the height of a tree, the height shall be measured between the base of the tree and the tip of the highest branch on the tree. The bast of the tree is the point of the tree where the pith (center) of the tree intersects the ground surface. The width (spread) of a tree canopy shall be measured across the canopy from the tip of the outermost branch at one end of the tree to the lip of the outermost branch at the opposite side of the tree (from dripline to dripline). Section 2002. Definition of "Maturing" Trees Trees and other vegetation that are not "mature" as specified in these regulations are "maturing." Chapter 3 RETROACTIVITY OF MEASURE B Section 3001. Retroactive Application. Any resolution of the City of Rolling Hills adjudicating any complaint regarding view impairments adopted by the Committee on Trees and Views, or the City Council on appeal, prior to March 18, 2013, is hereby considered void and will not be enforced by the City. Resolution No.1182 Measure B Interpretation 84 al Ram geo 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: 04/25/16 TO: FROM: TERRY SHEA, FINANCE DIRECTOR THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: QUARTERLY SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2016. DATE: APRIL 25, 2016 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTACHMENTS: SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS DASH BOARD REPORT CARD LIQUIDITY CALCULATION INVESTMENT ALLOCATIONS SUMMARY REPORT BY QUARTER Attached you will find the City's quarterly investment report for review. Pursuant to the City Council's direction, it is agendized under "Matters from Staff" in order that it receives an appropriate level of review by the City Council. Below are Cash and Yield comparative date from the third quarter as of March 31, 2016 to the second quarter as of December 31, 2015 and Year to Date Interest Income comparative data from the third quarter as of March 31, 2016 to the third quarter as of March 31, 2015. The Portfolio has been diversified by investment instrument and maturity between Money Market, LAIF, and FDIC insured Certificates of Deposits. Also, the CaIPERS CERBT Strategy 1 OPEB Irrevocable Trust results for the third quarter as of March 31, 2016 and Fiscal Year to Date FY 2015/2016. Cash & Yield Comparative Data 3rd Quarter FY 2015/2016 to 2nd Quarter FY 2015/2016: Active Deposits Inactive Deposits Total Cash Portfolio Yield at Cost 3rd Quarter FY 2015/ 16 $ 6,351,948 24,639 $ 6,376,587 0.440% 2nd Quarter FY 2015/16 $ 6,018,342 30,391 $ 6,048,733 0.360% Variance $ 333,606 (5,752) $ 327,854 0.080% YTD Interest Income Comparative Data 3rd Quarter FY 2015/2016 to 3rd Quarter FY 2014/2015: Annual Interest - Budget Total YTD Interest Earned Over (Under) Budget % of Annual Budget 3rd Quarter FY 2015/16 $ 14,000 11,381 $ (2,619) 81.29% 3rd Quarter FY 2014/ 15 $ 13,550 9,478 $ (4,072) 69.95% Ca1PERS CERBT Strategy 1 OPEB Irrevocable Trust results for the third quarter as of March 31, 2016 and Fiscal Year to Date FY 2015/2016. Beginning Balance Contribution Investment Earnings Administrative Expense Ending Balance 3rd Quarter FY 2015/16 $ 490,002 10,971 (101) $ 500,872 $ 500,872 Fiscal YTD FY 2015/16 $ 508,571 (7,386) (313) Note: Original Contribution December 2011 $354,733. We are pleased to answer any questions you may have. RC Investment Report cover memo.doc . CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SCHEDULE OF INVFBCMF.NTS as of March 31, 2016 ROOK VALUE PAIR VALUE ACCRUED . PAR PRICE (MARKET INTERFSTI PURCHASE MATURITY 1213=i1ENI INSTITUTION VALUE O COST VALVE DISCOUNT YIELD DATE DATE ACTIVE DEPOSITS e , Murry Market 'OPUS $ 1,099,743.33 $ 1,099,743.33 $ 1,099,743.33 0.150% Was Checking . OPUS S 1,000,812.84 $ 1,000,872.14 $ 1,000,872.84 0.650Y. % of Taal LAW STATE TREASURY S 4,006,331.52 S 4,006,331.52 $ 4,006,331.52 0.467% V. of Total 63.07% 63.07% Me48a Dank -an Malaga Bank ' 5245,000.00 5245,000.00 $245,000.00 0.450% 09/15115 09/13/16 % of Total 3.86% 3.86% ACTIVE DEPOSITS TOTAI S $ 6,351,947.69 S 6,351,947.69 S 6,351,947.69 0.440% INACTIVE DEPOSITS CHECKMU PET' CASH % of Total % of Total INACTIVE DEPOSITS TOTALS $24,638.83 524.638.83 524,638.83 GRAND TOTAL CASH OPUS $23,138.83 $23.138.83 $23,138.83 93.91% 93.91% WA $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 6.09% 6.09% 56,376,58652 NOTES: (1) InvWnem portfolio I, in compliance with investment policy established by City Council. (3) The City hm the ability to meet all expenditure ro oimmata for the nut w months. (3) LAU, fair market value is poly provided in lune of each year. papar Y Date _,O 4-2c' emy Shea, Fiance Director Rey�nd 0. Cruz, City Manager CTTY OF ROLLING 01L1S DASH BOARD REPORT CARD u at Mud 31,1011 JUNK JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH FY2013-14 FY2014-15 FT 1015.14 FY 00.16 FY 01536 FY 2015.16 FT241516 IT 211546 VT 201546 FY 101516 ITV 2015.16 L CASH FLOW ACISVR OV¢il76 Book VYa FIa0Cm1 OT14BA-Mary Mob s 505,101 2 494,161 S 527319 2 575914 1 312,630 1 511,617 I 525.233 S 1.769,370 $ 90310 S 104,1 0 1,099,14 OPUS BSc. Sens C6am0 - 1003300 1,000,172 1300,873 LAW 1697397 2,543,123 2346,922 2366,9)1 2,546922 2,543971 230972 1341971 1,551332 1351332 4,006.332 Malay Bea COATIS -COS 1453,000 2,423,000 1435000 2.435303 1455903 1455000 2.451900 1435.000 1,435,000 1,411000 Malmo Rank. CDT 243000 24)003 265.11[0 141,003 243,004 24350 245 COO 241000 245000 243 MO 261000 ACTIVEDURTTOTALS 0 330,701 3 1.74451 S 331360 0 332106 f 5,129332 $ 1027259 1 1,71435 0 6,011342 3 6.234.02 1 6336,601 3 6351,941 INACTIVE DII®ST6 Oiolid • I $ 31706 $ 330,109 5 217,047 $ 157037 I 101149 S 20,433 S 27,437 1 21191 5 7,246 3 44,720 1 23,139 NIT Cad 135 I.SW 1300 135 1300 1,300 5.55 1,5 IJ0 135 1300 INACTIVE D!P ]TOTALS 3 40,206 1 311,609 0 211347 5 159,157 3 102,649 3 21,933 3 23937 0 10391 $ 1,746 0 46,110 0 24,09 GRAND TOTAL CASH 1394 $6011416 05,991711 32,911993 3 3,01031 3 3354392 3 335,143 3 6,041,715 5 6,14397 5 6311611 3 6,76,517 Actin Dmm4•Rm R45: Mica 3 (16.46) S (651.003) S 34233 3 41395 1 6.716 2 3,103 3 (21434) 3 344.131 S 216,310 3 101356 S 15340 II. LIQUIDITY CALCULATION ,a,A Amp Cad Bahav Em3100Y Resale PaFoli/ Six Meth Cm Roan Await Roan b' Liar Tan 1st N. 1097/0110 DIVERSIF1CA110N 5 495334 3 4,653,55 3 4433302 $ 4,0330 3 4,6931 s 4,33302 $ 4,653302 3 4,651301 f 3,20,739 3 331,171 $ 5,699465 f 3,590329 S 5,624,643 f 5060,466 3 5396,63 S 1729363 3 696300 1 696300 3 731372 1 711.0 3 711373 1 711,173 1 71,373 3 711373 1 116,16 3 130371 1 131,711 3 1,111,11 1 1,116,769 1 1,199,110 3 131141 3 1,12461 i 3,017429 i 4353421 $ 4,567,571 1 4303,734 i 4.64130 S 4413,550 $ 4361,74 f 4303,01 4,4231 s 4}33302 s 4,70140 3.721619 1 2,71434 s 3,946314 0103 I 71110 3 00341 1,117,04 S 1,193,519 $ 1,1101 3,04731 3 5,140311 3 3,139309 DIV9PS91C TIO%I V INSTRUMENT Mm.YMe10 6.503 In% 9.103 9.0% 9991E 10.01% 9.10% 19.40% 15.77% 17.11% 1731% hlnypr6ile 0.00% 0611 0.5% 000% 05% 0.611 003% M00% 161% 12.10% 13.76% LAST 45.70% 4434% 4.11% 43.74% 4.4% 43.71% 4.103 4135% 40.91% 416% 0.07% Tmoy Bah 0.0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%. 0.00% 0.00% 000% 0.00% 0.00% CAr4fala ofDl9ed 43.73% 4704% 46.76% 44.37% 4632% 46.39% 4676% 2123% 2737% 160% 3.4% ISW% 15.5% I5a6% 100.00% 15.90% 1000% 10031% 100 D% 1509% 1005% 15.5% DIYCA]IG0.T11 BVVMJ.W.m In, Tim 90 D7 54/7% 32.96% 33.24% 53.63% 334% 70.0% 1036% 71.73% 9132% 93.41% 1039% 99 Dm- IS Wed' 4.13% 000% 46.76% 2131% 2136% 2435% 23.20% 14.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Si, Mmb - 26 WHAT 4131% 47.01% 0.00% 0399% 24.96% 430% 4.24% 4.01% 4.61% 439% 19.61% Om Vag -32 W. 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Q00% QS% 0.0% 000% 000% 0.00% 000% 0,00% 1*00% 100.03% 1500% 10100% 1500% 100.03 10.90% 100.0% 1500% ISSN IMD54 IV. TORT90130 F W ORMANCE MEASIIRRS Yi%%011 Mad 0111% 0314% 0323% 0326%. 0329% 0317% 0347% 0.360% 0.410% 0.414% 0.40% BWOOMARI(S 6 Mato) 0.23 0.27 017 0.27 011 0.23 007 0.17 017 037 011 I Yr 03 + 0.90 1.1 1.1 1.5 107 1.09 1.13 1.12 1.12 1.13 1.13 5Dry ]-B2l 0.04 0.02 0.0 0.07 001 0.1 Oil 0.23 016 031 03 1Ym Tlpny 0.41 0.09' 0,0 0.70 0.31 0.64 01 0.91 0.0 0.73 0.11 10 Yaw Timmy 14 2.36 132 Ill 2.17 7.07 2.26 2.24 15 1.71 1.19 Amol Wend Data 1 14910 3 13350 3 14.000 $ 14,01 f 14,01 1 1491 5 14,05 S 14303 $ 14,50 0 14,5 0 14,01 MayMlda S 1,47 $ 613 S 0 3 132 2 1,174 3 1346 3 1376 1 1310 $ 2092 S 3377 S 3334 Maw Oink COALS -COS 5931 1,011 730 1.460 1,342 3,41 3,334 3,762 4,04 4,172 4393 LAW 3,133 4956 - - - 1,093 1.093 190 3,431 3.49 3.432 UN Meek %Moh51N4) ___(L).63 Taal YID towel Eem6 3 11173 $ 13311 I 10 S 1,612 $ 3316 1 3317 1 610 3 6371 3 9990 S 11,031 1 11311 O.a.(1100T)AmW Rd4 3 (1.133) 1 31 $ (13,117) S (11311) I 110303) f (1613) f (7.77) S (7419) 3 (4.410) f (5.19) 3 HM91 %dAamal WHO 9190% 100.24%. 3.11% 1111% 13.11% 31.43% 44.43% 4111% 6130% 7139% 1130% 0 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS LIQUIDITY CALCULATION BASED ON FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 ACTUAL/CASH BUDGET FORECAST as of March 31, 2016 MONTHLY CASH BALANCES Total Month July August Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June (c) (1) OPUS T -Bill $ 744,366 S 733,571 683,779 604,120 552,670 1,798,261 1,990,766 2,129,796 2,123,755 540,540 399,317 80,306 $12,381,246 (2) S (2) $ LAIF E 2,546,922 2,546,922 2,546,922 2,548,972 2,548,972 2,548,972 2,551,332 2,551,332 4,006,332 2,545,123 2,545,123 2,545,123 Avenge $ 1,0311771 Notes: $ MALAGA • CD's Cash By CDARS - CD's Month S 2,700,000 S 5,991,288 2,700,000 5,980,493 2,700,000 5,930,701 2,700,000 5,853,092 2,700,000 5,801,642 1,700,000 6,047,233 1,700,000 6,242,098 1,700,000 6,381,128 245,000 6,375,087 2,700,000 5,785,663 2,700,000 5,644,440 2,700,000 (a) 5,325,429 32,032,046 (2) S 26,945,000 $ 71,358,293 (e) 5 2,669,337 S 2,245,417 (e) $ 5)946,524 Lowest Balance Highest Expense (a) S 5,325,429 (b) $ 703,295 (d) Liquidity Calculation (e) Average Monthly Cash Balance Less 40% Emergency Reserve Available Investment Liquidity Lowest Deposits (c) S 80,306 (d) (1) Actual/Forecast Cash Budget FY 2014/15 (2) Monthly Bank Reconciliations (3) Per Investment Policy FY 14/15 General Fund Audited Revenue 52,023,119 X 40%= $809,248 (4) Six Month Cash Reserve based on FY 14/15 ActuaVForecasted Annual Expenditures divided by two. Average Cash Balance (b) $ 5,946,524 (1) Expenditures By Month $ 144,505 98,215 117,375 137,744 142,472 460,313 109,684 125,541 148,669 132,174 105,292 703,295 $ 2,425,277 $ 202,106 Six Month Liquidity Cash Reserve S 4,702,440 (4) S 1,212,638 (d) $ 4,702,440 (e) $ 5,946,524 - (3) (809,248) $ 4,702,440 S 5,137,276 INVESTMENT ALLOCATIONS SUMMARY as of March 31, 2016 Investment Type Book Value Less Than 90-180 181-360 One Two Three Price (4) Cost 90 Days Days Days Year Years Years Money Market 17.31% S 1,099,743 $ 1,099,743 $ - $ $ $ - LA1F 63.07% 4,006,332 4,006,332 - Interest Checking 15.76% 1,000,873 1,000,873 CD'S 3.86% 245,000 245,000 Total Active Deposits 100.00% $ 6,351,948 $ 5,106,075 $ $ 1,245,873 Cash Six Month Active Cash Reserve Cash Liquidity Deposits Reserve Per Policy Reserve Liquidity FY 15/16 Cash Budget $ 4,702,440 $ 6,351,948 $ 1,649,508 $ 809,248 $ 1,212,638 Investment Maturity Allocation Less Than 90 Days 80.39% 90 Days - 13 Weeks 0.00% Six Months - 26 Weeks 19.61% One Year - 52 Weeks 0.00% Two Years - 104 Weeks 0% Three Years - 156 Weeks 0% 100.00% TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: ear ail Rd/49 qeek INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 10-B Mtg. Date: 04/25/16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER TERRY SHEA, FINANCE DIRECTOR FY 2016/17 BUDGET PREPARATION DOCUMENTS 1) FY 2015/2016 YEAR-END REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS 2) FY 2016/2017 CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (CPI) ADJUSTMENT FOR BUDGET AND SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES DATE: APRIL 25, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: FY 2015/2016 Year -End Revenue and Expenditure Projections March 17, 2016 Letter from Allied Waste Consumer Price Index Table RECOMMENDATION Included for your information are the FY 2015/2016 Year-end Revenue and Expenditure projections for the General Fund, staff's validation of Allied Waste Services' request for an annual CPI increase of 1.37% and March 2016 Consumer Price Index Table. This report is for informational purposes, recommended to be "received and filed". BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Year -End Projections Attached is the Finance Department's revenue and expenditure projections for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. This budget to actual report is through February 2016. We are projecting total General Fund Revenues of $1,864,915 which is $75,365 higher than the amended Budget amount of $1,789,550. The increased revenues are primarily Property Tax, Real Estate Transfer Tax and Variance, Planning & Zoning Fees. For General Fund Expenditures we are projecting $1,611,602 which is $155,178 lower than the amended budget amount of $1,766,780. The decrease is due primarily to the City Administration Department projected savings associated with Conference, Meeting Expense, Codification, Legal Expenses - Other and Postage expense. The Finance Department projected savings associated with Consulting Fees. The Planning & Development Department projected savings associated with Group Insurance, Storm Water Management and Special Project Study & Consultant expense. Also, Non - Department projected savings associated with unspent Contingency. We are projecting a surplus of $230,542 after all operating transfers. Consumer Price Index Attached from Allied Waste, in conformance with its Franchise Agreement, is a letter identifying (requesting) an annual CPI increase for fiscal year (FY) 2016/17. Staff has reviewed and confirmed that the CPI of 1.37% for a corresponding increase in FY 2016/17 is accurate. The applicable sections of the Franchise Agreement are as follows: Section 1.17 CPI "CPI" means the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI -U) for the Los Angeles - Riverside -Orange County area. Section 11.5 Adjustment of Service Fees Beginning on July 1, 2011, and on each July 1 thereafter during the Term of this Agreement, Allied may request, and the City shall grant, an annual adjustment to the service fees shown in Exhibit A (or those service fees then in effect at the time of the requested adjustment). Each service fee adjustment shall be effective on July 1. Allied shall notify City of its request to adjust service fees no later than March 1 prior to the effective date of the adjustment. If Allied fails to so notify City by March 1, City shall not be obligated to adjust the service fees for the next Agreement Year. Service fees shall be annually adjusted at the same rate of change as the annual percentage change in the CPI up to five percent (5.0%) and subject to Section 11.10. If the annual percentage change in the CPI is zero or less than zero, the service fees shall not be adjusted. In addition, where appropriate for preparing the FY 2016/17 budget (e.g., where/if necessary for some contracts, materials and supplies and cost -of -living adjustments), staff is projecting a May -to -May CPI of 2%. CONCLUSION In conclusion, It is recommended the City Council approve the proposed FY 15/16 Year-end Projections for the General Fund.. This report is for informational purposes and, the FY 2016/17 budget will reflect the CPI in the projected expenditures where appropriate. TS:RC:hi Bdgt CPI - CC Staff Report.docx (2) 4/18/2016 11:01 AM CITY OF ROLLING RILLS GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 PROJECTIONS FINAL VARIANCE FAVORABLE ADJUSTED % ACTUAL PROJECTED (UNFAVORABLE) ANNUAL BUDGET JULY TO MARCH TO BUDGET VS BUDGET USED FEB JUNE PROJECTED PROJECTED FY 15/16 THRU FEB FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 15/16 GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES SUMMARY GENERAL FUND REVENUES TAXES S 899,600 62.34% $ 560,786 395,650 S 956,436 S 56,836 OTHER AGENCIES 180,000 52.12% 93,817 93,000 186,817 6,817 LICENSES & PERMITS 572,300 40.14% 229,701 346,850 576,551 4.251 USE OF PROPERTY & MONEY 74,950 68.89% 51,633 25,818 77,451 2,501 EXCHANGE FUNDS - - - - - - OTHER REVENUES 62,700 38.61% 24,210 43,450 67,660 4,960 TOTAL REVENUES GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 01 CITY ADMINISTRATION S 1,789,550 53.65% $ 960,147 $ 904,768 S 1,864,915 S 75,365 EMPLOYEE SALARIES 5 311,500 62.59% S 194.952 5 113,000 S 307,952 $ 3,548 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 134,600 66.45% 89,445 43,204 132,649 1.951 TOTAL PERSONNEL 446,100 63.75% 284,397 156,204 440,601 5.499 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 88,200 58.02% 51,169 26,555 77,724 10,476 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 81,800 45.61% 37,309 38,370 75,679 6,121 CAPITAL OUTLAY 10,500 0.00% - 10,500 10,500 - 01 TOTAL CITY ADMINISTRATION S 626,600 59.51% $ 372,876 S 231,629 604,505 22,095 05 FINANCE MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 160 1375.00% 2,200 (2,000) 200 (40) CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 116,120 50.68% 58,844 46,000 104,844 11.276 CAPITAL OUTLAY 3,000 14.55% 437 - 437 2,563 05 TOTAL FINANCE S 119,280 51.54% S 61.481 S 44,000 S 105,481 S 13,799 15 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT EMPLOYEE SALARIES S 177,200 57.67% $ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 66,200 49.52% TOTAL PERSONNEL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY 15 TOTAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT S 673,300 25 LAW ENFORCEMENT 243,400 55.45% 8,200 17.94% 421,700 29.42% • 230,400 65 NON -DEPARTMENT S 64,600 75 CITY PROPERTIES S 52.600 GENERAL FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES S 1,766,780 NET REVENUES BEFORE TRANSFERS S 22,770 TRANSFERS $ (332,943) NET REVENUE(DEFICIT) AFTER TRANSFERS S (310,173) 102,187 5 74,500 $ 176,687 $ 513 32,784 19,850 52,634 13,566 134.972 94,350 229,322 1.471 1,050 2,521 124.058 245,300 369,358 14,078 5,679 52,342 38.69% S 260.500 $ 340,700 $ 601,200 S 53.15% $ 122.458 $ 95,812 S 218,270 $ 72,100 12,130 31.23% $ 20,177 S 18,300 $ 38,477 $ 47.47% $ 24.969 S 18,700 $ 43469 S 48.82% $ 862,461 S 749,141 S 1,611,602 $ S 97,685 S 155,627 S 253,312 S 5.24% $ (17,455) S 315,488 S (332,943) S 26,123 8.931 155,178 230,542 0 S 80,230 S 159,861 S 79,631 $ 230,542 City of Rolling Hills 2015-2016 Yearend Budget Projections 4/18/2016 11:01AM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 PROJECTIONS FINAL VARIANCE FAVORABLE ADJUSTED % ACTUAL PROJECTED (UNFAVORABLE) ANNUAL BUDGET JULY TO MARCH TO BUDGET VS BUDGET USED FEB JUNE PROJECTED PROJECTED FY 15/16 THRU FEB FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 15/16 GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES DETAIL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 4001 TAXES: 401 Property Taxes S 853,300 61.38% 5 523,753 S 375,000 S 898,753 S 45,453 405 Sale Tax 3,900 46.40% 1,810 650 2,460 (1,440) 410 Real Estate Transfer Tax 42,400 83.07% 35,223 20,000 55,223 12,823 4001 Total 899,600 62.34% 560,786 395,650 956,436 56,836 4030 OTHER AGENCIES 420 Motor Vehicle in Lieu Tax -VLF 180,000 52.12% 93,817 93,000 186,817 6,817 4050 LICENSES & PERMITS 440 Building & Other Permit Fees 512,000 35.61% 182,317 325,000 507,317 (4,683) 450 Variance, Planning & Zoning Fees 40,000 91.93% 36,772 12,000 48,772 8,772 455 Animal Control Fen 1,300 43.92% 571 350 921 (379) 460 Franchise Fee 19,000 52.85% 10,042 9,500 19,542 542 4050 Total 572,300 40.14% 229,701 346,850 576,551 4,251 4060 FINES & VIOLATIONS 480 Fine & Traffic Violations 12,300 94.11% 11,576 6,500 18,076 5,776 5000 USE OF PROPERTY & MONEY 600 City Hall Leasehold RHCA 60,950 66.66% 40,632 20,318 60,950 - 670 Interest Earned 14,000 78.58% 11,001 5,500 16,501 2,501 5000 Total 74,950 68.89% 51,633 25,818 77,451 2,501 6000 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 601 Reimbursement GA M&O - RHCA 602 Reimbursement PW M&O - RHCA 9,000 5&22% 5,240 3,400 8,640 (360) 6000 Total 9,000 58.22% 5,240 3,400 8,640 (360) 6500 EXCHANGE FUNDS 620 Proposition A 6700 OTHER REVENUE 650 PSAF&COPS 800 71.66% 573 200 773 (27) 655 Burglar Alarm Response 600 16.67% 100 350 450 (150) 675 Miscellaneous 40,000 16.80% 6,721 33,000 39,721 (279) 6700 Total 41,400 17.86% 7,394 33,550 40,944 (456) TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 1,789,550 53.65% S 960,147 5 904,768 5 1,864,915 $ 75,365 City of Rolling Hills 2015-2016 Yearend Budget Projections 4/18/2016 11:01 AM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 PROJECTIONS GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 01 CITY ADMINISTRATION FINAL VARIANCE FAVORABLE ADJUSTED % ACTUAL PROJECTED (UNFAVORABLE) ANNUAL BUDGET JULY TO MARCH TO BUDGET VS BUDGET USED FEB JUNE PROJECTED PROJECTED FY 15/16 THRU FEB FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 15/16 7001 Employee Salaries 702 Salaries Full Time 5 311,500 62.59T. $ 194,952 5 113,000 S 307,952 S 3,548 703 Salaries Pare Time - - - - - 7001 Total 311,500 62.59% 194,952 113,000 307,952 3,548 7005 Employee Benefits 710 Retirement CaIPERS- Employer 32,200 68.28% 21,987 8,000 29,987 2,213 711 Retirement CaIPERS - Employee - - - - - 715 Workers Compensation Insurance 6,400 64.73% 4,143 2,416 6,559 (159) 716 Group Insurance 48,000 74.18% 35,606 15,000 50,606 (2,606) 717 Retiree Medical 18,000 64.36% 11,585 6,000 17,585 415 718 Employer Payroll Tales 24,900 47.76% 11,892 10,000 21,892 3,008 719 Deferred Compensation 2,700 - 2,532 1,088 3,620 (920) 720 Auto Allowance 2,400 - 1,700 700 2,400 - 7005 Total 134,600 66.45% 89,445 43,204 132,649 1,951 7500 Materials & Supplies 740 Office Supplies & Expense 18,000 51.61% 9.290 8,000 17,290 710 745 Equipment Leasing Costs 2,500 103.47% 2,587 165 2,752 (252) 750 Dues & Subscriptions 11,000 95.56% 10,512 - 10,512 488 755 Conference Expense 8,200 58.47% 4,794 2,000 6,794 1,406 757 Meeting Expense 2,000 1.31% 26 500 526 1,474 759 Training & Education 1,500 0.00% - - - 1,500 761 Auto Mileage 650 16.90% 110 290 400 250 765 Postage 15,000 37.25% 5,588 6,000 11,588 3,412 770 Telephone 5,200 72.66% 3,778 2,000 5,778 (578) 775 City Council Expense 10,500 46.44% 4,876 4,000 8,876 1,624 776 Miscellaneous Expenses - 1,816 - 1,816 (1,816) 780 Minutes Clerk Meetings 3,500 93.64% 3,277 1,600 4,877 (1,377) 785 Codification 6,050 16.30% 986 1,000 1,986 4,064 790 Advertising 600 - 490 - 490 110 795 Other General Administratve Expense 3,500 86.82% 3,039 1,000 4,039 (539) 7500 Total 88,200 58.02% 51,169 26,555 77,724 10,476 8000 Contractual Services 801 City Attorney 65,000 39.62% 25,756 37,000 62,756 2,244 802 Legal Expenses - Other 3,000 0.00% - - - 3,000 820 Website 6,000 68.92% 4,135 1,370 5,505 495 850 Election Expense City Council - 0.00% (105) - (105) 105 890 Consulting Fees 7,800 96.45% 7,523 - 7,523 277 8000 Total 9000 Capital Outlay 950 Capital Outlay - Equipment 955 Disaster Emergency - Equipment 9000 Total 01 TOTAL CITY ADMINISTRATION 81,800 - 4161% 37,309 38,370 75,679 6,121 2500 8,000 10,500 2,500 2,500 8,000 8,000 10,500 10,500 626,600 59.51% S 372,876 S 231,629 S 604,505 $ 22,095 City of Rolling Hills 0 2015-2016 Yearend Budget Projections 4/18/2016 11:01 AM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 PROJECTIONS FINAL VARIANCE FAVORABLE ADJUSTED % ACTUAL PROJECTED (UNFAVORABLE) ANNUAL BUDGET JULY TO MARCH TO BUDGET VS BUDGET USED FEB JUNE PROJECTED PROJECTED FY 15/16 THRU FEB FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 15/16 05 FINANCE 7500 Materials & Supplies 750 Dues & Subscriptions S 160 1350.00% $ 2,160 S (2,000) S 160 $ 776 Miscellaneous Expenses - 40 - 40 (40) 7500 Total 160 1375.00% 2,200 (2,000) 200 (40) 8000 Contractual Services 810 Annual Audit 17,000 90.71% ' 15,420 1,000 16,420 580 890 Consulting Fen 99,120 43.81% 43,424 45,000 88,424 10,696 8000 Total 116,120 50.68% 58,844 46,000 104,844 11,276 • 9000 Capital Outlay 950 Capital Outlay - Equipment 3,000 437 437 2,563 9000 Total Capital Outlay 3,000 437 437 2,563 05 TOTAL FINANCE $ 119,280 51.54% S 61,481 $ 44,000 5 105,481 $ 13,799 15 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 7001 Employee Salaries 702 Salaries Full Time 5 147,700 54.86% S 81,021 5 66,200 5 147,221 $ 479 703 Salaries Part Time 29,500 71.75% 21,166 8,300 29,466 34 7001 Total 177,200 57.67% 102,187 74,500 176,687 513 7005 Employee Benefits 710 Retirement Ca1PERS • Employer 17,500 47.23% 8,265 7,900 16,165 1,335 711 Retirement CaIPERS • Employee - • - - - - 715 Workers Compensation Insurance 3,400 42.81% 1,456 850 2,306 1,094 716 Group Insurance 21,200 32.04% 6,792 5,000 11,792 9,408 718 Employer Payroll Taxes 14,200 5&05% 8,242 5,200 13,442 758 719 Deferred Compensation 6,600 95.89% 6,329 - 6,329 271 720 Auto Allowance 3,300 51.52% 1,700 900 2.600 700 7005 Total 66,200 49.52% 32,784 19,850 52,634 13,566 7500 Materials & Supplies 758 Planning Commission Meeting 3,500 42.03% 1,471 950 2,421 776 Miscellaneous Expenses 4,700 0.00% - 100 100 7500 Total 8,200 17.94% 1,471 1,050 2,521 1,079 4,600 5,679 8000 Contractual Services 802 Legal Expense - Other 3,000 15.73% 472 100 572 2,428 872 Property Development- Legal Expense 45,000 2345% 10,554 33,000 43,554 1,446 878 Build Inspection LA County/Willdan 215,000 27.22% 58,527 150,000 208,527 6,473 881 Storm Water Management 128,000 37.88% 48,485 50,000 98,485 29,515 882 Variance & CUP Expense 5,200 73.46% 3,820 2,200 6,020 (820) 884 Special Project Study & Consultant 25,500 8.63% 2,200 10,000 12,200 13,300 8000 Total 421,700 29.42% 124,058 245,300 369,358 52,342 9000 Capital Outlay 950 Capital Outlay - Equipment 9000 Total Capital Outlay 15 TOTAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT $ 673,300 38.69% S 260,500 S 340,700 S 601,200 S 72,100 City of Rolling Hills 2015-2016 Yearend Budget Projections 4/18/2016 11:01 AM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 PROJECTIONS FINAL VARIANCE FAVORABLE ADJUSTED % ACTUAL PROJECTED (UNFAVORABLE) ANNUAL BUDGET JULY TO MARCH TO BUDGET VS BUDGET USED FEB JUNE PROJECTED PROJECTED FY 15/16 THRU FEB FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 15/16 25 LAW ENFORCEMENT 8200 Law Enforcement 830 Law Enforcement $ 204,200 55.94% 5 114,227 5 81,591 5 195,818 5 8,382 833 Other Law Enforcement Expenses 2,700 20.47% 553 7,571 8,124 (5,424) 837 Wild Life Management & Pest Control 17,000 29.22% 4,967 4,300 9,267 7,733 838 Animal Control Expense 6,500 41.72% 2,712 2,350 5,062 1,438 8200 Total 230,400 53.15% 122,458 95,812 218,270 12,130 25 TOTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT $ 230,400 53.15% S 122,458 S 95,812 S 218,270 S 12,130 65 NON -DEPARTMENT 7500 Materials & Supplies 776 Miscellaneous Expenses 901 South Bay Community Organization 985 Contingency 7500 Total 8000 Contractual Services 895 Insurance & Bond Expense 896 Insurance Other 8000 Total S - - 5 - $ - S - 5 4,100 48.78% 2,000 1,600 3,600 500 25,000 10.52% 2,631 8,000 10,631 14,369 29,100 15.91% 4,631 9,600 14,231 14,869 20,000 34.56% 6,913 6,700 13,613 6,387 - 20,000 34.56% 6,913 6,700 13,613 6,387 8500 Community Promotion 915 Community Recognition 9,500 75.09% 7,134 - 7,134 2,366 916 Civil Defense Expense 1,500 100.00% 1,500 - 1,500 - 917 Emergency Preparedness 4,500 0.00% - 2,000 2,000 2500 8500 Total 15,500 55.70% 8,634 2,000 10.634 4,866 65 TOTAL NON -DEPARTMENT $ 64,600 31.23% $ 20,177 $ 18,300 $ 38,477 S 75 CITY PROPERTIES 8000 Contractual Services 925 Utilities 930 Repairs& Maintenance 932 Area Landscaping 8000 Total 9000 Capital Outlay 946 Building & Equipment 9000 Total 26,123 5 22,000 61.08% $ 13,438 $ 8,000 5 21,438 S 562 14,000 61.23% 8,572 4,200 12,772 1,228 16,600 17.82% 2,958 6500 9,458 7,142 52,600 47.47% 24,969 18,700 43,669 8,931 75 TOTAL CITY PROPERTIES $ 52,600 47.47% $ 24,969 S 18,700 S 43,669 $ 8,931 131 GENERAL FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,766,780 48.82% S 862,461 S 749,141 S 1,611,602 $ 155,178 NET REVENUES BEFORE TRANSFERS S 22,770 S 97,685 $ 155,627 5 253,312 $ 230,542 699 Fund Transfers (OUT) IN Traffic Safety Fund Capital Improvement Fund Underground Utility Fund Community Facilities Fund Refuse Collection Fund 699 Total 5 (55500) 0.00% S (33,455) 5 (22,045) 5 (55,500) S o 10,957 0.00% - 10,957 10,957 (250,000) 0.00% - (250,000) (250,000) (62,400) 0.00% • (62,400) (62,400) 24,000 66.67% 16,000 8,000 24,000 (332,943) 5.24' (17,455) (315,488) (332,943) 0 NETREVENUE(DEFICIT) AFTER TRANSFERS $ (310,173) $ 80,230 S (159,861) $ (79.639 S 230,542 City of Rolling Hills 2015-2016 Yearend Budges Projections wris REPUBLIC SEWN: SS March 17, 2016 14905 S. San Pedro St., Gardena, CA 90248 0 800.299.4898 republicservices.com City of Rolling Hills Attn: Raymond Cruz 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2016 City of Rolling Hills By Re: Petition for Rate Adjustment Related to Trash Collection Services Dear Mr. Cruz, As per the agreement between the City of Rolling Hills and Allied Waste Services for the collection of waste, made and entered into on April 26, 2010 by and between the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills and ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a subsidiary of Republic Services, Inc., we are hereby requesting a rate adjustment. Section 11.5 of the agreement states, Allied Services, Inc. is entitled to request an Annual CPI adjustment. Based on the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, the All Urban Consumers Price Index for the Los Angeles -Riverside -Orange County Area (CPI), we calculated a 12 -month period for July 1, 2014 - July 1, 2015 adjustment date, Based on those calculations stated in the section, we are able to determine adjustment for the service commencing July 1, 2016 is requested a 1.37% increase. Should there be any questions concerning this request, please do not hesitate to call me directly at 310-436-7310. Sincere! Samu a Municipal Relationship Manager, Gardena Hauling Division SPenaPr- i ublicServices.com City of Rolling Hills Proposed Adjusted Rates, Effective July lst, 2016 Service Fees Bill on Property Tax Bill Proposed Adjusted Rates Annual Base Service Fee (per year) $ 1,111.69 Billed Directly to Customer On -Call Bulky Item Collection in Excess of One (temper Year (per item) $ 27.40 On -Call Brush Collection in Excess of One Load per Year (per load) $ 410.99 Emergency Services Disposal Tipping Fee at Sunshine Canyon Landfill (per ton) $ 46.03 Rolloff Box Service Fee (includes cost of disposal) (per load) $ 410.99 0 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Rice Index - All Urban Consumers Series lut CUURA421SA0 Na Seasonally Adjusted Area: Los Angeles-Riversde-Orange County. CA Item: AI items Base Period: 1982.844100 Download: f t".1413.1 / 17890 1911.10 1 ittient 18220 187.60 1819019220 ' C7.997 1857Q _ 166.50 L` 188.211 18780 • __186.40. ...190-39..:__„' 186301-, r 200{ 188.50 .,P°.19..--- ! 191.50 1 �.....,19,i9-62,----.1439 . ,19370 193A0 z eta, ' 1-940 197..10 199 m_y 110 _ 20 -92 7 2991u 0110 i .'.._.._. ,. _ t-29-66-4-7.-29.6292. zD7so: �_m_es91 x10.30_ nz4o� zi1.19 21140 1 70011 21758 _24445 14_216 50 r 217$5 21860 717.27 217.45 i ..221431 223.61 L�224.63I 276.65. _22,9.07 22959 72144 1 721.30 721.69 '_ 27252 77;91 22401 22462 • 775.46 ~225.92 226.44 .. -225.86 .,_ 225.99 plus i �R092) 2009 220.72 210 -i2461 • _ 278.65 229.73 • 2 .24 73332 ._�I012 133.44 ..~-23454 236.94 236.87.i 237.03. 236.03 235.78 1'701.3-7.1. 138.025 239:75��?40 goo X239 osli 23935 T�239.22 23892 • 1� 1011 -_ 239.96 AMPIMW 241.06 i 24249 _ 24244 ' 24336 �..24352 213.73 I 20/5_ ,1. 239.72„ 241.3D.1 24374 243577 246 091 245.46 247.07 Current It Prior Index Nominal Change Prior Index Percentage Change Bill on Property Tax 8111 Annual Base SeMce Fee (per year) Billed Directly to Customer On -Call Bulky Item Collection In Emess of One Item per Year (per Ilem) On -Call Brush Collection in Excess of One Load per Year (per load) Emergency Services Disposal Tipping Fee at Sunshine Canyon Landfill (per ton) Rollotf Box SeMce Fee (Includes cost of disposal) (per load) 247.07 243.73 3.3 243.73 1.37% iii - i sort o 'T -' Si' -Tr Den Amival-..wAlFC T• HuP2-1 183.00 ' 181401 193.70. loll: . ^ 183.70 ' 18220 181.10;......193.30 4 186.994.-:189.219.1 181.894-- _110.0 387AO 4..‘... Ia7A0 09.9: 1B7.L7j 193.10 194.50 �_-•19630. 196.90 ~ 195.0. ,39340 ? � 191.50 1+ . • 19190 . .20310 �t 705.80 +. _.'20690., . -05;19;T y19910 291.-0.1 ..44_1243,50.1 ._•199.20 2b1.s0 _.. ._ 0.}. 211.90 � z1290 nl.�a ul.io xlo.go ` 220.49 1 ms3o'�� `i116o� 217.33 4 217.70 21870 219.94 21937 _ 21734 1^ 21a.71i _ 219.424 228.48 727A5 226.16 222.23 219.62 ' 125:01 �.. F_ 22438-,� 78.60 �Z2451 775.Zi 225.26 • • 22432 213.64 _ 223.22 221.94 724.50._ 226.37_ _ _77.4s.4, 72885..t-�22639 725.91 � x••.226.64 1 275.89 i 225.49 226.301 .• 23183 233.02 1_ -233.5 22273. 731.57 131.93 ; 231.61 731.25-.{ 237.12 �••....-.73810 _ 24011 237.68 236.04 236.651 - 235.81 - X 717.49 239.22 239.61 739.94 ._,i38.68��..4474 " .?..:39-2-1-1.......P9.2-.3.. ' -_^239.19 1 24356 243.62 24334 241.75 1____ 240.48 _ 242fi3 242.12 {y _ 24275 24533-�_ 245.43 �r 245.811 i245.71J, 245.36.244.63 21331 + 245.95 1 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2016 $ 1,023.31 $ 1,047.38 $ 1,067.81 3 1,081.85 5 1.096.87 $ 1,111.69 $ 25.22 $ 378.32 5 25.61 S 387.21 $ 28.31 $ 394.70 5 28.88 3 399.98 $ 27.03 $ 405.44 $ 27.40 5 410.99 $ 42.37 $ 378.32 $ 43.37 $ 38721 S 44.21 $ 394.70 5 44.80 $ 399.98 5 45.41 $ 405.44 3 48.03 5 410.99 % Inc 1.37% 1.3796 1.3796 1.37% . 1.3796 Table 16. Consumer Price index for All Urban Consumers (CPI -U): Selected areas, by expenditure category and commodity and service group -Continued (1982-84=100, unless otherwise noted) Item and group Monthly cities and pricing schedule 1i Cleveland- Akron, OH Dallas- Fort Worth. D( Los Angeles- Riverside - Orange County. CA Index .. from- , Mar. Percent change Index Mar. Percent change from- Index Mar. Percen change from- Mar. Jan. Mar. Jan. Mar. Jan. 2018 .2015 2016 2018 2015 2016 2016 2015 2016 Expenditure category All items 3 219.970 -0.2 0.5 218.877 0.6 0.8 247.873 1.7 0.3 All items (1987=100) 704.889 - - 688.605 . . 732.326 - - Food and beverages 3 250.691 .4 -.5 249.669 .2 -.4 251.983 1.5 .0 Food 3 255.587 .3 -.6 244.392 .3 -.3 252.276 1.5 .1 Food at home 244.785 -.9 -2.2 217.788 -1.2 -.5 257.293 -.3 -.3 Food away from home 4 275.608 2.1 1.9 285.666 2.1 .0 242.309 4.0 .6 Alcoholic beverages 4 195.321 2.1 .5 318.366 -2.6 -1.4 232.810 .6 -.7 Housing 3 204.167 .8 .2 201.544 2.0 .0 274.461 3.4 .8 Shelter 237.377 1.6 .2 220.225 3.8 .4 312.834 4.3 1.1 Rent of primary residence 3 5 235.093 1.8 .0 231.213 5.0 .5 327.213 4.4 .8 Owners' equivalent rent of residences 56 231.431 1.6 .3 236.609 4.4 1.0 324.010 3.9 .9 Owners' equivalent rent of primary residence 56 231.431 1.6 .3 236.609 4.4 1.0 323.991 3.9 .9 Fuels and utilities 189.299 -4.6 .1 210.681 -6.0 -2.7 294.079 Household energy 154.359 -6.4 .2 191.256 -9.7 -4.1 256.816 -1.9 -1.0 Energy services 5 153.024 -6.2 .2 188.194 -9.7 -4.1 255.612 -1.8 -1.0 Electricity 5 181.617 2.4 1.1 183.367 -12.0 -4.1 300.681 -1.1 -.1 Utility (piped) gas service 5 99.434 -21.8 -1.9 168.189 10.0 -4.3 196.839 -4.5 -4.0 Household furnishings and operations 117.291 .3 .1 126.194 -.1 .7 116.467 -.6 -.5 Apparel 3 143.001 2.9 6.2 112.400 -6.0 9.8 115.327 4.0 5.6 Transportation 3 190.888 -3.4 1.4 193.954 -3.5 1.7 190.265 -5.7 -1.2 Private transportation 191.210 -3.9 1.0 195.614 -3.5 1.7 185.199 -5.7 -1.3 Motor fuel 197.979 -18.4 3.7 173.335 -16.8 7.9 208.369 -19.5 -6.7 Gasoline (all types) 195.897 -18.4 3.8 172.632 -16.5 8.1 204.098 -19.4 -6.7 Gasoline, unleaded regular 7 184.130 -20.0 4.0 165.540 -17.7 8.8 204.218 -19.7 -6.8 Gasoline, unleaded midgrade 78 212.200 -15.4 3.3 183.801 -14.5 6.4 195.380 -19.0 -6.6 Gasoline, unleaded premium 7 217.369 -11.0 2.4 189.970 -11.9 5.8 196.381 -18.0 -6.0 Medical care 3 418.152 .2 .1 431.261 4.8 .6 449.147 6.5 .9 Recreation 9 111311 -2.0 1.6 110.811 -.9 1.1 106.944 4.0 -1.8 Education and communication 9 126.273 .8 -.5 142.248 3.8 2.1 145.086 -.4 -1.2 Other goods and services 3 417.416 1.9 1.1 387.268 1.7 .6 389.418 2.0 -.3 Commodity and service group All Items 3 219.970 -.2 .5 218.877 .6 .8 247.873 1.7 .3 Commodities 187.312 -1.6 .6 170.848 -2.9 1.6 174.717 -1.7 -.2 Commodities less food and beverages 155.491 -2.8 1.5 135.662 -4.9 2.9 134.345 -4.1 -.4 Nondurables less food and beverages 197.768 -4.4 2.2 161.147 -5.8 5.4 173.393 -5.4 -.8 Durables 109.063 -.6 .5 113.131 -3.5 .3 96.090 -2.0 .3 Services 253.138 .7 .5 265.868 3.0 .3 312.952 3.7 .5 Special aggregate indexes All items less medical care 3 210.885 -.3 .6 208.602 .3 .8 239.117 1.4 .2 All items less shelter 215.049 -1.0 .6 219.040 -.8 1.0 219.558 .1 -.2 Commodities less food 157.062 -2.6 1.4 140.324 -4.8 2.8 138.610 -3.9 -.4 Nondurables 224.405 -2.0 .6 201.257 -2.7 2.2 213.437 -1.7 -.3 Nondurables less food 197.261 -4.1 2.1 168.420 -5.6 4.7 178.984 -4.9 -.7 Services less rent of shelter6 275.668 -.1 .7 330.962 2.1 .1 321.891 2.8 -.2 Services less medical care services 240.668 .7 .6 249.771 2.9 .4 301.292 3.4 .5 Energy 3 172.146 -11.8 1.6 183.913 -13.1 1.1 227.738 -12.7 -4.3 All items less energy 226.645 .8 .4 225.823 1.8 .8 251.274 2.8 .6 All items less food and energy 3 221.749 .9 .7 222.744 2.1 .9 251.438 3.1 .7 See footnotes at end of tame. TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: 8(4 abraff49 gal INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 10-C Meeting Date: 04/25/16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER TERRY SHEA, FINANCE DIRECTOR 01" - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS INVESTMENT POLICY, THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FINANCIAL, BUDGET AND DEBT POLICIES AS AMENDED AND CONFIRMATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 953 - ASSET CAPITALIZATION POLICY. DATE: APRIL 25, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: INVESTMENT POLICY FINANCIAL, BUDGET AND DEBT POLICIES RESOLUTION NO. 953 - ASSET CAPITALIZATION POLICY RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that that City Council review and approve the Investment Policy and the Financial, Budget and Debt Policies, with the recommended changes and confirm Resolution No. 953 - Asset Capitalization Policies as presented. BACKGROUND As a component of the City's annual financial audit, the City auditor is asked to review the City's financial policies consisting of the Investment Policy, the Financial, Budget and Debt Policies and Asset Capitalization Policy. By law, according to the auditor, and as a best management practice the City Council is also required to annually review the City's Investment Policy. DISCUSSION Staff is recommending one change to the Investment Policy, in Section 5.0 Delegation of Authority, we are recommending to remove the Investment Account: Treasury Direct, Department of Treasury, United States section. The reason for the change is the Treasury Direct accounts are no longer available. Staff is recommending one change to the Financial, Budget and Debt Policies, Section 2. Financial Reporting Policies, we are recommending we send the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report to the GFOA on an annual basis, instead of every other year. In addition we want to remove the requirement to send the City's Adopted Budget to the GFOA for the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. Staff is not recommending any changes to the Asset Capitalization Policy for FY 2016/17 at this time. At the March 28, 2016 meeting of the City Council Finance/Budget/Audit Committee, the Members voted to approve the staff recommendations on the proposed changes. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact upon the City with review and confirmation of the City's financial policies as presented. CONCLUSION It is recommended the City Council approve the Investment Policy, the Financial, Budget and Debt Policies, with the changes recommended and Resolution No 953 - Asset Capitalization Policy as presented or direct staff accordingly. CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/PROCEDURES INVESTMENT POLICY Original Version Effective: 09/24/2007 Current Version Effective: 04/27/2015 See end of document for complete policy history. 1.0 Folic It is the policy of the City of Rolling Hills to protect, preserve and maintain the assets of the City. It shall invest public funds in a manner that will provide the highest investment return commensurate with maximum security while meeting the cash flow demands of the City and conforming to all State and Local statutes governing the investment of public funds. 2.0 Scope The City follows the practice of pooling cash and investments of all funds, except for funds in the City's employee deferred compensation plan. Funds contained in the City's pool are designated the "General Portfolio." These funds are accounted for in the Financial Statements of the City and include: The General Fund All Special Revenue Funds All Capital Projects Funds All Enterprise Funds All Internal Service Funds All Trust and Agency Funds The City offers its employees a deferred compensation plan created in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 457. The City's deferred compensation plans assets are with Nationwide Retirement Solutions and ICMA Retirement Corporation. The Nationwide Retirement Solutions and ICMA Retirement Corporation invests employee account assets in various investment options as directed by the individual employee. Accordingly, these assets are neither controlled by the City nor subject to this investment policy. 3.0 Prudence The City holds to the "prudent investor standard" in that all investments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived and acting as a fiduciary of the public trust. The prudent investor standard set forth in Section 53600.3 of the Government Code states: "When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skills, prudence and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with the like aims to safeguard the principle and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency." INVESTMENT POLICY 1 4/27/2015 4.0 Obiectives The primary objectives, in priority order, of the City of Rolling Hills' investment activities shall be: 4.1. Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. "Safety" means that the overall value of City funds shall not be diminished in the process of securing and investing those funds or over the duration of the investments. 4.2. Liquidity: The City of Rolling Hills' investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all operating requirements which might be reasonably anticipated. The liquidity of each type of investment is included in its description in the "Authorized Investments" section of this policy. 4.3. Return on Investment (Yield):The City of Rolling Hills investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, commensurate with the investment risk constraints and the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio. In general, the California Government Code limits authorized investments to those classes of securities which have lower risk (and therefore lower yields) than other higher risk investment choices. In each investment transaction, the anticipated return on investment is subordinate to the preceding requirement of credit and investment risk. 5.0 Delegation of Authority The City Council has the authority to select financial institutions for the City' investment and bank accounts. The City Council has designated the City Council Finance / Budget Committee, the City Manager, and the City Finance Director with the responsibility for decisions and operations for the following investment and operating bank accounts: Investment Account: Treasury Direct, Department of Treasury. United States Resolution No. 979 authorizes the Mayor and the City Manager to perform any transactions for the City's Treasury Direct Account, including, but not limited to, change of payment information; transfer or sale of securities, purchase or reinvestments. The authorized individual may appoint one or more substitutes. Operating Bank Accounts • Local Agency Fund administered by the Treasurer of the State of California • Money market savings accounts • Checking accounts Certificates of Deposits/Negotiable Certificates of Deposits or Time Deposits Certificates of Deposits, Negotiable Certificates of Deposit or Time Deposits with commercial banks and /or savings and loan associations issued by a nationally or state -chartered bank, a savings association, or a federal association (as defined by Section 5102 of the Financial Code), a state or federal credit union with maturities ranging from 30 days to three years. INVESTMENT POLICY 2 Q 4/27/2015 6.0 Ethics and Conflicts of Interest: Officers and employees involved in the investment process are required by the City of Rolling Hills' and State Government Code Section 81000 to disclose annually to the City Council any material financial interests in financial institutions that conduct business with the City and further to disclose any large personal financial / investment positions that could be related to the performance of the City, particularly with regard to the time of purchase and sales, as part of the City's conflict of interest reporting requirements. Said employees are also prohibited from accepting gifts proffered as a direct result of being employees of the City. 7.0 Authorized Financial Dealers, Institutions and Portfolio Managers: The Finance Director will maintain a list of financial institutions authorized to provide investment services, including portfolio management. No public deposit shall be made except in a qualified public depository as established by State law. Financial institutions authorized to provide investment services to the City, including portfolio management, shall utilize security broker / dealers who are duly licensed and authorized to provide investment services in the State of California. Anyone providing financial services to the City, including portfolio management must adhere to the City's investment policies as adopted by the City Council. 8.0 Authorized and Suitable Investments: The surplus funds of the City may be invested in any of the following list of eligible securities. Surplus funds are defined as those funds not immediately needed for City operations excepting those minimum balances required by the City's banks as compensation for services rendered to the City, or such other funds as otherwise determined by the Finance Director or City Manager. The list of eligible securities is drawn from the approved investments contained in the California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq., limited further by the provisions of this policy. For eligibility as a City investment, the following restrictions should be added to those contained in the California Government Code Sections 53601 et seq. They are: 8.1 U.S. Treasury Bonds, Notes & Bills — "Strips" and "Cubes" The principal and interest portions of U.S. Treasury securities are issued by the Federal Government. Frequently, broker / dealers make a market in these securities by separating the principal and interest components and marketing them separately. The principal portions of their "stripped" securities are marketed at deep discounts. "Strips" and "Cubes" do not provide income streams during the term of the investment, but rather pay a "par" amount at maturity. This makes these investments somewhat more volatile than standard U.S. Treasury securities. The City will not invest in "strips" or "cubes." 8.2 U.S. Government Agencies There are numerous government agencies listed which issue debt instruments but many lack the liquidity necessary to fit the City's portfolio requirements possibly including, for example, the issues of Federal Farm Credit Bank, the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Bank, and the Student Loan Mortgage Corporation. The City will not purchase these government agency securities. INVESTMENT POLICY 3 4/27/2015 8.3 Repurchase Agreements A repurchase agreement is a contractual agreement between a financial institution or dealer and the City in which the City lends its funds to the financial institution or dealer for a certain number of days at a stated rate of interest. In return, the City takes title to securities as collateral until the funds and interest are repaid. The City will not enter into repurchase agreements. 8.4 Medium Term Corporate Notes The City will not purchase medium term corporate notes. 8.5 Commercial Paper and Corporate Bonds The City will not purchase commercial paper or corporate bonds. 8.6 Prohibited Investments The list of eligible securities contained in the California Government Code is extensive and includes a number of categories which are not suitable investments for City funds because of limitations in the liquidity of the instruments or the interest rates obtainable thereon. The categories in the list which have such limitations are: The notes or bonds or any obligations of the State of California or of any local agency or district of the State of California. Notes, bonds or other obligations issued by any other state or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The city shall not invest any funds pursuant to Section 53600, et. Seq., in any security that could result in zero interest accrual if held to maturity. 9.0 Collateralization: All City of Rolling Hills' investments shall be collateralized as required by the State Government Code. 10.0 Maximum Maturities: To the extent possible, the City of Rolling Hills will match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. Unless matched to a specific cash flow, the City will not directly invest in securities maturing more than one (3) years from the date of purchase. 11.0 Internal Control: The City's external auditor with the support from the Finance Director shall annually conduct an independent review of the internal controls. Additionally, the City's external auditor with support from the Finance Director will annually perform a financial audit. Both may be conducted at the same time, when the City's annual financial audit performed. The external auditor will be an independent certified public accountant who performs his work under generally accepted auditing standards as adopted by the Auditing Standards Board (ASB) of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. INVESTMENT POLICY 4 ED 4/27/2015 12.0 Performance Standards: The investment portfolio shall be designated with the objective of obtaining a rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, commensurate with the investment risk constraints and the cash flow needs of the City. 13.0 Investment Policy Adoption: The City Council shall consider and adopt a written Investment Policy annually and accept quarterly Investment Reports as provided in Government Code Section 53646 et al. Policy Administrative History: Adopted September 24, 2007 Revised and Adopted February 23, 2009 Revised and Adopted March 8, 2010 Reviewed and Adopted February 28, 2011 Reviewed and Adopted May 14, 2012 Reviewed and Adopted April 22, 2013 Reviewed and Adopted March 24, 2014 Reviewed and Adopted April 27, 2015 INVESTMENT POLICY 5 4/27/2015 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/PROCEDURES FINANCIAL, BUDGET AND DEBT POLICIES Original Version Effective: 09/24/2007 Current Version Effective: 04/27/2015 See end of document for complete policy history. Policy Framework: The purpose of the Financial, Budget and Debt Policies is to guide the City Council and other City officials in developing sustainable, balanced budgets and managing the City's finances in a prudent manner consistent with best practices. The City's commitment to adopting and operating within a balanced budget is a core financial value and policy of the City. The City of Rolling Hills Financial Policies represents the City's framework for planning and management of the City's fiscal resources. Adherence to the Financial Policies promote sound financial management which can lead to unqualified annual audits, provide assurance to the taxpayers that tax dollars are being collected and spent per City Council direction and provide a minimum of unexpected impacts upon taxpayers and users of public services. The City Council Finance / Budget Committee shall serve as the City's audit committee for the purpose of recommending the selection of an auditor to the City Council, meeting with the City Auditor, reviewing the annual audit and necessary financial statements, responding to conflicts between management and the auditor and responding to fraudulent activities. The City Council will conduct a competitive process for the selection of the independent external auditor every 5 years in conformance with GOFA standards commencing in 2015. Any non- audit work performed by the independent external auditor, if allowed, will be done under a separate contract approved by the City Council. The City Manager shall be responsible for developing and, as appropriate, implementing and managing these policies as well as subsidiary policies that execute the City's Financial Policies. The City's Financial Policies shall be in conformance with all state and federal laws, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and standards of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). 1. Financial Reporting Entity: The City of Rolling Hills was incorporated in 1957 under the general laws of the State of California. The City operates under the Council -Manager form of government. The City Council consists of five members elected at large for overlapping four-year terms. The Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem are selected from the City Council members and serve a one-year term. The City Council appoints a City Manager, City Attorney and City Treasurer. In addition, the City Council appoints the members of advisory Commissions and Committees. The City, directly or by contract, provides municipal services as authorized by statute. Services provided include: • Public safety through the Los Angeles County Sheriff and Fire Department • Refuse collection by contract with a private hauler • Water through California Water Service Company FINANCIAL POLICIES 1 4/27/2015 • Sewer through Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts • Recreation • Public improvements • Planning and zoning • General administrative and support services 2. Financial Reporting Policies: The City's accounting and financial reporting systems will be maintained in conformance with all state and federal laws, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and standards of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). Further, the City will make every attempt to implement all changes to governmental accounting practices at the earliest practical time. • The financial report should be in conformity with GAAP, demonstrate compliance with finance related legal and contractual provisions, disclose thoroughly with detail sufficient to minimize ambiguity and potential for misleading interferences. • An annual audit will be performed by an independent public accounting firm with an audit opinion to be included with the City's published Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. • The City's budget should satisfy criteria as a financial and programmatic policy document, as a comprehensive financial plan, as an operations guide for all organizational units and as a communications device for all significant budgetary issues, trends, and resource choices. • In alternating years, the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report will be submitted to the GFOA for a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. City staff will strive in the intervening years to submit the City's Adopted Budget to the GFOA for a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. • The City shall evaluate the fiscal impact of proposed changes in employee benefits to be provided. Prior to assuming liability for expanded benefits, a viable funding plan with estimates of long term impacts shall be incorporated into the analysis. • The City shall endeavor to avoid committing to new spending for operating or capital improvement purposes until an analysis of all current and future cost implications is completed. • The City shall endeavor to maintain cash reserves sufficient to fully fund the next present value of accruing liabilities, obligations to employees for vested payroll and benefits and similar obligations as they are incurred. • The City shall prepare and present to the City Council monthly interim revenue and expenditure reports and a Mid -Year Review to allow evaluation of potential discrepancies from budget assumptions. 3. Internal Control Accounting Policies: To provide a reasonable basis for making management's required representations concerning the finances of the City. • Accounting Records — Maintain accounting records in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). FINANCIAL POLICIES 2 0 4/27/2015 • Monthly Posting — Post a monthly record, which maintains each month's activities separate and distinct from another month's work. This provides visibility in locating errors and fixing corrections. Accounting ledgers will be reviewed and reconciled on a monthly basis to supporting documentation — Cash Receipts, Accounts Payable, Payroll and Monthly Journal Entries. • Sequential Number — Sequentially numbered instruments will be used for checks and cash receipts. Pre -numbered receipts are controlled and accounted for by an individual with no accounting handling responsibilities. The City's pre -numbered checks and pre - numbered cash receipts should be safeguarded in the Vault. All copies of voided receipt forms are retained, accounted for, and documented. • Audit Trail — The City's accounting records and systems shall provide an audit trail (e.g. paper document) that allows for the tracing of each transaction from its original document to completion. 4. Operating Management Policies: The budget process is intended to weigh all competing requests for City resources within expected fiscal constraints. Requests for new, on -going programs made outside the budget process will be discouraged. • Budget development will consider multi -year implications of current decisions and allocations and use conservative revenue forecasts. • Revenues will not be dedicated for specific purposes, unless required by law or Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP). All non -restricted revenues will be deposited in the General Fund (or other designated fund as approved by the City Manager) and appropriated by the City Council. • Current revenues will fund current expenditures. City revenues will be managed to protect programs from short-term fluctuations that impact expenditures. • The City will endeavor to identify entrepreneurial solutions to cover or recover costs of operating program. • The City shall strive to avoid returning to the City Council for new or expanded appropriations during the fiscal year. Exceptions may include emergencies, unforeseen impacts, mid -year adjustments or new opportunities. • Additional personnel will be requested after service needs have been thoroughly examined and is substantiated for new program initiatives or policy directives. • All non -Enterprise user fees and charges will be evaluated at least every three years to determine the direct and indirect cost recovery rate. The analysis will be presented to the City Council. • The City shall endeavor to maintain adequate cash reserves to fund 100% replacement of capital equipment. Replacement costs will be based upon equipment lifecycle financial analysis developed by the Finance Director and approved by the City Manager. • Balanced revenue and expenditure forecasts will be prepared to examine the City's ability to absorb operating costs due to changes in the economy, service demands, and FINANCIAL POLICIES 3 4/27/2015 capital improvements. The forecast will be updated annually and include a four-year outlook. • Cash and investment programs will be maintained in accordance with the Government Code and the adopted investment policy will ensure that proper controls and safeguards are maintained. City funds will be managed in a prudent and diligent manner with an emphasis on safety of principal, liquidity, and financial return on principal, in that order. Pursuant to State law, the City, at least annually, revises and the City Council affirms a detailed investment policy. 5. Capital Management Policies: • Capital improvement projects are defined as infrastructure or equipment purchases or construction which results in a capitalized asset and having a useful (depreciable) life of at least one year with a cost of $5,000 or more per the City's resolution Number 953. • The Finance Department shall utilize the straight-line method of calculating depreciation over the estimated useful life for all classes of assets. • The capital improvement plan will attempt to include, in addition to current operating maintenance expenditures, adequate funding to support, repair and replace deteriorating infrastructure and avoid a significant unfunded liability. • Capital improvement lifecycle costs will be coordinated with the development of the City's operating budget. Future operating, maintenance, and replacement costs associated with new capital improvements will be forecast, matched to available revenue sources and be included in the operating budget. Capital project contract awards or purchases will include a fiscal impact statement disclosing the expected operating impact of the project or acquisition and when such cost is expected to occur. 6. Reserve Policies: It is the goal of the City to obtain and maintain a General Fund operating reserve (Rainy day fund) in the form of cash, of at least 40% of prior year audited annual General Fund revenues to cover normal seasonal cash flow variations, as well as unforeseen emergency or catastrophic impacts upon the City. • One-time revenue windfalls should be designated as a reserve or used for one-time expenditures. The funds should not be used for on -going operations. For purposes of this policy, one-time revenue windfalls shall include: CaIPERS rebates Tax revenue growth in excess of 10% in a single year Unexpected revenues (e.g., litigation settlement) Any other revenues the City Council may elect to designate as extraordinary • All unexpended General Funds from the prior fiscal year will be deposited in the General Fund Reverse Fund (Rainy Day Fund.) • The City will strive to maintain the Municipal Self -Insurance Fund with a July 1 balance of $500,000. • The City will strive to transfer $250,000 annually into the Utilities Fund for the purpose of building up the necessary balance for underground projects. FINANCIAL POLICIES 4 4/27/2015 • Enterprise Fund (e.g., for refuse collection) user fees and charges will be examined annually to ensure that they recover all direct and indirect costs of the service, provide for capital improvements and maintenance and maintain adequate reserves. Moreover, maintenance of cash reserves will provide a de facto rate stabilization plan. Rate increases shall be approved by the City Council following formal noticing and public hearing. Rate adjustments for enterprise operations will be based on five-year financial plans unless a conscious decision is made to the contrary. The current cash reserves shall be $175,000. 7. Budget Policies: The function of the City of Rolling Hills is primarily administrative. A. Categories of Funds • The City's annual budget contains thirteen different funds managed in conformance with the City's Fund Balance Policy: General Fund Community Facility Fund Self -Insurance Fund Refuse Fund Traffic Fund Transit Fund - Proposition A Transit Fund - Proposition C Transit Fund — Measure R Capital Projects Fund Citizens Options for Public Safety Fund (COPS) Fund California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP) Fund. Utility Fund OPEB (Post -Employment Benefits Other Than Pensions) Fund • Each fund is considered to be a separate accounting entity for budgeting and financial reporting purposes. • The operations of each fund are accounted for by providing a separate set of self - balancing accounts which are comprised of each fund's assets, liabilities, equity, revenues and expenditures, as appropriate. • The City resources are allocated to and for individual funds based upon the purpose of the spending activities. • All funds and reserves will be evaluated annually for long-term adequacy and use requirements in conjunction with development of the City's long-term budget assumptions. B. Operating Budget Guidelines • The Budget is detailed - Expenditures are authorized line by line, item by item. Line items are used to limit precisely the amount and narrowly define what can be spent. • The Budget is annual - The annual budget period is from July 1 to June 30. The time span of the authority to spend is restricted to one year. Each year the regular cycle FINANCIAL POLICIES 5 4/27/2015 of budgeting is repeated. • The budget is comprehensive — The budget is prepared for all funds expended by the City. • The City adopts a budget by June 30 of each year. • Comparative Data - Comparative data from the prior year is presented in the annual budget in order to provide an understanding of changes in the City's financial position and operation. • Public Hearing - The City Council reviews a tentative budget and adopts the final budget. A public hearing is conducted to receive comments prior to adoption. C. Financial Review Throughout the fiscal year, monthly financial reports comparing actual amounts with budgeted amounts are prepared by the Finance Director and submitted to the City Manager and members of the City Council. As these reports are reviewed, attention is drawn to variances between budgeted amounts and actual amounts. D. Budgeted Revenues & Expenditures The City reviews fees and charges to keep pace with the cost of providing the service. 8. Debt Management Policies: The City will seek to avoid incurring debt. While the City is disposed to funding capital improvements and expenditures on a cash basis, the City will consider, and when necessary, enter into debt financing for citywide public improvement projects such as sewers and utility undergrounding. • Lease Equipment - Office Equipment has been leased on a monthly basis with the expense incurred at the time of payment. Policy Administrative History: Adopted September 24, 2007 Revised and Adopted March 24, 2008 Revised and Adopted February 23, 2009 Revised and Adopted March 8, 2010 Reviewed and Adopted February 28, 2011 Revised and Adopted May 23, 2011 Reviewed and Adopted May 14, 2012 Reviewed and Adopted April 22, 2013 Revised and Adopted September 9, 2013 Reviewed and Adopted March 24, 2014 Reviewed and Adopted April 27, 2015 FINANCIAL POLICIES 4/27/2015 RESOLUTION NO. 953 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING AN ASSET CAPITALIZATION POLICY WHEREAS, Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements - and Management's Discussion and Analysis - for State and Local Governments, requires State and Local Government to include the original cost of fixed assets in the statement of net assets as part of the government -wide financial statements; and WHEREAS, an asset capitalization policy is necessary to establish a reasonable capitalization threshold for all types of assets and this policy should facilitate depreciating . those assets over their estimated useful lives; and WHEREAS, a capitalization threshold is the monetary part of the criteria by which an organization determines whether an asset should be reported on the balance sheet; and WHEREAS, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State and Local and Indian Tribal Governments, Attachment B, section 19(a)(2) and 19(d) allows property costing up to $5,000 to be charged to federal grants as supplies, rather than capital outlay without specific awarding agency approval; and WHEREAS, depreciation represents the recognition of the cost of an asset over time, by calculating its estimated loss in value during each accounting period; and . WHEREAS, GASB Statement No. 34 allows local government to use any established depreciation method; • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in accordance with GASB Statement No. 34, the City of Rolling Hills Finance Department will: • Capitalize all assets purchased which have a normal life of at least one year with a per -unit cost of $5,000 or more; and • Capitalize all site and building improvements with a . •. of $5,000 or more; and • Utilize the straight-line method of depreciation over estimated useful life for all classes of assets. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28 MAYO ATI'EST: �RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 953. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 953 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING AN ASSET CAPITALIZATION POLICY was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on June 28, 2004, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers Black, Hill, Lay, Mayor Pro Tem Pernell and Mayor Heinsheimer. None. None. None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: • Administrative Offices DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 953