Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Agenda 05-09-2016
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. 1 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 6`" day of May, 2016,1 serve the within City Council Meeting - 05/09/2016 a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, on the person, or persons, named below by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Rolling Hills, California addressed as follows: E -MAILED MAILED DropBox NONE RH Web site listSery Interested parties City Attorney CouncilMembers Dieringer, Pieper, Black, Mirsch and Wilson DELIVERED City Manager City Council Also posted at City Hall, at www.Rolling-Hills.org and pdf's in DropBox. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 6`" day of May, 2016 at Rolling Hills, Califomia. Ewa Nikodem Administrative Assistant 0 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, MAY 9, 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 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hilts, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Dieringer. Councilmembers Absent: Black (excused). Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Terry Shea, Finance Director. Arun Bhumitra, 13 Buggy Whip Drive. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. Tony Oliva, Attorney (on behalf of 5 Quail Ridge Road South). Norm Miller, 4 Chesterfield Road. Spencer Karpf, 8 Maverick Lane. Fred Lorig, 1 Spur Lane. Liz Johnson, 8 Eastfield Drive. James Wald, 7 Quail Ridge Road South. Carol Witte, 5 Quail Ridge Road South. John Nunn, 1 Crest Road Wcst. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West. Dan Nguyen, 5 Buggy Whip Drive. Raghu Mendu, 1 Reata Lane. Laura Gregorio, 45 Eastfield Drive. Tai Chung, 11 Roadrunner Road. Stewart Darryl], 11 Chuckwagon Road. V'Etta Virtue, 4 Maverick Lane. 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 25, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Allied Recycling Tonnage Report for March, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. D. Consideration of Providing Authorization to Change Insurance Brokerage Firms and Some Providers for Dental, Vision, Life and Long-term Disability Insurance. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. Mayor Dieringer asked that item 4-A be removed from the consent calendar for individual consideration. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council approve the remaining items on the consent calendar as presented. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of April 25, 2016. Mayor Dieringer moved that the City Council table this item until the next meeting of the City Council and direct staff to review the minutes to include more detail on the discussion and justification for the decision pertaining to the view appeal. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. COMMISSION ITEMS RESOLUTION NO. 2016-09. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE, AND VARIANCES TO ENCROACH WITH A PORTION OF THE ADDITION UP TO 10 FEET INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND TO RETAIN A SHED IN SIDE SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 898 AT 46 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 97-EF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (MILLER). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301, CLASS 1 EXEMPTION GUIDELINES. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 898 at 46 Eastfield Drive stating that the Planning Commission approved the request. She reviewed the configuration of the lot stating that the property is served by a long, steep driveway and stated that the applicant proposes to construct a 1,757 sq. fi. addition to the residence of which 85 sq. R. encroaches into the front yard setback. She stated that the applicant also proposes to retain an existing shed located in the side setback. She further stated that the applicant revised the project from the initial submittal to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission. She stated that all of the development standards meet the requirements of the Zoning Code. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-09 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 898 at 46 Eastfield Drive. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Mayor Dieringer suggested that Matters from Staff item 10-A regarding purchasing certificates of deposit be taken out of order. Hearing no objection, she so ordered. MATTERS FROM STAFF CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASING CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT FROM PREFERRED BANK AND US BANK. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Finance Director Shea presented the staff report stating that as discussed previously with regard to increase the City's investment earnings, it is proposed that the City Council authorize staff to purchase 24 -month Certificates of Deposit (CD's) from Preferred Bank and US Bank in the fully FDIC insured amounts of $245,000 each at a rate of 1-1.5% Following brief discussion, Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council authorize the City Manager to purchase up to 24 -month CD's from Preferred Bank and US Bank in the amount of $245,000 each. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Finance Director Shea stated that the necessary custodial agreements will be presented to the City Council for final approval. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. OLD BUSINESS DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC FORUM ON A POSSIBLE BALLOT MEASURE TO REPEAL OR AMEND MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and summarized the matter being considered. She stated that Measure B changed how a view is defined in the City's view ordinance to be the view that existed when Minutes City Council Meeting 05-09-16 the property was acquired and added limitations including that a view may not be panoramic but rather corridors and that mature trees are except from action under the ordinance. She further stated that Measure B changed the burden of proof for establishing a view to the standard of clear and convincing evidence and established a priority for that evidence to include photographs, expert testimony and other evidence. She sated that the City Council is seeking input from residents with regard to these matters and what might be a fair balance. Mayor Dicringcr then called for public comment. Arun Bhumitra, 13 Buggy Whip Drive addressed the City Council stating that he had a panoramic view when he purchased his property and he should be able to restore that view. He suggested that the City give residents the tools to work together with an ad hoc committee to resolve view issues. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council stating that she helped pass Measure B to stop the indiscriminate cutting of trees but she recognizes that the problems with it need to be corrected. She expressed concern that repealing Measure B would have a negative impact for the community. She suggested that the City get out of the view business completely and get an objective judge to hear view matters. Tony Oliva, Attorney on behalf of 5 Quail Ridge Road South (Witte) addressed the City Council to express concem regarding the retroactivity portion of Measure B. He explained the history of the Witte view case stating that the matter was ultimately resolved between the parties and a Resolution, adopted by the City Council, was recorded on both properties. Norm Miller, 4 Chesterfield Road addressed the City Council stating that Measure B says that you get the view you had when you moved in but that isn't the case when view corridors are taken into consideration instead. He suggested that view corridors be eliminated. Spencer Karpf, 8 Maverick Lane addressed the City Council stating that he believes the chart of view cases is inaccurate because it doesn't include a case he filed that was resolved in mediation. He urged the City Council to act in accordance with the wishes of the residents as are evidenced by the passage of Measure B. Frcd Lorig, 1 Spur Lane addressed the City Council stating that Measure B passed by five votes and voting was not limited to property owners. He suggested that if Measure B is repealed that it be replaced by something that puts the City and Rolling Hills Community Association on the same track with their efforts regarding view preservation being coordinated. Liz Johnson, 8 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council stating that she is not familiar with this topic, but she is here to speak for the trees and she feels the ordinance incentivizes people to overdo it and fight over trecs. James Wald, 7 Quail Ridge Road South addressed the City Council stating that they are the other party in the case Mr. Oliva referred to. He stated that when they purchased their property they were not aware of the issues that affected their trecs and they have since lost several of the trees around their house because of trimming which decreased the value of the property and affected their ability to enjoy their property. He stated that the cost for view issues should be borne by the two parties and the City should not be involved. He suggested having private arbitration instead. Carol Witte, 5 Quail Ridge Road South addressed the City Council stating that she believes the Wald's were aware of the conditions of the view resolution when they purchased their property. John Nunn, I Crest Road West addressed the City Council stating that he does not believe the City's view ordinance, prior to Measure B was balanced. He suggested that Measure B be kept so that there are limits in the ordinance. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council stating that residents should not be able to exercise rights under both the City and RHCA's view preservation processes. He suggested that the City get out of the view business and leave it to the RHCA. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West addressed the City Council stating that he notified the City of his intent to have a competing measure on the March 2017 ballot and those who are trying to preserve Minutes City Council Meeting 05-09-16 Measure 13 will do everything they can to support it. He suggested that the City Council attempt to keep this matter from becoming divisive as it did with the last election. Dan Nguyen, 5 Buggy Whip Drive addressed the City Council stating that his family enjoys their view and their trees but he believes Measure B is not enforceable. He commented that residents should be accountable for the trees on their property and there should be balance and enforceability in the City's ordinance. Raghu Mendu, 1 Reata Lane addressed the City Council stating that personal attacks doe not have a place in trees and view discussions. He commented that he also believes there should be balance and both sides of the issue should be considered without emotions. Laura Gregorio, 45 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council stating that a property should be entitled to the view they had when they purchased their property and if they had a panoramic view they should be able to restore their view to a panoramic view. Tai Chung, 11 Roadrunner Road addressed the City Council asking if there is a height limit on trees. Mayor Dieringer responded that there is no maximum tree height shown in the City's ordinance and suggested that Mr. Chung discuss his specific circumstances with staff. Stewart Darryll, 16 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Council stating that there should be a mechanism whereby newly planted trees that may grow into a view are addressed when thcy are planted. V'Etta Virtue, 4 Maverick Lane addressed the City Council stating that they have been on both sides of the view issue and residents need to remember why they moved into the City including the privacy and beauty of the City. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Dicringer closed the public comment portion of the meeting and asked for comments from the City Council. Councilmember Pieper commented that this discussion is about Measure B. He stated that his understanding of Measure B was that the view you bought is the view you get; but that is not easy to define and it is difficult to provide proof especially for the residents that have lived here for a long time. He stated that he thinks Measure B needs to be amended so that it is more clearly defined; repeatable and fair to both sides. He stated that there needs to be balance; but because Measure B was adopted by the voters, it cannot be amended except by another measure. He commented that the advantage of repealing Measure B and adopting something in its place, is that it can be refined if necessary. He stated that he believes that Measure B was a reaction to a situation where it was believed that a view was being created, which he agrees should not be allowed, but it is not easily applied and enforced. He stated that there needs to be balance between trees and views and in order to achieve that balance, Measure B needs to be repealed so that the City can work with the community to get to where the community wants to be in this matter. Councilmember Mirsch thanked the audience for participating in the meeting and stated that she appreciates that people care. She stated that she doesn't see the City Council as view people or tree people but rather it is a matter of the City Council trying to do the right thing. She stated that having Measure B in place makes it difficult to apply the ordinance and having another measure to replace the existing ordinance as proposed by Mr. Colyear would continue that difficulty. She stated that there needs to be a trust factor and suggested that instead of placing another measure on the ballot, the groups should work together to craft something that works to be adopted by the City Council. Councilmember Wilson also thanked the audience for participating in this meeting and stated that he understands how this matter became so divisive. He stated that the current City Council has given a tremendous amount of attention to this matter and strives to find balance between trees and views. He reiterated the point as raised by Councilmembers Pieper and Mirsch that it is extremely difficult to deal with a measure because of the inherent inflexibility that comes with a measure. He suggested getting more resident input on this matter. Mayor Dicringer stated that her concerns are related to enforceability and cost; and she too believes that there should be a balance between trees and views. She suggested that a survey be sent to residents to gauge their thoughts on trees and views and to develop criteria to be used in view related matters. She stated that whatever regulations are put in place should be fair to most people and be balanced. She Minutes City Council Meeting 05-09-16 suggested using a mechanism to get the consensus of the community as to what is a balanced and fair ordinance. She stated that the objective is to make the standards more uniform and more evenly applicable and defined. In response to Councilmember Mirsch, Mr. Colyear stated that what was submitted in draft form by Dr. Gill is representative of what they are considering submitting as a measure but it needs further refining. He suggested a meeting be held between the two groups to determine if there is a way to move forward. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she too feels that it may be beneficial to work together rather than putting another measure on the ballot. Following further discussion and public comment with regard to how to best proceed, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council appoint Councilmembers Mirsch and Pieper to an ad hoc committee to further consider this matter and to meet with the crafters/revisionists of Measure B. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. NEW BUSINESS None. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE FOR AN APPOINTMENT TO THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for a report from the Personnel Committee. Councilmember Mirsch stated that Personnel Committee met to consider the candidates for the Traffic Commission vacancy and recommends that Charlie Raine be appointed to server the remainder of the vacant term. She further stated that the City was fortunate to have two good candidates and it was hard to choose between the two. Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council approve the Personnel Committee's recommendation to appoint Charlie Raine to serve on the Rolling Hills Traffic Commission for the remainder of the unexpired term. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE UTILIZATION OF A CABALLEROS REPRESENTATIVE TO BE A VOLUNTARY CONSULTANT TO RESIDENTS WHEN CONSTRUCTING NEW AND REMODELING OLD BARNS. (ORAL ONLY) Councilmember Pieper suggested that the City Council ask Caballeros to provide a representative to give input to residents when constructing stables. Following brief discussion the City Council asked Councilmember Mirsch, as the liaison to Caballeros, to discuss this matter with Caballeros to suggest that they develop a handout regarding effective stable design for property owners to use as a reference when developing/designing a stable. Councilmember Wilson asked for clarification on the City's travel/reimbursement policy and suggested that the matter be agendized for future discussion. City Manager Cruz stated that this matter will be discussed by the Finance/Budget/Audit Committee at the next Committee meeting and will be brought to the City Council as a part of the budget deliberation. CLOSED SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Dieringcr adjourned the meeting at 9:26 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, May 23, 2016 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, Cal ifornia. Minutes City Council Meeting 05-09-16 Respectfully submitted, i iteitheL) Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, Bea Dicrmger Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 05-09-16 get ai Rasa, gee' INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MONDAY, MAY 9, 2016 7:00 P.M. 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. 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 25, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Allied Recycling Tonnage Report for March, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. D. Consideration of Providing Authorization to Change Insurance Brokerage Firms and Some Providers for Dental, Vision, Life and Long-term Disability Insurance. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 5. COMMISSION ITEMS A. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-09. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE, AND VARIANCES TO ENCROACH WITH A PORTION OF THE ADDITION UP TO 10 FEET INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND TO RETAIN A SHED IN SIDE SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 898 AT 46 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 97-EF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (MILLER). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301, CLASS 1 EXEMPTION GUIDELINES. Page 1 of 2 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE. 7. OLD BUSINESS A. DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC FORUM ON A POSSIBLE BALLOT MEASURE TO REPEAL OR AMEND MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. 8. NEW BUSINESS NONE. 9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS A. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE FOR AN APPOINTMENT TO THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION. B. DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE UTILIZATION OF A CABALLEROS REPRESENTATIVE TO BE A VOLUNTARY CONSULTANT TO RESIDENTS WHEN CONSTRUCTING NEW AND REMODELING OLD BARNS. (ORAL ONLY) 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF A. CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASING CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT FROM PREFERRED BANK AND US BANK. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS NONE. 12. CLOSED SESSION NONE. 13. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION NONE. 14. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Monday, May 23, 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), ifyou 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 05/09/16 Page 2 of 2 DRAFT Agenda Item No. 4-A Meeting Date: 05/09/16 MINUTES 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 Crest 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 DRAFT 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. 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. PRESENTATION Supervisor Don Knabe County of Los Angeles — Board of Supervisors — Fourth District Supervisor Knabe addressed the City Council to express 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 Dieringer 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. Minutes City Council Meeting 04-25-16 0 DRAFT 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 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 carried without objection. 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 AMEND 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 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-25-16 DRAFT 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, 1 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. Mike Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council stating the City should not be involved in the legal issues regarding view mattcrs 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 Mayhack, 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, 1 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 they 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 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-25-16 DRAFT 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 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 9th 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 the 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 the view obstructed now; and were the trees mature in 2009. She stated the once those matters are 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: Minutes City Council Meeting 04-25-16 DRAFT 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: • 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 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-25-16 DRAFT 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 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 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 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 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-25-16 DRAFT of the tree. Discussion ensued concerning possible ways to determine maturity. Mayor Dieringer called for public comment. Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the 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 Kirmse, 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. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council stating that the 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 the 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 an unrelated matter asserting that property had 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 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-25-16 DRAFT requirements as they apply to the ordinance and Measure B specifically. Discussion ensued concerning the burden of proof with regard the maturity issue. City Attorney Jenkins stated that as he interprets Measure B, the clear and convincing evidence standard does not apply to mature vs. maturing. Discussion ensued concerning the issue of mature vs. maturing and whether or not the applicant has submitted evidence that the view existed in 2009 when they acquired the property. Following 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. 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. Minutes City Council Meeting 04-25-16 DRAFT Respectfully submitted, Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, Bea Dieringer Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 04-25-16 -10- CHECK CHECK CQ /SATE • 24299 24300 24301 24302 24303 24304 24305 24306 24307 24308 24309 24310 24311 • PR LINK • PR LINK City o/ elfin y Jk// Agenda Item No: 4-B Mtg. Date: 05/09/16 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 5/92016 -CHECK RUN PAYEE 05/09/2016 CALPERS- 05/092016 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 05/092016 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 05/09/2016 DAVIS PLUMBING 05/09/2016 EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC. 05/092016 FOUNTAINHEAD CONSULTING INC. 05/092016 HASLER 05/09/2016 MCGOWAN CONSULTING 05/092016 SOUTH BAY C171ES COUNCIL OF 05/092016 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 05/09/2016 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 05/09/2016 USCM 05/09/2016 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS - 4292016 PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING 4/29/2016 PR LINK - PAYROLL 9 & PR TAXES Total PESCRI PTION RETIREMENT APRIL 2016 COYOTE CONTROL FEB 2016 ANIMAL HOUSING COSTS MARCH 16 LEAKY PIPE/SPRINKLER TENNIS JANITORIAL SERVICES APRIL 2016 IT CONSULTING MAY 2016 POSTAGE • STORM WATER MGMT MARCH 2016 SBCCOG MEMBERSHIP FY 16-17 BILLING PERIOD 3/24 - 4/25 MAIM ACCT SOFTWARE FYI 6-17 PAY PERIOD 5/13/16 PAY PERIOD 5/13/16 Processing Fee Pay Period - April 13, 2016 Through April 26, 2016 I, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, Califomia certify that the above demands arc accurate and there is available in the General Fund a balance of 843,222.15 for the payment of "curs. Raymond Cmz, ity anger • Previously Disbursed NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 AMOUNT 7,868.59 664.37 361.60 1,175.00 460.00 516.00 3,000.00 1,815.00 5,258.00 925.76 1,248.72 930.00 364.00 59.95 18,575.16 $ 43,222.15 24.58704 Printed on Recycled Paper CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL ALLIED WASTE RECYCLE NOW REPORT Report Date: MONTH 2016 RECYCLED (tons) GREEN WASTE (tons) C&D Recycled C&D Disposed Disposal Diversion Tonnage % MONTHLY TOTALS (tons) January 74,63 83.74 4.33 1.85 151.42 51.49% 315.97 298.83 February 82.00 66.79 106.96 - 3.20 1.37 145.47 50.86% 11.44 4.10 134.50 59.28% 340.40 March 83.40 - - - 0.00% 0.00 April - - - - 0.00% 0.00 May - 0.00 June - - - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% 0.00 July - August - - - - - - - - - 0.00% 0.00 - - - 0.00% 0.00 September - - - - 0.00% 0.00 October - - - - 0.00% 0.00 November - - - - 0.00% 0.00 December - 257.49 18.96 7.33 L 431.38 54.07°/dl 955.20 Year to Date Totals: 240.04 80.01 85.83 6.32 2.44 143.79 0.54 318.40 Average Monthly Totals: 2016 RECEIVED APR 21 2016 City of Rolling Hills By INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 4-D Mtg. Date: 05/09/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER' SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF PROVIDING AUTHORIZATION TO CHANGE INSURANCE BROKERAGE FIRMS AND SOME PROVIDERS FOR DENTAL, VISION, LIFE, AND LONG-TERM DISABLITY INSURANCE DATE: MAY 9, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: Wells Fargo Insurance Services Report RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council provide staff the authorization to change its insurance brokerage services effective July 1, 2016 from Employees Resource Group Financial & Insurance Services to Wells Fargo Insurance Services for the following insurance categories: 1. Change current dental insurance provider from Met Life PPO to Delta (WFIS Pool) PPO 1500 with orthodontics; 2. Change the current vision insurance coverage from VSP to VSP (WFIS Pool); 3. Change current life insurance provider from Sun Life to Standard; and 4. Change the current long-term disability provider from Sun Life to Standard. BACKGROUND When the Personnel Committee was reviewing the City's employee salary benefits as part of the FY 15/16 work plan priorities, the Committee learned that the City's dental plan does not cover orthodontic services. The Committee felt that this benefit should be included within its dental insurance plan, and directed staff to work with its insurance broker to find a plan that all the employees' dentists will accept. After several attempts, the City's present broker was unable to find a plan that covers only five full-time employees. After receiving that news, staff investigated other options. When speaking to a City of Rolling Hills Estates official in charge of employee benefits, she suggested that we consider Wells Fargo Insurance Services (WFIS) because they have a unit within their company that specializes in providing various insurance coverages to small municipal governments. DISCUSSION The Finance Director and the City Manager initially met with the Wells Fargo representative and learned they provide multiple types of insurance beyond dental to municipalities. Furthermore, they have created insurance pools with other small municipalities that assist them to provide rates and opportunities that most cities could not receive on their own. After reviewing the existing insurance benefits that the employees receive from of the City of Rolling Hills, they said they can analyze the coverage and cost of the insurance that they provide that includes dental, vision, life and long term disability. Staff recently met with the representative from Wells Fargo after they completed their analysis. Enclosed is the report that provides comparisons between the current coverage the City has with its present broker and what is being proposed by Wells Fargo. When it came to dental and vision insurance, Wells Fargo gave two competing options; and when comparing life and long term disability insurance, they had one other choice. After reviewing all the information in comparison to the present coverage with Wells Fargo, Option 1 for dental and vision and the sole option for life and long term disability insurance save the City money in each category. Beyond getting dental insurance with orthodontics, the City will be saving money in these four insurance categories. All the coverage provisions are very similar, and each employee reviewed and endorsed the proposed change to transfer the insurance providers. This endorsement is another great example where the employees are trying to help the City save money. FISCAL IMPACT The existing and proposed costs for the different insurance categories are outlined in the attachment, but the cost savings are the following in each insurance category: annual savings for dental insurance is $393, annual savings for vision insurance is $91.56, annual savings for life insurance is $803.40 and annual savings for long term disability is $173.91. Therefore, the annual savings for all four of these insurance benefits is $1,461.87, which is a 9.27% reduction in these costs to the City. WELLS FARGO City of Rolling Hills Wells Fargo Insurance Capabilities and Pool Marketing Report ►ii-ccir;werp Cynthia Marriott, Vice President Employee Benefits April 26, 2016 Wells Fargo Insurance Services Together we'll go far Agenda I. Introductions II. Wells Fargo Insurance Overview III. Public Sector Expertise - WFI Municipality Benefits Survey Iv. Wells Fargo Municipality Pool V. Core Services VI. Compliance Services (Compliance Updates) VII. Wells Fargo Municipality Pool Benefits / Rates a. Delta Dental b. VSP Vision c. Standard Life and Long Term Disability viii. Cadillac Tax Update Ix. Next Steps 1 Wells Fargo Insurance Overview • Full Service Insurance Brokerage: • Employee Benefit/Property & Casualty Retirement and Financial Services • Brokerage revenues of nearly $1.65 billion • In excess of $19 billion in risk premium • 8,20o team members in 200 offices in 37 states • Top Place to Work • National Public Entity Practice Group • Solutions in the public entity industry • Help navigate complex environment I'ru pert, & Cu.ualty General Liability Workers' Compensation Bonds / Surety Business Continuity Trade Credit lint phn cc Benefit. Strategic Planning Financial Management Employee Advocacy Compliance VB/Tecbnology Solutions Wells Fargo: The best of both models Local/regional brokers • Relationship -based - Service excellence • Client centric • Long-term focus Flexibility Profes\11,11:11 Risk Directors & Officers Errors & Omissions Employment Practices Network & Cyber Risk Mergers & Acquisitions WELLS FARGO We bring "Fortune 500 -level" consulting resources and solutions to organizations while providing proactive exceptional day-to-day service and interaction with our senior advisors and leaders Large national brokers . Resource rich Intellectual capital Market clout Depth in talent 1 nl c 1•I I:It IVll:ll Worldwide Insurance Broker Network Property & casualty Employee Benefits Pci's.ma Insurance Auto Homeowners & Renters Term Life Business Identity Theft Protection 2 Public Sector Expertise • California Public Sector Practice advises over 200 government agency clients (120 municipalities) • We've designed and implemented cost saving alternatives (HSAs, HRAs, Defined Contribution Plans, and Wellness programs) • We've developed successful purchasing pools for clients that provide: • Group Insurance programs for 40,000 employees and over 100 municipalities • Medical, dental, vision, life, AD&D, disability and EAP plans • Extensive Labor union expertise • Proven track record of obtaining consensus with bargaining groups for short and long-term benefit strategies • Focus groups and Education for unions on health care benefit trends • Experience in providing public agencies with GASB 43 and 45 compliance and funding solutions • Expertise in employee and retiree communications for public agencies • In-house compliance department staffed by attorneys who specialize in public sector matters • CalPERS • Since 2003 Wells Fargo Insurance Services has consulted with over 60 agencies about exiting the CalPERS medical plans. • To date, Wells Fargo Insurance Services has successfully helped over 20 agencies transition from CalPERS medical to a stand alone medical plan or through our municipality pool 3 Municipality Benefits Pool • The Wells Fargo Insurance Services Municipality Benefits Pool provides low-cost, high -quality, non -medical benefits to over 100 California municipalities from recognized specialty carriers. The Pool is designed to replicate existing entity employee benefits while reducing premiums through the market leverage of a purchasing co-operative. Instead of acting as individual entities purchasing cost-effective benefits coverage, entities become part of a significantly larger participant group. Advantages provided by this program are: • Individually customized plan design for each entity • Premium savings up to 20% over traditional markets for specific lines of coverage • Multiple -year rate guarantees for budget stability • Members realize maximum savings by electing the multi -line package of coverages and, at the same time, contributing to the growing strength of the overall purchasing cooperative. Each participating carrier is considered best in its class, with proven financial and management stability ("A" or better industry rating). • In addition, Wells Fargo Insurance Services has worked with both the Independent Cities Risk Management Authority (ICRMA) and the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) for over 15 years. Our services include consulting and brokerage for over 20 ICRMA and 50 CJPIA member agencies on all employee benefit coverages throughout California. This includes both fully -insured and self -funded plans on a pooling basis for all coverage lines. We have also provided: • Consulting for FSA/Cafeteria plans, • Implementation (using Third Party Administrators) for COBRA services, • Actuarial Services for retiree health benefits and for calculating GASB liabilities 4 Employee Benefits — Core Services Our Service ExcellenceTM prccess is organized into 16 distinct areas of expertise, all offered as our standard core services. Wells Fargo Insurance Services is a full service consulting and brokerage firm; however, our services go beyond these 16 areas. Our approach is to continually deliver accurate, timely and innovative solutions to any client need. Strategic Compliance Benefits Planning Aggressive Cost Control iEffectuve Employee Education liAdvocacy Assess Employee Benefit and Employer Service Needs Develop Strategic Benefits Plan Approach Forecast and Benchmark Benefit Plan Costs Identify Regulatory and Legislative Compliance Requirements Analyze and Interpret Claims, Risk and Financial Data Negotiate Renewals and Explore Market Options Evaluate Impact of Health Care Reform Design Integrated Health and Productivity Programs Orchestrate Benefit Plan Enrollment and Implementation Educate Employees on their Benefits Assist Employees with Unresolved Issues Engage Employees in Wellness and Healthy Lifestyles Secure Outsourcing and Technology Platforms Outline Procedures for Ongoing Plan Administration Arrange Human Resource Administration Solutions Measure Carrier, Vendor and Benefit Plan Performance 5 Legislative Updates and Legislative Alerts Monthly Legislative Updates are prepared by the experienced team of Benefits Compliance professionals at Wells Fargo Insurance. These informative publications keep you current on federal, state, and local legislation and regulatory changes. Articles cover many different issues including: • Healthcare reform • COBRA • HIPAA Portability, Privacy and Security • Medicare • Domestic partners/same-sex spouses ERISA • Cafeteria plans • Wellness programs • Administration of federal and state leaves • Consumer -driven healthcare plans • And much more L.q,.l.,w. 444'. Mr green. innianysna, IRS r*.ws nn$nwv *and nlnn4nI iw 6d initiations. winding .,Art.Mul transition wlwf ifiveigra In addition to the monthly Updates, our Benefits Compliance Practice also creates timely Legislative Alerts when important matters arise and need to be addressed before the next Update. Legislative Updates are available on our public website as well as through CyberSure® eServices. 6 Wells Fargo Municipality Pool :->) Marketing Results Cost Summary Y Annual Cost Summary Coverage Dental (Delta) Vision (VSP) Life (Standard) Long Term Disability (Standard) OTAL ANNUAL CO Doff Current Cost Metlife Dental VSP Sunlife $10,475.28 $1,451.16 $1,910.40 $1,935.00 Option 1 Delta Dental PPO w/Ortho 1500 VSP Option 1 Standard $10,082.28 $1,359.60 $1,107.00 $1,761.09 Option 2 Delta Dental PPO w/Ortho 2000 VSP Option 2 Standard $10,767.36 $1,981.44 $1,107.00 $1,761.09 f5i61'6!89 Delta Dental Delta Dental "I i1 CURRENT /RENEWAL M ETLIF PPO liCaaizetratizOnD PLAN FEATURES Calendar Year Deductible Individual/ Fanny Waived for Preventive Yes Reimbursement Level Negotiated rate Calendar Year Maximum PREVENTIVE SERVICES Exams / X- Rays / Cleanings No charge BASIC SERVICES FYlings / Extractions 90% MAJOR SERVICES Crowns / Dentures / Bridges 160% EERODONTICS Covered Under Bask PERIODONTICS I Covered Under 'Bask ORTHODONTIA ...111r Dependent Children (Not covered Adults (Not covered Lifetime Maximum In -Network l Out-ol-Network 1 $50 / $150 Yes UCR (80th) $1,500 In -Network PPO Contracted -Netwoik r Out -of -Network Premier PPO 1 Non Pao Contracted Contracted 1 $50 / $150 Yes Yes Negotiated rate I Negotiated rate $1,500 INo charge 1No charge 1No charge 180% 190% 180% [50% 1!160% ;50% 'Bask 7least !B h as (Bask !Bask (Basic (Not covered 50% 50% Not covered 50% 50% WA 51,503 Nes + 1 Delta Mowed Amount INo charge 180% 150% `Bask !Basic 50% 50% In -Network PPO Contracted PROPOSED OPTION 2 DELTA (WFIS POOL) PPO w/ Ortho/2000 Effective June 1, 2016 In-tletwo Out -of -Network Premier PPO 1 Non PPO Contracted i Contracted 350 / $150 Yes Yes Negotiated rate Negotiated rate T$2,000 $1,500 INo charge 'No charge 1No charge 90% 80% 60% 50% Bask Basic 'Bask Basic 50% 50% $2,000 50% 50% $1,500 Yes Delta Allowed Armunt $1,500 Teo% 150% [Bask Basic 0% 0% 1,500 Delta Dental Delta Dental is offering City of Rolling Hills the following Delta Dental PPO: + National Preferred Provider Organization* plan gives enrollees freedom to see the dentist of their choice while offering cost protection through networks of dentists who agree to accept reduced fees. + Greatest potential savinas when enrollees visit a Delta Dental PPO dentist. How it works at each network participation level: G savings Out-of-pocket costs less savings V 61 Amount Saved 1 Amount Paid 1 Lj Delta Dental Delta Dental PRO Premier Dentist Dentist i i Non -Delta Dental Dentist Illustration showing sample enrollee share of costs for information purposes only. Ac ual dentist fees and contract allowances will vary by region. procedure and by group contract. + 80%1 of dentists in the U.S. participate with Delta Dental. o Over 220,000 PPO and more than 307,000 Premier dentist locations nationwide + Delta Dental PPO coverage outpaces the competition with higher network utilization, cost and quality protection. Average client's PPO network utilization is over 40%, with an additional 40% utilizing the Premier network2. 1. Percentage of dentists contracted with Delta Dental is based on the Delta Dental Plans Association's December 2014 Unique Dentist Penetration Report 2. Based on annual network utilization reports for Delta Dental's book of business. VSP Vision CURRENT VISION Coverage ZigP OilD LAO OPTION (WFIS Benefit POOL) Plan 2016 Employee Only Employee and Spouse Employee and Family 1 2 2 $13.75 $20.27 $33.32 $12.54 $18.03 $32.35 Vol fi1I TOTAL MONTHLY ANNUAL COST COST Annual Annual Rate Difference Difference irximaio 0 2018 gria Included in current and proposed VSP benefit: Primary Eye Care Benefit Rider OPTION 2 VSP (WFIS POOL) Signature Plan C $10 Copay/12/12/12 w/ PEC Benefit Effective June 1, 2016 $18.24 $26.43 $47.01 $165.12 $1,981.44 $530.28 37% 2 years Rider benefit: Diagnosis and tests for vision loss, treatment for conditions such as pink eye, management of glaucoma and diabetic eye disease VSP Vision PROPOSED OPTION 1 VSP (W FIS POOL) Signatur 0 y10Ca 12/12/24 Effective .1=T1, 2016 COPAYS Eye Exam Materials EYE EXAM Benefit Frequency Benefit LENSES Benefit Frequency Benefit FRAME Benefit Frequency Benefit CONTACT LENSES Benefit Frequency Medically Necessary Elective PRIMARY EYECARE PLAN Specialty Services In -Network $10 copay Out -of -Network N/A N/A Once every 12 months No charge after copay !Up to $50 Once every 12 months No charge after copay Single Vision: Up to $50 Bifocal: Up to $75 Trifocal: Up to $100 Once every 24 months $150 allowance lUp to $70 Once every 12 months In lieu of lenses and frame benefit No charge Up to $210 $130 allowance Up to $105 Diagnosis and tests for vision loss Treatment for conditions such as pink eye Management of glaucoma and diabetic eye disease In -Network Out -of -Network N/A —. $10 copay N/A Once every 12 months No charge after copay l_Up to $50 Once every 12 months No charge after copay Single Vision: Up to $50 Bifocal: Up to $75 Trifocal: Up to $100 Cnce every 24 months $140 allowance [Up to $70 Once every 12 months In lieu of lenses and frame benefit No charge Up to $210 $130 allowance Up to $105 Diagnosis and to Treatment for condit Management of glaucoma $10 copay PROPOSED OPTION 2 VSP (WEIS POOL) Signature C - $10 Copay/12/12/12 Effective June 1, 2016 In -Network Out -of -Network N/A N/A Once every 12 months No charge after copay IUp to $50 Once every 12 months No charge after copay Single Vision: Up to $50 Bifocal: Up to $75 Trifocal: Up to $100 Once every 12 rronths $140 allowance _Pp to $70 Once every 12 months in lieu of lenses and frame benefit No charge Up to $210 $130 allowance Up to $105 is for vision loss ins such as pink eye and diabetic eye disease Sunlife Life and AD&D BASIC LIFE AND AD&D Coverage CURRENT SUNLIFE Effective January 1, 2015 Eligibility Amount of Coverage Guaranteed Issue Amount Benefit Reduction Schedule Accelerated Benefit Waiver of Premium Portability Conversion Number of Eligible Employees Volume Life Rate per $1,000 AD&D Rate per $1,000 Class 1:Managers Class 2:AII other Employees Class 1: $250,000 Class 2: $50,000 $100,000 67% at age 70 50% at age 75 75% 12 months Included Included 5 $450,000 Age Rated $0.028 TOTAL MONTHLY COST TOTAL ANNUAL COST Annual $ Difference Annual % Difference Rate Guarantee $159.20 $1,910.40 N/A PROPOSED OPTION STANDARD Effective June 1, 2016 Class 1:Managers Class 2:AII other Employees Class 1: $250,000 Class 2: $50,000 Full Benefit 67% at age 70 50% at age 75 75% Included Included Included 5 $450,000 $0.180 $0.025 $92.25 $1,107.00 -$803.40 -42.05% 2 years Sunlife Long Term Disability CURRENT 2016 PROPOSED OPTION STANDARD Benefit Percentage Minimum Monthly Benefit Maximum Monthly Benefit Elimination Period Duration of Benefit Definition of Disability Survivor Benefit Limitations Pre -Existing Conditions Mental and Nervous Drug and Alcohol Number of Eligible Employees Estimated Covered Payroll LTD Rate per $100/% of Covered Payroll 60% $100 $5,000 90 days Social Security Normal Retirement Age 24 months own occupation 3x monthly benefit 6/12 24 months combined 24 months combined 5 $33,354 Age Rated 60"/0 $100 $5,000 90 days Social Security Normal Retirement Age 24 months own occupation 3x monthly benefit 6/12 24 months combined 24 months combined 5 $33,354 $0.440 TOTAL MONTHLY COST TOTAL ANNUAL COST Annual $ Difference Annual Difference CEMOnicillaa aligelV 2018 Excise "Cadillac" Tax — Delayed Until 2020 / ► Summary: "The Cadillac Tax" is a permanent annual excise tax on high -cost group health care plans scheduled to take effect in 2018. The purpose the excise tax is to reduce health care usage and costs by encouraging employers to offer plans that are cost-effective and engage employees in sharing in the cost of care. It is planned to generate $80 billion over the next 10 years to help finance the expansion of health coverage. The mandate will impose a 40% excise tax on the total (employer and employee contribution) annual premium cost of health care plans exceeding the thresholds of $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. These thresholds are subject to a potential special onetime adjustment in 2018, non -medical COLA adjustments thereafter, with special adjustments for certain workforces (high risk professions, qualified retirees, disproportionally older or female, collectively bargained). For early retirees and high risk professions the thresholds are set to $11,850 for individual and $30,950 for family. Applicable employer -sponsored coverage includes not only group health plans providing benefits to active employees, but also retiree medical plans and other arrangements providing health benefits to employees, such as: Health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) Employer contributions to health savings accounts (HSA) Employee pretax contributions and employer contributions to health care flexible care spending accounts Executive physical programs, if not subject to taxation 16 Disclosure • Products and services are offered through Wells Fargo Insurance Services USA, Inc. (Wells Fargo Insurance), non - bank insurance agency affiliate of Wells Fargo & Company. ■ Products and services are underwritten by unaffiliated insurance companies, except crop and flood insurance which may be underwritten by their affiliate, Rural Community Insurance Company. Some services may require additional fees and may be offered directly through third party providers. Banking and insurance decisions are made independently and do not influence each other. • The coverage and rates presented in this proposal are a simplified outline of the proposed insurance policies. The actual policies issued by the insurance company govern the coverage provided, and should be read for coverage terms, limitations, definitions and conditions pertaining to your specific insurance program. ■ Some services may be provided by third parties. Wells Fargo Insurance intends to assist its customers in identifying third parties that will meet the customers' needs, but Wells Fargo Insurance has not reviewed these third parties for data security practices, financial stability, or the other factors you should consider as you choose a vendor to meet your needs. As with any company you choose to do business with, it is important that you conduct due diligence. • Wells Fargo Insurance may receive compensation in connection with a client's engagement of certain third -party service providers. • Note that the rating methodology under AB 1672 shall only apply to grandfathered plans, non-grandfathered plans shall be subject to the new ACA rating protocols. 17 Transparency & Disclosure Insurance is a highly regulated, competitive industry that fuels the US economy and protects individuals and commercial entities from losses. There is nothing more important to our industry and to Wells Fargo Insurance than maintaining the trust of our customers and conducting business with the utmost integrity. We believe that our leadership role on disclosure should tie directly to our core values. Among these we state that we: • Value and reward open, honest, two-way communication • Do what is right for the customer • Talk and act with the customer in mind ■ Exceed our customers' expectations Wells Fargo Insurance is proactively providing customers with complete transparency on standard and contingent commission income. We receive compensation from the insurance companies we represent when placing your insurance. Our compensation is usually a percentage of the premium you pay for your insurance policy or bond (a "commission"), which is paid to us by the insurance companies for placing and servicing your insurance or bonds with them. We also may receive fees agreed to in writing from our customers. Intermediaries, such as wholesale brokers, may sometimes be used to access certain insurance companies. Such intermediaries will allocate a portion of the compensation from the insurance companies to us and may, in some cases, be an affiliated company. We receive payments from insurance companies to defray the cost of services provided for them, including advertising, training, certain employee compensation, and other expenses. Consistent with longstanding industry practice, we may earn interest on premiums received from you and forwarded to the insurance companies through our bank accounts. We may also earn interest when the insurance company issues you a refund and that refund is processed through our bank accounts. We retain the interest earnings on our bank accounts. Some of the insurance companies we represent may pay us additional commissions, sometimes referred to as contingent or bonus commissions, which may be based on the total volume of business we sell for them, and/or the growth rate of that business, retention rate, claims loss ratio, or other factors considering our entire book of business with an insurance company for a designated period of time. The amount of premium you pay for a policy may change over the term of the policy. For example, your endorsement requests will affect the premium. Should the premium for any of your policies change, the amount of compensation paid to us by the insurance company would change accordingly. Market Security Guidelines Wells Fargo Insurance Services USA, Inc. is not a guarantor of the solvency of carriers with which its brokers place business. However, Wells Fargo Insurance Services USA, Inc.'s objective is to place client risks with insurers and reinsurers that are financially sound. We only authorize carriers that we believe, at the time of placement, have the financial ability to fulfill their claim payment obligations to our clients. Wells Fargo Insurance Services USA, Inc. has appointed a group of experienced insurance professionals to serve on a Market Security Committee. This Committee is responsible for establishing and utilizing guidelines for the selection of insurers and supporting employees in their efforts to utilize financially sound insurers. In assessing the financial strength of insurers, the Committee relies upon the opinions and assessments of recognized rating agencies and other carrier review companies. Market Security disclaimer Wells Fargo Insurance's objective is to place client risks with insurers and reinsurers that are financially sound. In assessing the financial strength of insurers, Wells Fargo Insurance relies upon the statutory financial statements as well as the opinions and assessments of recognized rating agencies and other carrier review companies. Wells Fargo Insurance authorized insurers that it believes, at the time of placement, have the financial ability to fulfill their claim payment obligations to our clients. Wells Fargo Insurance is not a guarantor of the solvency of insurers with which its brokers place business. However, our goal is to use reasonable measures to do business with financially healthy insurers. Our recommendations are based on financial and other relevant information that is available at the time of placement. If clients elect to place their business through a state health insurance exchange, please note that these exchanges may require their list of available insurers to include insurers not included on Wells Fargo Insurance's authorized list. In such cases, Wells Fargo Insurance will recommend a carrier that has been authorized based on our aforementioned assessment process, although the Client has the ultimate decision on insurer choice. 19 Exchange Disclaimer • Wells Fargo Insurance will assist Clients with understanding Private and Public Health Care Exchange Options • Companies that operate Private Exchanges present themselves as being capable of providing the services Clients are seeking; however, it is important to understand that Wells Fargo Insurance is not a party to the contract Clients enter into with any health care exchange company, and any referral by Wells Fargo Insurance does not warrant the sufficiency of that company's data security practices or the adequacy of its capabilities, nor does it guarantee the company's financial stability or ensure the appropriate management of its third party service providers. As such, it is important that Clients conduct their own due diligence and consider all relevant factors associated with their particular needs/requirements. ■ Public Exchanges are operated by the Federal and/or State Governments that have contracted with third parties to perform some services. Wells Fargo does not warrant the sufficiency of any Public Exchange's data security practices or the adequacy of its capabilities, nor does it guarantee the appropriate management of the third party service providers engaged by any Public Exchange. It is important that Clients conduct their own due diligence and consider all relevant factors associated with their particular needs/requirements. 20 aiRbea9 gal INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 5-A Mtg. Date: 05/09/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR V THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER frfey SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2016-09. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION AND GRADING; AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WITH A PORTION OF THE ADDITION AND TO RETAIN A SHED IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 898 AT 46 EASTFIELD, (LOT 97-EF) (MILLER). REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide other direction to staff. 2. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Miller, request a Site Plan Review and Variances to construct a 1,757 square foot addition to the existing residence for a total of 4,000 square feet and grading of total of 200 cubic yards of dirt. The variances are requested for an 85 square foot portion of the proposed addition to encroach between 8- 10 feet into the front yard setback and to retain an existing wood shed in a side yard setback. The south addition will be constructed below the existing eave projection. 3. The Planning Commission by a vote 4-0-1 (Commissioner Gray absent - However, at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission he agreed to direct staff to bring a Resolution of approval), approved the project after the applicant revised the plan to address several issues the Planning Commission had. Specifically, the Planning Commission expressed concerns about the ridgeline of the new addition in the front, and the applicant responded by lowering the ridgeline by 2' and the rear addition is now proposed to be built under the existing eave projection. The Planning Commission found that the proposed addition to increase the residence to 4,000 square feet is comparable to the surrounding residences that average to 4,413 square feet. Further, the proposed project is not obtrusive as it is located below Eastfield Drive and will be screened from the road by the drop in elevation and landscaping. No further disturbance is required for the addition in the front setback as the area is level. They found that the configuration and location of the existing residence, which spans along the length of the building pad, makes it difficult to make any additions elsewhere to the house. BACKGROUND 4. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the lot area excluding the roadway easement is 1.8 acres. For development purposes the net lot area of the lot is 65,880 square feet or 1.51 acres. Records indicate that the residence was constructed in 1955. Through the years several additions were made to the residence. Grading for a corral area was approved in 1960 and a stable/tack room was also constructed in 1960. The pool was constructed in 1959 and in 1961 a pool shelter/guest house was constructed. The pool shelter/guest house was subject to a code enforcement issue in 2007, as a previous owner renovated the structure, and constructed a flat roof with a deck and outdoor barbeque without permits. Following code enforcement action, the previous owner obtained the required permissions and building permits, but has not corrected the roof configuration. As part of this approval, the applicant is required to correct the roof and obtain a building permit for the roof. The RI-ICA Architectural Committee is enforcing the slope of the roof. 5. Currently the lot is developed with a 2,243 square foot residence, 420 square foot garage, 465 square foot swimming pool, 680 square foot guest house, several trellises, sheds, and other amenities. One of the sheds is located in side setback and requires a variance or must be removed. The applicant is asking to retain the shed, thus the variance. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 6. The proposed addition of 1,757 square feet contains an 85 square foot portion that encroaches into the required 50 -foot front yard setback between 8 - 10 feet for a distance of approximately 23 feet, which requires a variance. The northern addition has a minimum 5' walkway clearance, and the southern addition has at least a 6'-7' walkway clearance around the addition. 7. The lot currently is nonconforming for disturbed area (maximum 40% of net lot area permitted). There is a total existing disturbed area of 26,600 square feet (40.4% of the net lot area), which is not proposed to change. 8. The applicants request to retain a 100 square foot shed in the west side yard setback, which also requires a variance. ZC NO. 898 9. The residential building pad (outside of setbacks) will not be increased and will remain at 9,950 square feet. The coverage on this pad is proposed at 60.4%, which includes all of the structures on this pad. With the allowed deductions the building pad coverage will be 5,206 square feet or 52.3%. This is an increase from 34.7% from the existing condition. There is an existing building pad of 2,840 square feet where a pool and guest house is located. The total building pad coverage on this pad remains at 41.55%. No changes are being proposed to this building pad. The future stable and corral are proposed to be set aside on an existing stable building pad, which is 3,375 square feet in area. The coverage on this pad with a future 450 - square foot stable and an existing shed of 185 square feet will be 15.26%. No changes are being proposed to this future building pad. 10. The structural lot coverage proposed, with allowed deductions, will be 7,401 square feet or 11.2% net lot coverage. The total lot coverage will be 13,418 square feet or 20.4% net lot coverage. 11. The architect states that 85 square feet of the proposed 1,757 additions will encroach no more than 10 feet into the front setback. He advises that while the lot is larger than those in the direct vicinity of the property, the majority of it is sloped and unbuildable. By utilizing a portion of the existing flat space, be it in the front setback, it allows for no grading and less overall disturbance of the lot. The addition remains within the existing retaining wall and flat area on the site, and the total size of the residence will be in line with other homes in the neighborhood. 12. The Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. 13. The project will be required to comply with storm water management requirements and all other Zoning Code requirements, including undergrounding of utility lines. 14. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission considers whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review and Variances and must find that the proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan and development standards of the City (except as related to the variances), including provision for open space and maintaining rural environment and that the uses will not adversely affect adjacent properties. 15. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 1 exemption in that the project is an addition. ZC NO. 898 0 ZC NO. 898 NEARBY PROPERTIES (For information only) Address House size in sq.ft. (built/add or remodel) Lot Area sq.ft. (excl. roadway easements) 13 Open Brand Rd. 3,700 (1955/1961 216,057 24 Outrider Rd. 5,551 (1993/1994)* 112,820 48 Eastfield Dr. 2,898 (1956/1966) 78,410 45 Eastfield Dr. 5,820 (1954/1959) 93,650 44 Eastfield Dr. 3,186 (2007)* 35,720 50 Eastfield Dr. 5,325 (1999) 50,530 Average 4,413 97,865 46 Eastfield Proposed 4,078 77,970 NOTE:The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory structures. SOURCES: Assessors' records * City Records ZC NO. 898 SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH GARAGE, POOL, POOL HOUSE, SHEDS ADDITION Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from rear easement line STRUCTURES Residence Garage Swimming Pool Pool Equipment Guest House Att/cov porches Entryway Att trellis garage Shed/stable pad Barbecue Kitchen Shed Service yard 2243 sq.ft. 420 sq.ft 465 sq.ft. 35 sq. ft. 680 sq. ft. 300 sq. ft 465 sq. ft. 325 sq. ft. 185 sq. ft. 25 sq. ft. 300 sq. ft. 100 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. Residence Garage Swimming Pool Pool Equipment Guest House Att/cov porches Entryway Att trellis garage Shed/stable pad Barbecue Kitchen Shed Service yard Stable (set -aside) 4000 sq.ft. 420 sq.ft. 465 sq.ft. 35 sq.ft. 680 sq.ft. 300 sq.ft. 465 sq.ft 325 sq.ft. 185 sq.ft. 25 sq.ft. 300 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. (Site Plan Review required for new residence and if size of structure increases by more than 999 s.f. in a 36 -month period). TOTAL 5,639 sq. ft. TOTAL 7,846 sq.ft. STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 7.9% w/allowed deductions 7,401 sq.ft. w/ allowed deductions or 11.2% of 65,880 sq. ft. net lot area (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 17.2% with exclusions/allowances 13,418 sq.ft or 20.4% of 65,880 sq ft. net lot w/allowances (35% maximum) BUILDING PADS (30% guideline). 34.7% 41.55% 2.3% 52.3% of 9,950 sq.ft. residential pad 41.55% of 2,840 15.3% sq.ft. of 3,375 sq. ft. Residence Pool Stable (min. 450 sq. ft. stable) GRADING N/A 100 c.y. cut & fill for house, 250 c.y. overexcavation & 250c.y. compaction for house, SUM = 700 c.y. Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site (except basement) DISTURBED AREA 40.4% 40.4% 26,600 sq.ft. of net lot area (40% max; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SO.FT. N/A 450 sq. ft. future proposed 550 sq. ft. future corral & 550 SO.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCFSS N/A Off main private driveway ROADWAY ACCFSS Existing driveway approach Existing driveway approach VIEWS N/A N/A PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A N/A ZC NO. 898 SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. ZC NO. 898 CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. ZC NO. 898 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RESOLUTION NO. 2016-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION AND GRADING; AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WITH A PORTION OF THE ADDITION AND TO RETAIN A SHED IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 898 AT 46 EASTFIELD, (LOT 97-EF) (MILLER). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Miller -with respect to real property located at 46 Eastfield, (Lot 97-EF), Rolling Hills, CA requesting a Site Plan Review for the construction of a 1,757 square foot addition to their existing residence for a total of 4,000 square feet, and grading of total of 700 cubic yards of dirt, of which 500 c.y. is for excavation and recompaction (250 c.y. each). The variances are requested for an 85 square foot portion of the proposed addition that encroaches between 8-10 feet into the front yard setback and to retain an existing wood shed in a side yard setback. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on January 19, 2016, February 16, 2016, and March 15, 2016 and in the field on February 16, 2016. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed, and studied said proposal. The property owner and his representative were in attendance at the public hearings. No neighbors reviewed the plans before the meetings or attended the meetings. Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the lot area excluding the roadway easement is 1.8 acres. For development purposes the net lot area of the lot is 65,880 square feet or 1.51 acres. The property is developed with a 2,243 square foot residence, 420 square foot garage, 465 square foot swimming pool, 680 square foot pool house, several trellises, sheds, and other amenities. One shed and the service yard are located in side setbacks and require a variance or must be removed. The pool equipment area is located in the side setback as well and it is considered legal -nonconforming. Section 4. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 1 exemption in that the project is an addition. Reso. 2016-09 46 Eastfield Drive Section 5. Section 17.46.020(3) requires a development plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review for an addition over 999 square feet, and for grading. With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting approval of a 1,757 square foot addition, and associated grading the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development. The project conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements. The lot currently is nonconforming for disturbed area (maximum 40% of net lot area permitted). There is a total existing disturbed area of 26,600 square feet (40.4% of the net lot area), which is not proposed to change. The proposed project is located below Eastfield Drive and will be screened from the road by the drop in elevation and landscaping which minimizes the visual impact of the development. B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the addition is located in a previously graded area and will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the construction and maintenance of the proposed addition will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed addition will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is already graded, will be below street view, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the proposed structure will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. The proposed project is consistent with the scale of homes in the surrounding RA -S-1 similarly zoned neighborhood. The proposed project entails construction of an addition and will create a residence that is 4,000 square feet. The average residence size of the adjacent homes is 4,413 square feet, which is larger than the proposed project. D. The development plan generally follows natural contours of the site to the maximum extent practicable to accomplish groomed and usable areas of the lot, subject to concurrent approval of Variance pursuant to Section 6 of this resolution. Natural drainage courses will not be affected by the project. Minimal grading is proposed on previously graded areas and therefore existing drainage channels are not anticipated to be impacted. Reso. 2016-09 2 46 Eastfield Drive E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because no change is proposed to the existing driveway, which is in compliance with applicable requirements. F. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt. Section 6. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties prevent the owner from making use of a parcel or property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. Sections 17.16.110 requires that every lot in the RAS-1 zone shall have a front setback of not less than 50 feet from the road easement line. The applicant is requesting a Variance to encroach with an 85 square foot portion of the addition into the front yard setback by 10 -feet, leaving a 40 -foot setback. Section 17.16.120A requires that every lot in the RAS-1 zone shall have a side setback not less than 20 feet from the side property line. A Variance is requested to retain an existing wood shed in the side setback. With respect to this request for Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions because the property was previously developed with a retaining wall in the front yard setback and the residence was pushed close to the front yard setback with a steep slope on the other side of the front of the lot. The addition will bring the residence more in line and more compatible with other residences in the vicinity with the additional square footage. While the lot is larger, the majority of it is sloped and unbuildable. By utilizing a portion of the lot for the addition that is already graded and flat, it allows for less overall disturbance of the lot. The front encroachment is very minor and is not visible from the street or other residence. The 100 square foot existing shed that encroaches in the side setback is small and unobtrusive. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the property owner of the rights and benefits enjoyed by similarly situated properties in the same zone, including the ability to enjoy a similar sized home due to physical constraints of the lot. The encroachment permits the use of the lot to the extent allowed for other properties in the vicinity. The front and side encroachments are very minor. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Development in the front Reso. 2016-09 3 46 Eastfield Drive (1 1 1 setbacks is minimal. The area of addition would not impair views. The disturbance is not proposed to increase but is already above the maximum allowance. The structural lot coverage and the total impervious lot coverage are within the requirements of the City. D. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed in that the proposed addition will be orderly, attractive, attached to the residence, and will not affect the rural character of the community. The proposed addition will not encroach into potentially future equestrian uses on the property. A suitable stable and corral area exists on the site. E. The Variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. While the total disturbed maximum is exceeded by a minor amount, it is legal non -conforming, and the structural lot coverage and the total impervious lot coverage are within the requirements of the City. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings in Sections 5 and 6, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review, and Variance in Zoning Case No. 898 to construct a 1,757 square foot addition to the existing residence for a total of 4,000 square feet residence, grading of total of 700 cubic yards of dirt, to encroach with 85 square feet of the new addition into the front yard setback and to retain the 100 square foot shed in the side setback subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan and Variance approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080 and 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the City has given the applicants written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. Reso. 2016-09 46 Eastfield Drive D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated March 9, 2016, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. A copy of the conditions of this Resolution shall be printed on plans approved when a building permit is issued and a copy of such approved plans, including conditions of approval, shall be available on the building site at all times. F. The licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and including conformance with all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. G. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the property or this project, which would constitute additional grading, height or any structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. H. Grading for this project will entail 100 cubic yards cut, 100 cubic yards fill, plus over -excavation of 250 cubic yards and recompaction of 250 cubic yards, for a total of 700 cubic yards of dirt. The 100 c.y. of cut will be spread on the existing stable pad area, and shall not be exported. I. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 7,401 square feet or 11.2% of the total net lot area of the lot, excluding the allowed deductions. The total lot coverage will be 13,418 square feet or 20.4% of the net lot area. The residential building pad (outside of setbacks) will not be increased and will remain at 9,950 square feet. The coverage on this pad is proposed at 60.4%, which includes all of the structures on this pad. With the allowed deductions the building pad coverage will be 5,206 square feet or 52.3%. This is an increase from 34.7% from the existing condition J. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed a total existing disturbed area of 26,600 square feet (40.4% of the net lot area), which is not proposed to change. Reso. 2016-09 46 Eastfield Drive K. The future set -aside area for the stable and corral area of 1,000 square feet, shall be retained on the property at all times. L. A minimum of four -foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of the residence. M. In conjunction with an application for a building permit for this project, the applicant shall submit an application for a roof permit for the non - permitted roof on the pool house. A final inspection for the pool house roof by the Building Inspector must be granted prior to or in concurrence with a final inspection of this project. N. A drainage plan, as required by the Building Department shall be prepared and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a construction permit. Such plan shall be subject to LA County Code requirements. O. The setback lines in the vicinity of the construction for this project shall remain staked throughout the construction. P. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors shall be required. Q. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby unimproved roadway easements, but not to obstruct neighboring driveways. During construction, to maximum extend feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City. R. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. S. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) requirements related to solid waste, drainage and storm water management and comply with the City's Low Impact development Ordinance (LID), if applicable. Further the property owners shall be required to conform to the County Health Department requirements for a septic system, should changes to the existing system be required. Reso. 2016-09 6 46 Eastfield Drive T. A minimum of 50% of the construction material spoils shall be recycled and diverted. The hauler shall provide the appropriate documentation to the City. U. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA). Perimeter easements and trails, if any, shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to fences -including construction fences, any hardscape, driveways, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, except as otherwise approved by the RHCA. V. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at: http:/ /www.wrh.noaa.gov/Iox/ main.php ?suite= safety &p a ge =hazard_definiti o ns#FIRE. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire distinguisher. W. All requirements of the Building and Construction Code, the Zoning Code, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, including the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. All utility lines to the residence shall be undergrounded pursuant to Section 17.27.030. X. Prior to finaling of the project an "as graded" and an "as built" plans and certifications shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed project is in compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during construction, shall be depicted on the "as built/as graded" plan. Y. Until the applicants execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this approval, the approvals shall not be effective. Such affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19 %AY !1." £ 2016. ATTEST: • C/A elth HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Reso. 2016-09 46 Eastfield Drive 7 CHELF, 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. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-09 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION AND GRADING; AND VARIANCES TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WITH A SMALL PORTION OF THE ADDITION, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMUTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT, AND TO RETAIN A SHED IN THE SIDE SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 898 AT 46 EASTFIELD, (LOT 97-EF) (MILLER). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on April 19, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Chairman Chelf. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gray. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices VA(.�AAa HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Reso. 2016-09 8 46 Eastfield Drive INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 7-A Mtg. Date: 05/09/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THRU: 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 C. Correspondence received at or since 4/25/16 meeting D. Historical data of view impairment cases BACKGROUND 1. On April 25, 2016 the City Council held a public forum to gather residents' testimony regarding the current regulations and interpretations of the View Preservation Ordinance and Measure B. At the meeting members of the City Council directed staff to prepare historical data of view complaint cases submitted to the City since the adoption of the original View Preservation Ordinance in 1988 and their disposition. Enclosed with this staff report are several charts showing this information. 2. 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. 3. 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 Commission's 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. 4. During the public hearings on the view ordinance and interpretation of Measure B, 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 their practical difficulties in interpretation. 5. 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. 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 desired provisions 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. 7. The day of the April 25, 2016 meeting staff received correspondence, which is attached. Mr. Lynn Gill prepared a chart of recommended changes, which include: • Each party to pay their own legal fees • If complaint is not resolved, utilize arbitration after City's CTV provides assistance to both parties; therefore the City is not to become a party to any legal actions • A view seeker to be eligible to a view when they purchased the property, including panoramic views, not just view corridors • A view seeker is to act in a timely fashion after he purchases the property to protect the view he purchased from being obstructed • A tree/vegetation owner may maintain the trees in the same state -height and spread as when he purchased the property. Consider privacy, slope stability, shade, impact on the environment, etc. when ordering remediation actions • Informal initial discussion between the view seeker and the tree owner should include a detailed proposal to the tree owner on which trees obstruct the view, the desired actions, who pays for the remediation and maintenance • Develop specific criteria for determining unreasonable view impairment, criteria for preservation and restoration actions, and hierarchy of view preservation/restoration action. (This is so that restorative actions are consistent in each case as the CTV and City Council members' terms expire and new members are appointed/elected) • Prioritize actions for remediation: lacing, crown reduction and crown raising. Removal only as a last resort; topping or heading back only for hedges • Remove the provision of "mature" vs. "maturing" trees. Any tree/vegetation that grows into an established view should be subject to remediation, providing mitigating factors are considered Another correspondence received the day of the 4/25 meeting states that some residents plan to qualify an initiative on trees and views for the March 17, 2017 City Ballot. Similar correspondence with proposed language for amendment was received on May 4, 2016, and is enclosed. At the April 25, 2016 meeting several residents testified as follows: • City should not have a view ordinance and the residents should solve impairment issues among themselves • Parties should indemnify the City • Utilize arbitration rather than become a party to any legal action • The view you get is the view you bought • Proponents of Measure B did not intent to make the provisions so complicated • RHCA has a process; therefore the City does not need one RECOMMENDATION 8. It is recommended that the City Council continue the public forum, receive public testimony, deliberate and provide direction to staff on how to proceed. NOTIFICATION 9. Posters regarding the public forum were placed by each gate; a. notice was published in the agenda portion of the City's Newsletter; a short announcement about the public forums was 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 RI-ICA. 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 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 §11(part), 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 §11(part), 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(0), 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 §11(part), 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 attorney'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 §11(part), 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 RESOLUTION NO. 1182 RESOLUTION OP THE COY COUNCIL OF THE Cm'? OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS Ei1ERPREETING 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 empty to views that were amnd& enjoyed from a property whet the property owner acquired the property. In particular, the initiative amended the ordinance as thaws: • Only a view that existed when the tuned properly owner "actually acquired" the property may be restored,; Ahabemalt of view impairmer* is limited to obstructions ceased by tees that wen "maturing" at the data 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 drat 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 Vat initiatives in orderto assure uniformity in the application of Measure B to fixture view complaint cases. Based on this authority and rabmmendadon 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 Ells Administrative Regulations Interpreting Measure B Relating to View Preservation clarity the initiative and is hereby adopted: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14" DAY OP MARCH, 2016. 7F�F PIHPER MAYOR ATTEST:�,{ 1 ttp HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application mast 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 tro.n.82 1 Measure B Interpretation STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I artily 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 approval and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 14, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cotmcimembers Mulch. Wilson and Mayor Piepa. NOES: Cameiimembers Black and Dieringa. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at to following: Administrative Offices. REM LUCE, CITY CLERIC Resolution No.1182 Measure B Intapretstlon Attachment A City of Rolling Hills Administrative Reeulations Interacting Measure B Rehftna 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 errant 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 feir market value. Hence, in determining the date on or after which the protectable view is established, the acquisition dale shad be the most recent date title to the property was conveyed for fair market value (as evidenced by a deed) through an antis -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 cling view impamment acquired the property the tree had achieved 75% of its maximum canopy height and width (spread). Maximum canopy height end width will be as set forth in the latest edition of the Sumaet Western Garden Book that contains the tree species under cc®dvetion. The Sunset Western Garden Book is a trusted refaanoe guide on trees, plants and other vegetation present in the region and displays a plant species' height ranges and other charactaiaties. 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 spat 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 Arboriate (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 ace. The base of the tree is the point of the tree what the pith (center) of' the ter intersects the ground surface. The width (spread) of a tree canopy shall be measured across the canopy from the tip of the outermost branch et one end of the tree to the tip of the outermost branch at the opposite side ofbe tree (from dripline to dripline). Seaton 2002. Definition of "Maturing" Trees Trees and other vegetation that are not "mane" as specified in these regulations are "maturing." Chapter 3 RETROACTIVITY OF MEASURE B Section 3001. Retroactive Applleatlen. 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 3 Measure B Intapsetation '• THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 31 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 May 4, 2016 Rolling Hills City Council 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Councilpersons: RECEIVED MAY 042016 City of Rolling Hills By As we have informed you, Richard Colyear and I, and a number of other proponents, intend to qualify a trees and views initiative for the March 2017 Municipal elections. We are aware that the City intends to qualify a competing initiative to repeal Measure B which was passed by the Rolling Hills voters in 2012, and to replace it with a revised trees and views ordinance. Attached is a comparison of the salient provisions of the proponent's trees and views ordinance, compared to Chapter 17.26 passed by the City Council in early 2016. We invite the city council to incorporate provisions includes in the proponent's ordinance in their proposed revised Chapter 17.26, to reduce the need to argue key differences in the court of public opinion: • Get the Rolling Hills taxpayers out of paying for the view -seeker's legal expenses, and for the costs of litigation resulting from view disputes. Require the view -seeker and the tree/vegetation owner to each pay for their own legal expenses. The City should be impartial. • The Trees and Views Committee should provide advisory (ombudsman) services to the view disputants. If agreement is not voluntarily reached, the parties may resort to arbitration and/or litigations. The City does not become a party to the dispute. • If a view -seeker had a panoramic view when they purchased their property, they are entitled to have that panoramic view protected or restored. • A property owner may maintain their trees and vegetation at the same height and spread as when they purchased their property. • Specific remediation guidelines should be included in the ordinance to guide informal discussion, the view committee, and decision -making bodies. • Removal of trees should be a last resort. Topping of trees should be limed to hedges, espalier, or pollard form. Topping is not permitted in most cities, as it may kill trees and makes them look ugly. • Delete the words "maturing" and "mature" wherever they appear in the ordinance. Any tree/vegetation that grows into an established view should be subject to remediation, regardless of age. Sincerely, /s/ Lynn E. Gill 310-541-5515 lynn.gill@cox.net PROPONENTS OF AN INTITIATIVE FOR A FAIR AND BALANCED TREES AND VIEWS ORDINACE COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED 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 view -seeker and the tree/vegetation owner each pay their own legal and other costs. 17.26.060 The city (tax -payers) pays for most of the legal costs of the view -seeker. The city pays for costs of litigation, and pays when the city is sued as a party to the dispute. The tree/ vegetation owner must pay their own legal and other expenses. 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 agreement is not reached, the parties have recourse to appeal to City Counsel, arbitration, and litigation at their own expense. The city does not become a party to any legal actions and incurs no legal costs. 17.26.120 17.26.130 17.26.150 The decision of the Committee 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 expenses for the view - seeker. As a party to the dispute, the city has exposure 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 panoramic views. The view -seeker must act on a timely basis to protect their views 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 or panoramic views are not protected —only view corridors through trees and vegetation are provided. 17.26.090 What property rights are provided to tree/vegetation owners? A tree/vegetation owner's trees and vegetation may be maintained in the same state —height and spread —as when they purchased their property. Mitigating factors to remediation actions are privacy, shade, slope stability, etc. for the tree/vegetation owner, and remediation actions may not unreasonably impact the environment. 17.26.010 17.26.030 17.26.040 None, other than that the preservation/ restoration actions may not adversely affect the environment and may be subject to a CEQA environmental review , and may not unreasonably detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the tree/vegetation owner's property. 17.06.050 Page 1 1 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 view -seeker tree/vegetation owner with a specific 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 informal initial actions requested, who pays for remediation impairment issue when they file a view discussions? actions, and who pays for maintenance. complaint with the city. What evaluation criteria are Specific criteria are provided for determining 17.26.030 Criteria not defined, other than definition of 17.26.050 provided to the view -seeker, tree/vegetation owner, Committee on Trees and unreasonable view impairment, criteria for determining preservation/restoration actions, and hierarchy of view preservation/ 17.26.040 17.26.050 what is an established view, and definition of view impairment. Remediation actions may therefore vary among property owners over Views, and decision -making bodies? restoration actions time, and as members of the Committee on Trees and Views and city council turn over. What remediation actions are provided by the ordinance? Actions are prioritized: lacing, crown raising, crown reduction, and removal as a last resort. 17.026.050 Renediation actions are prioritized: removal, pruning, topping, thinning or similar actions. 16.26.050 Topping or heading back of trees is permitted only for a hedge, espalier, or pollard form as it can damage trees and make them look ugly. Topping of trees is not permitted in most cities. What does the ordinance Nothing. Any tree/vegetation 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 remediation, allowing for mitigating factors such as the diminished by "maturing" vegetation. Trees/vegetation that were already "mature" 17.026.90 vegetation? provision of shade, privacy, slope stability, etc for the tree/vegetation owner. when a view -seeker purchased their property are exempt from Chapter 17.26. City defines a "mature" tree or vegetation as having reached 75% of the maximum height and spread for that species, as defined by Sunset Western Garden Book. Therefore, mature trees/ vegetation may continue to grow after they become mature and sometimes impair views. Page 1 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK @ Subject Proponents Plan to Qualify an Initiative Date: Sunday, April 24, 2016 6:13 PM From: Lynn Gill <lynn.glll@cox.net> lb: "hluce@cityofrh.net" chiuce@cltyofrh.neb Cc Richard Colyear <Rcolyearl@aol.com> Hello Heidi, Richard Colyear notified the City Council on 4-4-2016 that he and other proponents plan to qualify an initiative on trees and views for the March 2017 City Ballot. RECEIV °NtdThi aIteemNo:&A Mtg. Date: 04/25/16 APR 2 5 2016 City of Rolling Hills By 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 view seeker and the tree/vegetation owner each pay their own legal and other costs. 17.26.060 The dty (tax -payers) pays for mcst of the legal casts of the view -seeker. The dty pays for casts of litigation, and pays when the city is sued as a party to the dispute. Tie tree/ vegetation owner must pay their own legal and other Mersa 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 parte on a nonbinding bask. If an agreement is not reacted, the parties have recourse to appeal to City Counsel, arbitration, and litigation at their own expose. The dty bees not become a party to any legal actions and incurs no legal s, 17.26.120 17.26.130 17.26.150 The decision of the Camrdmee on Trees and is legally binding. It may be appealed to the dty 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 exposes for the view- seeker. As a party to the dispute, the dty has 17.26.050 exposure of being sued. What views may be preserved or restored? A view -seeker's view as it was when the view- seeker purchased the r property, Inducting panoramic views. The view -seeker must act on a timely basis to protect tie views from impairments by trets/vegetaton growing on the property of a neighbor who owned their property at the time the view -seeker purchased thew property. 17.26.010 17.26.030 A view-seekes view as It was when they purchased their property, except that unobstructed a panoramic views are not protected —only view corridors through trees and vegetate are provided. 17.26.090 What property rights are provided to tree/vegetation owners? A tree/vegebtion owner's trees and vegetation may be maintained in to sane state --height and spread —as when they purdhasad thew property. Mitigating factors to remediaton attars are privacy, shale, slope stability, etc. for the tree/vegetation owner, and :emanation actions may not unreasonably impact the erhvtrem a. 17.26.010 17.26.030 17.26.040 None, other than that the preservatorV restoration actions may riot adversely affect the environment and may be subject to a CEQA environmental review , and may not unreasonaby detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the bee/vegetation owner's Ply 17.06.050 Page I 1 DESCRIPTION PROPOSED ORDINANCE SEC. CURRENT CHAPTER 17.026 SEC. What process should be The New -seeker mist provide the 17.026.090 Not defined, eopt St the view -seeker must 17.026.040 followed by the view -seeker tree/vegetatbn owner with a specific 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 informal Initial actions requested, who pays for remedlatlon Impairment Issue when they file a view discussions? actions, and who pays for maintenance. complaint with the city. What evaluation criteria are Spedfic criteria are provided for determining 17.26.030 Criteria riot defined, other than definition of 17.26.050 provided to the view -set, tree/vegetation owner, unreasonable view Impairment, criteria for determining preservaatbNrestoratlon actions, 17.26.040 17.26.050 - what Is an established view, and definition of view Impairment Remediatbn actions may Committee on Trees and and hierarchy of view preservation/ ' : - therefore vary among property owners over Views, and &Son -making bales? restoration actions • time, and as members of the Committee on Trees and Views and thy council turn over. What rernedlation actbrls are provided by the ordinance? Adkins are prioritized: lacing, crown raising, crown reduction, and removal as a last resort. 17.026.050 Ram:Melon actions are prioritized: removal, pruning, topping, thinning or similar actions. 16.26.050 Topping or hearing bade of trees is permitted only for a hedge, espalier, or pollard form as Topping of trees Is not permitted in nest cities It can damage trees and make than look ugly. What does the ordinance Nothing. My hee/vegetadon that grows into Chapter 17.26 provides that views may not be 17.26.010 have to say about tinfidng' and `nature' trees and an estadlshed view Is subject to remedWtlon, allowing for mitigating factors such as the diminished by"maturing' vegetation. Tree;lwgetetian that were already 'mature 17.026.90 vegetation? prwson of shade, privacy, slope stabllty, etc for the bee/vegetation owner. when a view -seeker purchased their property are exempt from Chapter 17.26. fly defines a 'mature bee or vegetation as having reached 75% of the raemum height and spread for that species, as defined by Smset Westem Golden Boat Therefore, mature trees/ vegetation may continue to grow after they become matte and sometimes impat views. Page 12 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK DISPOSITION OF CASES ACTED ON BY CTV OR CITY COUNCIL SINCE 1988 Out of 11 cases: 309 total trees contested 124 trees directed to be remediated 24 total trees directed to be removed 109 trees — no remediation required 2 lawsuits filed SUMMARY OF VIEW PRESERVATION CASES: 1988-2013 (PRE MEASURE "B") Out of 11 cases:* 5 (4 and a portion of one) were resolved by mediation 7 (6 and a portion of one) were not resolved in mediation 2 withdrawn/resolved privately 4 were appealed to the City Council after CTV decision 2 lawsuits filed 05-09-16 City Council meeting TOTAL CASES SINCE 1988 Out of 21 cases: 0 currently in mediation 10 were resolved in mediation (plus portion of one) 12 were not resolved in mediation (plus portion of one) 2 were withdrawn 6 were appealed to the City Council after CTV decision 2 lawsuits filed SUMMARY OF VIEW PRESERVATION CASES: 2013-2016 (POST MEASURE "B") Out of 10 cases: 0 currently in mediation 1 post mediation on hold by complainants 5 were resolved in mediation 4 were not resolved in mediation 2 were appealed to the City Council after CTV decision 0 lawsuits filed *some cases involved multiple parties with different outcomes SUMMARY OF VIEW PRESERVATION CASES: 2013-2016 (POST -MEASURE B) Year filed Address of tree owner Address of complainant Number of trees contested Number of trees directed to be remediated Number of trees directed removed Final Outcome Lawsuit 2013 11 Quail Ridge Ln S 2 Spur Ln 34 Following CTV mtgs private agreement reached 2014 33 Crest Rd East 30 Crest Rd East 111 61' 2" City Council Resolution 2014 33 Crest Rd East 34 Crest Rd East 121 77* 2" CTV Resolution 2013 16 Buggy Whip Dr 13 Buggy Whip Dr Private agreement reached 2013 25 Caballeros Rd 14 Caballeros Rd Private agreement reached 2014 44 Eastfiled Drive 45 Eastfield Drive Pending post mediation 2014 12 Outrider Road 36 Eastfield Dr 42 Eastfield Dr Private agreement reached 2013 18 Buggy Whip Dr 13 Buggy Whip Dr Private agreement reached 2014 8 Pine Tree Ln 5 Pine Tree Ln Private agreement reached 2015 15 Portuguese Bend Rd 18 Portuguese Bend Rd 11 9 0 City Council Resolution . Out of 10 cases: 0 currently in mediation 1 post mediation on hold by complainants 5 were resolved in mediation 4 were not resolved in mediation 2 were appealed to the City Council after CTV decision 0 lawsuits filed 61 Common trees. " Same 2 trees. 1 of the 2 trees was already dead. 05-09-16 City Council meeting SUMMARY OF VIEW PRESERVATION CASES: 1988-2013 ((PRE MEASURE "B") Number Number Year Address Address Number of trees of trees filed of tree owner of complainant of trees contested directed to be remediated directed removed Final Outcome Lawsuit 1989 11 Quailridge Ln S 2 Spur Ln 2 2 0 City Council Resolution 1997 1998 1991 4 Reata Ln 1 Reata Ln Following CTV meetings private agreement reached 2003 61 Eastfield Dr 63 Eastfield Dr 65 Eastfield Dr 5 3 2 Private agreement between 2 parties and CTV Resolution between 2 parties. 2005 1 Pinto Rd 70 Portuguese Private agreement reached Bend Rd 2008 34 Saddleback Rd 36, 38, 42, 48 Private agreement reached Saddleback Rd 2008 7 Quailridge Ln S 3 Quailridge Ln S 5 Quailridge Ln S 17 12 2 Following City Council Resolution private agreement was reached. City Council rescinded their action 2009 1 Hackamore Rd 53 Eastfield Dr 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 Maverick Ln 9 Caballeros Rd 16 0 0 CTV found that views were not significantly impaired; no action required 2009 2864 PV Dr. North 2862 PV Dr. North Private agreement reached 2011 32 Portuguese Bend Rd 1 Wagon Ln 108 21' 13" City Council Resolution. Filed lawsuit. City rescinded the order. X Private agreement reached * 4 trees were declining/stressed ** 4 trees to be replaced with new trees at complainant's expense 05-09-16 City Council meeting 1 SUMMARY OF VIEW PRESERVATION CASES: 1988-2013 (PRE'MEASURE "B") Year filed Address of tree owner Address of complainant Number of trees contested Number of trees directed to be remediated Number of trees directed removed Final Outcome Lawsuit 2012 48 Saddleback Rd 49 Saddleback Rd 8 0 5*** City Council Resolution. Filed lawsuit. Court ruled partially in City's favor. With passage of Measure B case became void. Council rescinded its decision X 2012 12 Cinchring Rd 7 Cinchring Rd 8 Cinchrinq Rd 19 Private agreement reached Out of 11 cases: (some multiple parties with different ou comes) 5 (4 and a portion of one) were resolved by mediation 7 (6 and a portion of one) were not resolved in mediation 2 withdrawn/resolved privately 4 were appealed to the City Council after CTV decision 2 lawsuits filed TOTAL CASES SINCE 1988 Out of 21 cases: 0 currently in mediation 10 were resolved in mediation (plus portion of one) 12 were not resolved in mediation (plus portion of one) 2 were withdrawn 6 were appealed to the City Council after CTV decision 2 lawsuit filed "` 5 trees to be replaced with new trees at complainant's expense. 05-09-16 City Council meeting err, ail Reelaf INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 9-A Mtg. Date: 05/09/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY COUNCIL PERSONNEL COMMITTEE Councilmember Leah Mirsch Councilmember Jeff Pieper SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RI COMMENDATION FROM , THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE FOR AN APPOINTMENT TO. THE . ' TRAFFIC COMMISSION. DATE: MAY 9, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: Letters of Interest (2 total in alphabetical order) RECOMMENDATION The City Council Personnel Committee recommends the appointment of Charlie Raine to the Traffic Commission to fill the unexpired term of Roger Hawkins resulting from his election to the RHCA Board of Directors and subsequent appointment as the RHCA representative to the Traffic Commission. The unexpired term ends January 1, 2017. BACKGROUND In January 2016, recently appointed Traffic Commissioner, Roger Hawkins was elected to the Rolling Hills Community Association Board of Directors and subsequently appointed as the RHCA's representative to the Traffic Commission. This turn of events resulted in an unexpected vacancy on the Traffic Commission. On March 18, 2016, notice advising residents of the vacancy and providing for the submission of letters of interest to serve on the Traffic Commission was posted at City Hall, and on March 23 and April 6, the notice and information about serving on the Traffic Commission was published in the City Newsletter. As a result, two letters of interest were received. On May 2, the City Council Personnel Committee conducted interviews with the candidates. DISCUSSION In alphabetical order, the following residents submitted letters of interest for serving on the Traffic Commission; the letters of interest submitted are attached to this staff report. • Charlie Raine (2 Pinto Road) • Carmen Schaye (58 Portuguese Bend Road) The Personnel Committee was fortunate to have had the opportunity to interview two exceptionally qualified applicants. Each applicant had specific experiences and perspectives that would serve the City well and constructively contribute to the challenging decisions and tasks of the Traffic Commission. The applicants demonstrated a commitment to the community, a desire for preserving the community's character, and an interest in "giving back" to the City. However, after much consideration, knowing that just one person can be selected, the Committee recommends Charlie Raine for the appointment to the existing, unexpired term. Based on the information received from the applicant and the interview, Charlie stood out as having the background, demeanor, interest and vision to be an effective Traffic Commissioner; the ability to work well with the existing Commissioners; and was knowledgeable of existing issues facing the Traffic Commission. NOTIFICATION The applicants for the Traffic Commission have been advised that the City Council will be considering the appointment at its meeting of May 9, 2016. CONCLUSION The City Council Personnel Committee recommends that the City Council consider its nomination of Charlie Raine for appointment to the Traffic Commission. The Personnel Committee further recommends that under the Mayor's signature, a letter be sent to the applicant not selected encouraging her application in the future for other commission appointments. RRC:hl Tuesday, April 19, 2016 5:06 PM Subject: Traffic Commission opening Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 5:00 PM From: Charlie Raine <charlie.rainel0@gmail.com> To: "hluce@cityofrh.net" chluce@cityofrh.net> I would like to submit my name for consideration for the vacancy on the Rolling Hills Traffic Commission. I have been a resident of Rolling Hills since 1965 and personally terrorized the streets of this city in the late '70s. Though I have no formal training in this subject, I am aware of safety concerns for bikers, walkers and especially the unique needs of equestrians as my family has been involved with horses since we moved to this city. I presently serve on the Caballeros board as a member of the the trails committee. Regards, Charlie Raine 310.377.4932 Sent from my iPhone RECEIVED APR 1 9 201E City of Rolling Hills By Carmen Schaye Subject: Rolling Hills Traffic Commission March 14, 2016 To: Raymond Cruz, Rolling Hills City Manager RE: Dr. Carmen E. Schaye, Candidate Rolling Hills Traffic Commission Dear City Manager Cruz, 1 understand that there may be a vacancy on the Rolling Hills Traffic Commission and I am writing to express my interest in serving on the Traffic Commission. I am a 25 year owner/resident of Rolling Hills and a former college administrator' and university, professor. I have the time, interest and energy required to study the important issues relating to the orderly flow of traffic throughout our city and to participate with the other commission members in making well -reasoned . • recommendations to the City Council. RECEIVED MAR 14 2016 City of Rolling Hills By I believe that I would be an asset to the traffic commission because I have experience with traffic issues at the college and university level. As a former college Dean of Student & Administrative Services, l' was in charge of student safety, which included traffic safety and security, traffic information communication, and.coordination with the Public Information office regarding traffic rules and traffic safety recommendations. To preserve the safety of those within our community, I believe that it is important for our city to maintain vigilance on . traffic enforcement and continue educating our citizens and visitors regarding the safe use of our private streets, crosswalks, trails, horse crossings, and parking areas. In addition, I have been a long time member of the Rolling Hills Women's Club and have previously served as the Women's Club Secretary and currently Co -Chair of The Board Appreciation Committee. My previous experience also includes service as a medical school trustee and as the president of a national women's organization that provides assistance to women who wish to participate within the political process. If selected to serve as a member of the Traffic Commission, I will diligently perform my duties as a traffic commissioner and stay abreast of all issues within our city and adjoining cities that may impact Rolling Hills traffic concerns. As a person with strong communication skills and extensive experience in working together with others to accomplish a common objective, I believe that I will be able to communicate effectively with the other members of the Traffic Commission and help provide our city council with well -researched recommendations for traffic -related issues. Thank you for considering my application to the Rolling Hills Traffic Commission. Sinpgrey,r/ Dr. Carmen E. Schaye, 58 Portuguese Bend Rd. 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: 05/09/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERRY SHEA, FINANCE DIRECTOR THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER I"' SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASING CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT FROM PREFERRED BANK AND US BANK DATE: MAY 9, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: Preferred Bank Overview RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council authorize the City Manager to purchase certificates of deposits from Preferred Bank and US Bank. The authorized signers on the account would be the City Council members, City Manager and the Finance Director. BACKGROUND The City was investing funds with Malaga Bank through the CDARS program; these are certificates of deposit with a one-year maturity at .35%. We had $1,000,000 mature in December 2015, and $1,500,000 mature in March 2016, and the rates that Malaga offered for new certificates of deposits was .25%. DISCUSSION In order to increase our investment earnings we would like to purchase certificates of deposits (CD's) directly from Preferred Bank and US Bank. We are proposing to purchase a 24 -month CD for $245,000 from Preferred Bank at 1.30% and a 24 -month CD for $245,000 from US Bank 1.15%. The amounts will be fully FDIC insured. FISCAL IMPACT The City would earn an additional $9,555 in interest income over the two years CONCLUSION With the interest rates continually declining on the CDAR's certificate of deposits we would like to purchase CD's directly from other institution's where we can earn additional funds without risking the City's surplus funds. It is recommended the City Council authorize the City Manager to purchase CD's at Preferred Bank and US Bank for $245,000 each. TS:hi Purchasing CDs_staffieport (2) Preferred Bank Headquarters: Los Angeles, CA • Established: 1991 • 12 full -service banking offices in the greater Los Angeles Area, Orange County, and San Francisco • Acquired Untied International Bank in New York in 11/2015 • Total assets of $2.69 billion as of 12/31/2015 Providing personalized deposit services as well as commercial real estate finance, construction lending, commercial loans and trade finance to small and mid -sized businesses, entrepreneurs, municipalities, real estate developers, professionals and high net worth individuals Markets: • Middle Market Business • International Trade Finance • Professionals • Public Funds (Over $39 million on deposit as of 1/6/16) • Private Banking Products: Business • Checking • Savings et CDs • Merchant Card Services • Loans o Real Estate o Commercial Loans o Trade Finance o Construction Personal • Checking • Savings d& CDs • IRAs South Bay Regional Office Services: 21615 Hawthorne Blvd., Ste. 100 PBnet Online Banking Torrance, CA 90503 • 24/7 account information access (310) 921-0100 • Online bill pay www.preferredbank.com • Remote Deposit i PREFERREDIr./Aar 1 - The Preferred Way to Bank. Home Personal Banking Business Banking Treasury Management About Us Investor Relations About Preferred Bank Preferred Bank was established on December 23, 1991 as a California state chartered bank, insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The initial offering closed December 11, 1991 and was oversubscribed at $20,180,000. We believe that Preferred Bank's initial capitalization was the largest formation of a state chartered bank in California history. Preferred Bank is a full service commercial bank with its headquarters located at 601 South Figueroa Street in Downtown Los Angeles. The Headquarters Office is a full service banking office occupying the 29th floor. This facility houses Preferred Bank's Executive, Finance, Operations and Credit Administration offices, as well as our Commercial, International Loan /Trade Finance and Real Estate Lending groups. Preferred Bank specializes in several specific market niches: • Middle Market Business consisting of manufacturing, service and distribution companies with sales of $3 million to $50 million annually and with borrowing requirements up to $29 million dollars. Preferred Bank provides a complete range of lending services to this market, including working capital loans, equipment financing and commercial real estate loans. Additionally, we provide a full range of depository products including, account reconciliation, courier service and a full complement of cash management services. • International Market Business consisting of importers and exporters requiring both borrowing and operational products. We offer a full range of financing vehicles including trade financing, acceptance financing and other specialized lending programs. We pride ourselves on the efficiency of our operational staff that provides a complete group of services such as commercial and standby letters of credit, documentary collections, collections of foreign drafts, international wires and foreign exchange. • Professionals consisting of physicians, accountants, attorneys and professionals associated with the entertainment industry. We understand the unique nature of managing a professional practice and being involved in a creative industry such as the entertainment field. Our staff provides specialized personal services including courier service, several types of depository accounts and business loans and lines of credit. • Real Estate Financing for residential, commercial, industrial and other income producing properties in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The Bank maintains a group of specialists to provide construction and mini -perm loans. • International Private Banking incorporates a group of highly trained professionals handing international private banking needs in the Pacific Rim area. Our multi-lingual staff is knowtedgeable in the business environment and financial affairs of the Pacific Rim countries. This provides us with tremendous leverage when assisting in banking matters both locally and internationally an behalf of our Private Banking clientele. • Consumer and Business Products include checking, savings, money market and certificate of deposit accounts at competitive rates. Coupled with our extensive offering of eServices including Online Banking and Bill Pay, Debit and Credit Cards, and eStatements, Preferred Bank has the right account for you. • Treasury Management Services consisting of Account Reconciliation, Remote Deposit, Cash & Check Courier Service, Merchant Processing and ACH Credit Origination allows our customers to increase productivity and reduce expenses in today's competitive environment. Bank or Credit Union Star Ratings Page 1 of 2 A0e 1 Par RUMP 1 CD Rates 1 Prodoels 1 Strop 1 Conran Us A Enter your email to receive a notification when BALUERh7RARCIAL updates the quarterly bank and aedt union data: n You are here: Home » Lookup Star Ratings FIND YOUR BANK (dick here to find your Credit Union) � Email Me Search Again State: select Institution: �.. (seard,i Want to find the Best CD Rates at the Strongest Banks? Your Librarian call provide all the banks in your area. How it ,corks Scroll down to view 1 matches. Explanation of star -ratings Star ratings current as of January 7, 2016 based on September 30, 2015 financial data. Why are the dates different? The Star -Rating applies to all branches. Location listed is the headquarters as provided by the FDIC. STAR RATING INSTITUTION: didc any button below to view reports now ***** Available Reports: Preferred Bank: Los Angeles, CA ZTa ere ■a6 Highdghts I Sununary [ Mefytlml J . Due means._ J ( LIANAS } Explanation of Criteria Used to Determine BAUERFINANCAL Star Ratingbn Flnandal data is compiled for U.S. banks and thrifts from call report data as reported to federal regulators. Although the financial data obtained from these sources is consistently reliable, the accuracy and completeness of the data cannot be guaranteed by BAUERFJRANCIAL,INC All banks are subject to federal regulatory capital requirements, but those requirements vary among institutions and are dependent on many factors. In general, institutions are required to maintain a tangible capital ratio of at least 4%, a tier 1 risk -based capital ratio of at least 4% and a total risk -based capital ratio of at least 8%. In addition to the capital ratio, other criteria are used to determine BAUERFINANCLAL'S Star Rating. Some of these indude but are not limited to: profitability/loss trend, evaluating the level of delinquent loans and repossessed assets, the market versus book value of the investment portfolio, regulatory supervisory agreements, the community reinvestment rating (CRA), and liquidity. Potential losses on available -for -sale securities, delinquent loans and repossessed assets are forecasted In assigning our star rating. De Novo banks generally can not qualify fora 5 -star http://www.bauerfinancial.com/btc_ratings.asp 1/7/2016 Bank or Credit Union Star Ratings Page 2 of 2 rating for at least two years. Recommended Banks, Savings Banks & Thrifts Each of the institutions on the Recommended Bank Report is financially sound and is operating well above its regulatory capital requirements. Each had a tangible capital ratio greater than 6% and a total risk -based capital ratio greater than 10%. Ave -star institutions generally have twice the capital required by regulators. The institutions on our recommended report are either profitable or had only an insignificant loss for the reporting quarter, and have positive results In the areas denoted above. fiomt; I panks and Credit Unions I Consumers and Corporations I Lookup Star Ratings I Bank Star Rating I Credit Union Star Ratings I CD Rates I Products I Unks I FA I Sitemap I About Us I Privacy Policy I Contact Us I Refer a Friend I Press BAUERFINANCG4 INC P.O. Box 143520, Coral Gables, A. 33114 — 800.388.6686 FAX: 800.230.9569 Email: customerservicera)bauerfinandal.com Bank and Credit Union data compiled from financial data for the period noted, as reported to federal regulators. The financial data obtained from these sources Is consistently reliable, although; the accuracy and completeness of the data cannot be guaranteed by BAU£RFINANCIAL, INC. BAUERFINANCIAL relies upon this data In its judgment and in rendering its opinion (e.g. determination of star ratings) as well as supplying the data fields Incorporated herein. BAU£RFINANCIAL, INC. Is not a financial advisor; It is an Independent bank research firm. BAUERFINANCIAI is a registered trademark. My unauthorized use of its content, logos, name, and/or Star -ratings Is forbidden. Copyright 1312010 BAUERFINANCIAS, INC. http://www.bauerfinancial.com/btc_ratings.asp 1/7/2016 Each fiscal quarter, DepositAccounts.com evaluates the financial health of every federally insured bank in the United States — more than 6,900 total. Each institution is graded on a number of factors, including capitalization, deposit growth, and loan to reserve ratios, in order to determine a comprehensive health rating. For its financial standing through the end of Q2 2015, Preferred Bank has earned an A+ health rating, the highest possible rating from DepositAccounts.com. Preferred Bank has now eamed this highest rating for 10 consecutive quarters, which signifies its consistent performance in achieving exceptional fiduciary standing. 1 DepositAccounts.com About DepositAccounts.com DepositAccounts.com is the largest and most comprehensive online publication in the U.S. dedicated to banking/savings (deposits) information for consumers. It covers all 14,000 federally insured banks and credit unions and utilizes its patent -pending technology to track more than 275,000 consumer deposit rates, each updated nightly. The site features more than 11,000+ editorial articles detailing creative depository strategies and highlighting current bank rates and offers. It is also home to one of the largest communities of depositors on the Web, hosting more than 100,000 comments, customer reviews, and fonrm threads. For more information please contact: DepositAccounts.com Community Outreach: Patrick Russo 205.533.0699 prusso©depositaccounts.com 2 Preferred Bank (CA) Reviews and Rates Page 1 of 3 LOCATIONS rred Bank (CA) Receive alerts for this bank HEALTH RATING TOTAL ASSETS 12 A♦ $zB View locations Overview / Commentary View health report View all statistics www.areferredbank.com fhtto:ltwww.areferredbank.com/1 213-891-1188 601 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Preferred Bank (CA) is headquartered in Los Angeles and is the 35th largest bank in the state of California. It is also the 353rd largest bank in the nation. It was established in 1991 and as of September of 2015, it had grown to 170 employees at 12 locations ((hanksilocations/oreferred-bank-ca.html . Preferred Bank (CA) has an A+ health rating. Reviews No reviews have been left for this bank yet. Be the first to review. Health A+ Write a Review WRITE A REVIEW https://www.depositaccounts.com/banks/preferred-bank-ca.html 1/7/2016 Preferred Bank (CA) Reviews and Rates Page 2 of 3 Data as of Q3 2015 Leam more about bank health (/banks/health.aspx) Health Grade Components A+ Texas Ratio • I A Texas Ratio Trend • I A+ Deposit Growth • I A+ Capitalization • OVERALL FDIC Certificate # 33539(http://www2.fdic.Rov/idasp/extemalConfirmation.asp?inCert1=33539) Year Established 1991 Employees 170 Primary Regulator FDIC PROFIT MARGIN Return on Assets - YTD 1.379E Return on Equity - YTD 12% Annual Interest Income $69.4MM ASSETS AND LIABILITIES Assets Q3 2015 $2.288 vs Q3 2014 $2.008 Loans Deposits Equity Capital Loan Loss Allowance Unbacked Noncurrent Loans Real Estate Owned Q32015 $1.818 vs Q32014 $1.508 Q32015 $1.998 vs 032014 $1.728 03 2015 $257.2MM vs Q3 2074 $2287MM Q3 2015 $24.1MM vs 03 2014 $22.7MM 03 2015 $7.9MM vs Q32014 $10.8MM Q3 2015 $0 vs032074 10 https://www.depositaccounts.corn/banks/preferred-bank-ca.html 1/7/2016 Preferred Bank (CA) Reviews and Rates Page 3 of 3 Rates Sorry, we do not have rate data for Preferred Bank (CA) Locations Preferred Bank (CA) has 12 locations. Click to view all preferred Bank (CA) location (/banks/locationslp refe rred-bank-ca. html). https://www.depositaccounts.com/banks/preferred-bank-ca.html 1/7/2016 www.preferredbank.com HONORS [- IN HE U.S.* No.1* Ranked by SNL Securities for 2014 for all banks between $2 billion and $5 billion in assets No.1* Rated by Bank Director magazine for 2014 for all banks between $1 billion and $5 billion in assets No.1* Total shareholder return of 39.6% in 2014 measured highest for all publicly traded banks in the U.S. with a market capitalization of $375 million or greater by SNL Securities Los Angeles Head Office 601 South Figueroa Street, 29th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 213.891.1188 Arcadia Branch 1469 South Baldwin Avenue Arcadia. CA 91007 626.294.9800 San Gabriel Valley Regional Office 325 East Valley Boulevard Alhambra. CA 91801 626.282.9700 Diamond Bar Branch 1313 South Diamond Bar Boulevard 0iamond Bar, CA 91765 909.861.7200 South Bay Regional Office 21615 Hawthorne Boulevard. Suite Torrance. CA 90503 310.921.0100 Century City Regional Office 1801 Century Park East. Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310.286.2020 Anaheim Branch 100 1055 North Tustin Avenue Anaheim. CA 92807 714.575. >:0 San Fernando Valley Regional Office 18321 Ventura Boulevard Suite 100 Tarzana, CA 91356 818.668.8800 Irvine Branch 890 Roosevelt Avenue Irvine, CA 92620 949.262.9800 Pico Rivera Branch 7004 Rosemead Boulevard Pico Rivera, CA 90660 562.641.2540 City of Industry Branch 17515 Colima Road City of Industry. CA 91748 626.935.1900 San Francisco Branch 600 California Street, Suite 550 San Francisco, CA 94108 415230.3288 Member FDK