The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda 11-14-2016MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Dieringer at 7:02 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Black, Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Dieringer. Councilmembers Absent: None. Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Mike and Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. David McKinnie, 3 El Concho Lane. Jeffrey Ostriker, 27 Caballeros Road. Geraldean Belleville, 12 Crest Road East. Matthew Chaisson, 8 Crest Road East. Norm and Carol LaCaze, 24 Portuguese Bend Road. Cathleen Cunningham, Licensed Psychotherapist, MPA, LMFT. Melvyn Honig, Attorney. Sue Doyle, Bark Buster of South Bay. Dianne Wyatt, Grooming Wonders. James Aichele, 14 Crest Road West. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WF,LCOME 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. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council approve the item on the consent calendar as presented. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. City Manager Cruz asked the City Council to take Items 7A & 7B Under Old Business out of order. Hearing no objection, Mayor Dieringer so ordered. OLD BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING THE APPEALS OF DR. AND MRS. STEPHEN NUCCION AND MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM HASSOLDT AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS BY DECLARING THAT SPECIFIC TREES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD HAVE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT TO THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND SETTING FORTH RESTORATIVE ACTION TO ABATE THE IMPAIRMENT. Planning Director Schwartz stated that staff recommends tabling this item to the next meeting of the City Council to allow staff to provide clarification regarding the to the utility pole that is referenced in the resolutions and make some minor corrections to the resolution. Councilmember Mirsch moved that consideration of this resolution be tabled until the November 28, 2016 meeting of the City Council. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A CONTRIBUTION OF CITY UTILITY FUNDS TOWARD THE COSTS ASSOCITED WITH TWELVE HOMES ON EASTFIELD DRIVE TO COMPLETE A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN AND ASSESSMENT ENGINEERING STUDY CONCERNING A PROPOSED UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. City Manager Cruz stated that in June 2015, the City Council allocated S77,000 from the Utility Fund to be use toward the engineering and design study for a proposed undergrounding project involving 33 homes along Eastfield Drive. He stated that since that time, the project has been reduced in scope to include 12 homes and the utilities have provided updated engineering and design studies. He stated that the proponents of the district have come back to the City Council to request an adjustment in thc funding based on the lower number of homes and to include the benefit study which would total $75, 200 for both studies. Michael Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council to provide further explanation regarding their funding request. He requested that the City Council consider funding the half of the amount since the Rolling Hills Community Association may not have the funds to contribute on third of the funds to that the City would pay 50%, the RHCA would pay 25% and thc property owners would pay 25%. David McKinnic, 3 El Concho Lane, RHCA Board Member addressed the City Council stating that the RHCA Board of Directors will be discussing funding these types of project in the future but there has been no decision made as of now with regard to the proper percentage of funding that should be contributed. He stated that the Homeowners Association is willing to work with the City and residents to move the project forward. • Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council stating that Eastfield is major roadway and this project would be visible to thc community. She stated that if the project could get additional funding from the City, it would make it easier and faster for her to get the reaming fund form the residents. Councilmember Pieper commented that he believes that any funding provided by the City should be repeatable and the amount of $2,500 per property seems reasonable to him. He suggested using the 1/3 funding allocation formula as was done before where the City, the Association and the residents each contribute one third toward the project. In response to Mayor Dieringer, Councilmember Pieper stated that if the Association doesn't contribute 1/3, then the request could be brought back to the City for further consideration. Mayor Pro Tem Black commented that he agrees with Councilmember Pieper that the funding should be consistent so that is it fair to all residents. Discussion ensued concerning the funding options. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council allocate an amount up to $30,000 from the Utility Fund for 1/3 of the costs associated with the preliminary design and engineering study and benefit study for the proposed undergrounding assessment district consisting of 12 homes along Eastfield Drive. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. Following bricf discussion, the motion carried without objection. COMMISSION ITEMS RESOLUTION NO. 2016-22. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO A RESIDENCE WITH RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION, INCLUDING AN AS -BUILT ADDITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES AND A 5 -FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WALL TO ACCOMMODATE A 4 -FOOT WIDE WALKWAY ALONG THE REAR OF THE HOME AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH NEW COVERED PORCHES INTO THE FRONT SETBACK, EN ZONING CASE NO. 911 AT 3 POPPY TRAIL, (LOT 8 -PT), ROLLING HILLS, CA (JONAS). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES, SECTION 15303. M inutes City Council Meeting 11-14-16 Mayor Dicringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request for a Variance to construct porches in the front yard setback at 3 Poppy Trail and to legalize an addition that was constructed without permits in Zoning Case No. 911 at 3 Poppy Trail. She stated that the Planning Commission approved the project unanimously finding that the project is not obtrusive and provides benefit and character to the property. Mayor Dieringer noted that there is a standard condition that was not included in this resolution, "that before final submittal of working drawings to Building and Safety for issuance of building permits that the • plan shall be submitted to City staff for verification...", and suggested that staff be directed to include the condition. Anthony Inferrera, Architect addressed the City Council on behalf of the applicant stating that the applicant would not be opposed to the addition of that condition. Following brief discussion Mayor Pro Tcm Black moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-22 approving the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 911 at 3 Poppy Trail as amended to correct an administrative error whereby a standard condition was inadvertently omitted. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-23. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING, HOUSE AND GARAGE ENLAGEMENT, A SWIMMING POOL AND NEW DRIVEWAY AND REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 910, AT 85 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 69 C -1 -MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (ZEE). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES, SECTION 15303; AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO APPROVE A NEW DRIVEWAY APRON AT 85 CREST ROAD EAST. Mayor Dicringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 910 at 85 Crest Road East. She stated that the applicant proposes to demolish the existing house and breezeway to construct a new garage and 395 sq. ft. addition to the residence. She stated that also proposed is new swimming pool in the rear of the residence to replace the current pool that is in the front of the property and will be removed. She reviewed the grading and stated hat the applicant also proposed to construct a new driveway and to abandon the current shared driveway that currently serves seven properties below. She reviewed the concerns raised by the neighboring properties and stated that the Planning Commission considered the concerns, visited the neighboring properties and included a condition that the areas be landscaped to address the concerns raised and the City has not received any further comments. She stated that the Planning Commission approved the project unanimously and the Traffic Commission recommend approval of the new driveway. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-23 approving the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 910 at 85 Crest Road East including approval of the new driveway apron. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion. Following discussion concerning the driveway, the motion to receive and file carried without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 902. REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 11,100 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE, WITH 11,100 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT, 1,540 SQUARE FEET ATTACHED GARAGES, 2,654 SQUARE FEET COVERED PORCHES, 864 SQUARE FOOT SWIMMING POOL AND SPA, TRELLISES, NEW DRIVEWAY AND AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN AND GRADING FOR A TOTAL OF 51,625 CUBIC YARDS OF DIRT, WHICH INCLUDES OVER -EXCAVATION AND RE - COMPACTION; CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT AN 800 SQUARE FOOT GUEST HOUSE, AND A 1,300 SQUARE FOOT STABLE; IN ZONING CASE NO. 902, AT 23 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 132A -MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (HYNES). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 EXEMPTION GUIDELINES. Consideration of this matter was continued to the November 28, 2016 meeting of the City Council. No action was taken. Minutes City Council Meeting I1-14-16 OLD BUSINESS Taken out of order — see above after consent calendar. NEW BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FILED 13Y DR. JEFFREY OSTRIKER PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.24.070 REGARDING A DETERMINATION MADE BY THE CITY MANAGER SUBSEQUENT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO MUNCIPAL CODE SECTION 6.24.090 FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A PREVIOUS DETERMINATION IN AN AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL COMPLIANT AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 1183. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz reviewed the history on this issues stating that on December 18, 2015, the City received a formal complaint filed by Mr. Matthew Chaisson (8 Crest Road East) regarding Azul, owned by Dr. Jeffrey Ostriker (27 Caballeros Rd.). The complaint alleged that Azul has entered Mr. Chaisson's property on three occasions (the last being on December 11, 2015) and killed one of his chickens during each incident. On January 28, 2016, the City received a report inclusive of findings and recommendations from Animal Care and Control Officer. The investigative report concluded that the incident involving Azul occurred and thus, it was determined that the complaint received by the City was meritorious. Thereafter, on February 3, 2016, a letter was sent by the City Manager to the parties transmitting Officer report and, along with City Manager's determination and order that Azul be confined to Dr. Ostriker's property and under restraint of a leash by a person capable of controlling Azul when off his property. As a result of City Manager's decision, Dr. Ostriker filed an appeal with the City Council. At its meeting on Monday, March 14, 2016. the City Council heard the appeal and after reviewing the evidence submitted and taking public testimony, the City Council affirmed the City Manager's decision that Azul be confined to Dr. Ostriker's property; but modified the decision to allow Azul to be walked without a leash under specified circumstances due to the medical condition that Dr. Ostriker indicated which would not allow him to walk the dug un a leash and required that he remain at least 300 ft. away from any property that had chickens. He stated that at its meeting of Monday, April 11, 2016, the City Council adopted a resolution memorializing that action. Mr. Cruz stated that since that City Council action, there recently have been two subsequent Animal Complaint Reports filed with the City regarding dogs owned by Dr. Ostriker—including Azul. The first complaint report was filed on August 4, 2016 by Mr. Nonn LaCaze (24 Portuguese Bend Road) alleging that Dr. Ostriker's dog Azul, entered his property on two different occasions and attacked his chickens, each incident resulted in the death of numerous chickens, with the most recent incident on August 3, 2016 where 40 juvenile chickens were killed. The second report was filed on August 19, 2016 by Mrs. Geraldean Belleville (12 Crest Road East) alleging that Azul entered her property on August 5, 2016 where the dog broke down the chicken coop and killed all the chickens within it. He further stated that the incident reports were forwarded to the LA County Department of Animal Care and Control for investigation and after reviewing the incident investigation reports, written documents provided by the parties involved. and the oral testimony provided at an administrative hearing, it was determined that the complaints received by the City about Azul arc meritorious and violate the conditions of the resolution enacted by the City Council on April 11, 2016. Specifically the requirement that when being walked, Azul remain more than 300 feet from the property line of the Chaisson home and any other residence that keeps chickens was violated. As such, the City Manager ordered that Azul be removed from the City immediately. Dr. Ostriker again appealed the City Manager's determination in accordance with RHMC Section 6.24.070. In hearing the appeal, the City Council is to determine if the determination and order of the City Manager, based on the findings from Animal Care & Control officers' reports and the administrative herring, arc justified. The City Council may uphold, reverse or modify the order. The decision of the City Council is final. He stated that subsequent to the hearing, Dr. Ostriker has submitted additional information in support of his appeal and that information has been included with the staff report. He further stated that all of the parties impacted by the attacks are present this evening. Mayor Dieringer called for public comments on this matter. Minutes City Council Meeting 11-14-16 Jeffrey Ostriker, 27 Caballeros Road addressed the City Council stating that he was not aware of all of the properties where chicken might be located. He stated that he purposely avoided the Chaisson property knowing that he had chickens but he was not aware that the LaCaze property had chickens. He stated that since the LaCaze incident, he has installed an invisible fence system; had the dogs trained not to leave property or even to challenge the fence; and hired a leash trainer to teach him how to walk the dogs on a leash. He further stated that since August, he has kept the dog on his property and has only waked them on a leash and there have been no further incidents. He requested that he be allowed to keep the dog and continue to walk them on a leash in the city. He stated that the dog is not aggressive to other animals or people only chickens and he has taken the stcps necessary to prevent any further incidents. He stated that Azul is an emotional support animal and he needs him for his mental health. Geraldcan Belleville, 12 Crest Road East addressed the City Council to further explain the incident involving her chickens stating that her five-year old granddaughter was with her when she found the dog in her chicken coop along with the dead chickens. She stated that her concern is for the safety of other people. Matthew Chaisson, 8 Crest Road East addressed the City Council stating that his objective is for animal owners to take control of their animals and to take responsibility for their actions. Carol LaCaze, 24 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the City Council stating that she was a victim of this animal twice with each incident involving over 30 chickens. She stated that her granddaughter raised the chickens and was traumatized by the incidents. She further commented that her gardener feared for his safety when he found the dogs in the chicken coop. She stated that her concern is for the safety of people and although she quantified the cost of the loss, she does not want the money. She stated that she would rather see it be used for beautification in the community. Cathleen Cunningham, Licensed Psychotherapist, MPA, LMFT addressed the City Council stating that she prescribed the dog to Dr. Ostriker as an emotional support animal as a part of his treatment plan and she has never sccn it be aggressive. She stated that her worry is that Dr. Ostriker will regress if the dog is taken away from him. Melvyn Honig, Attorney addressed the City Council in support of Dr. Ostriker's appeal stating that he is a giving, caring man. He stated that Dr. Ostriker suffered a bone disease which caused him to great suffering and it was the dog that tumed things around for him. Sue Doyle, Bark Buster of South Bay stated that she was hired by Dr. Ostriker to leash train Azul and she has never seen him be aggressive. She stated that the incidents involving the chickens were instinctual and she does not believe there is any danger to persons or child and she does not believe that Azul is an aggressive dog or has aggressive tendencies. James Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council stating that the dog is an animal killer and should not be allowed to remain in the City. Dianne Wyatt, Grooming Wonders addressed the City Council stating that she owns the grooming shop wherc Azul has been going since he was five months old and she never seen him be aggressive toward any on the dogs. Dr. Ostriker stated that he is willing to reimburse any of the parties for their loss. He responded to Mr. Aichele and Mrs. LaCaze's comments and stated that Azul has never been aggressive to people. Norm LaCaze, 24 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the City Council to provide further details on the attacks that occurred involving his chickens. He stated that in speaking with his wife and Mrs. Belleville and out of respect for Dr. Ostriker's condition, he suggests giving the dog one more chance and suggested that requiring that a muzzle be placed on the dog in case it gets off the Ostriker property may be another option in addition to ordering the dog confined to the Ostriker property and requiring that the dog be walked on a leash. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Dieringer asked for comments from the City Council. Discussion ensued conceming the incidents and the options before the City Council. Mayor Pro Tem Black commented that he is not inclined to give the dog yet another chance. Minutes City Council Meeting 11-14-16 Councilmember Wilson commented that his dog was involved in an incident where it attacked another dog and he took the incident very seriously and took the steps necessary to prevent a future incident form occurring knowing that if it did happen again, his dog would likely be ordered removed from the City. Councilmember Pieper commented that his worry is that thc dog might attack a child if an incident like the one described by the LaCaze's gardener occurred again. He further commented that when the City Council made the original order to amend the City Manager's decision, he did not envision that the dogs would be allowed to roam the City freely; he assumed although not on a leash, that they would be under control by the person walking them. He expressed concern regarding the lack of control of all of the Ostriker dogs. Councilmember Hirsch commented that her concern is that since the last time the City Council decided on this matter that the dogs were not kept under control and she believes that the actions that Dr. Ostriker took after the August incidents should have been taken initially given the severity of the situation and the consideration that was given to Dr. Ostriker's situation. She suggested that an option to ordering the dog removed may be requiring that it be muzzled at all times. Mayor Dieringer commented that she concurs with the comments made by the other Councilmembers. She stated that she too is very concerned that the dogs were allowed to roam free. She also stated that based on the Municipal Code definition of aggressive behavior, Azul definitely showed the types of behavior described. Following further discussion including the option of requiring that Azul be required to wear a muzzle. Councilmember Mirsch moved that the dog be allowed to remain in thc City but confined to the Ostriker property either in the house or when outside, confined to a fenced dog run; and allowed to be walked on a leash provided that the dog is wearing a muzzle. The motion died for lack of a second. Discussion ensued concerning options for protecting other animals and residents while still respecting Dr. Ostriker's emotional need to keep the dog. Mayor Pro Tem Black suggested that if the City Council were to allow the dog to rcmain in the City, doing so should be done in a way so that there is a mechanism to follow up to ensure compliance and to allow Dr. Ostriker a transition period to either get another emotional support dog or adjust to not having Azul. Mayor Dieringer suggested that the order be crafted in such a way to allow the City Council to retain jurisdiction over the matter. Following further discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council direct staff to prepare a resolution modifying the City Manager's determination that Azul be removed from the City as follows: Azul is ordered confined to the Ostriker property and shall be kept indoors; Azul shall be allowed outdoors only on the Ostriker property, provided that he is confined to a fully enclosed, secure dog run with a concrete pad; and Azul shall not be walked outdoors off the Ostriker property anywhere within the territorial boundaries of the City of Rolling Hills; and stating that the order shall remain in effect for three months after which time the matter will be reviewed for compliance to determine if any adjustments should be made. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried with Councilmember Wilson opposed. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FOR AWARD OF At BID TO CHRJSP COMPANY FOR FY 2016-17 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS PROJECT. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. City Manager Cruz stated that staff along with the Traffic Engineer performed an assessment of the roadways to determine which need striping in FY 16-17 and solicited bids for striping those streets along with the streets that were recently re -paved by the Rolling Hills Community Association and received four responsible bids for the project. He stated that staff recommends awarding the bid in the amount of $33,718.30 including a 10% contingency to the lowest bidder, Chrisp Company. Councilmember Wilson inquired as to the number of blue reflective pavement markers included in the bid suggesting that the number didn't seem correct. Following brief discussion consideration of this item was tabled until the November 28, 2016 meeting of the City Council and staff was directed to review the number of reflective pavement markers to ensure the amount bid is correct verify that Chrisp Company is still the lowest bidder. CONSIDERATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ANIMAL PEST MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. FOR SUPPLEMENTAL COYOTE CONTROL SERVICES. , Minutes City Council Meeting 11-14-16 Mayor Dicringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. City Manager Cruz stated that based on the City Council's direction at its last meeting to consider other options to address the coyote issues in the City, staff recommends approval of an agreement with a private firm for coyote control services to supplement those services provided by the County. Following brief discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council approve an agreement with Animal Pest Management for supplemental coyote control services and direct the City Manager to execute the agreement. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TRAFFIC COMMISSION. Councilmember Pieper stated that the Personnel Committee recommends the re -appointment of Charlie Raine to the Traffic Commission recognizing that he was the only applicant. Following brief discussion, Councilmembcr Pieper moved that the City Council reappoint Charlie Raine to serve a four-year term on the Traffic Commission. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. With regard to the Planning Commission, Councilmember Pieper stated that the Committee interviewed two well -qualified candidates, Stephanie Goodman and Jana Cooley and recommends the appointment of Jana Cooley. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that thc City Council appoint Jana Cooley to serve a four-year term on the Planning Commission. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. STATI IS REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TREES AND VIEWS AD HOC COMMITTEE ON ITS EFFORTS TO AMEND THE VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND TO POSSIBLY BRING FORWARD A BALLOT MEASURE TO MODIFY OR REPEAL MEASURE B. (ORAL REPORT) Councilmember Mirsch reported that the ad hoc committee continues to work to come up with a compromise to amend the View Preservation Ordinance. She further reviewed in detail the concepts and overarching principles that are being discussed and have been agreed on thus far. She stated that the ultimate goal is to develop balanced, fair policies that represent both the view seekers and vegetation owners in an effort to avoid having conflicting measures on the ballot. Councilmember Pieper stated that these ideas and concepts will be provided to the City Council for review and if there is consensus amongst the City Council, thc matter will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for discussion and public hearing at a subsequent meeting. Councilmember Pieper stated that thc Committee recommends placing moratorium on view cases while the Planning Commission and City Council are considering changes to the view ordinancc. He further stated that he would like to place a measure on the ballot to repeal measure 13 so the proposed changes can be adopted without any conflict with the provision of Measure 13 but only if there is an election that include candidates. He stated that thc members of the ad hoc committee are in agreement with this recommendation. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance temporarily putting in place a moratorium on the acceptance of applications sought under the provisions of the View Preservation Ordinance for the City Council's consideration at its November 28, 2016 meeting. Councilmembcr Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council direct staff to bring forward a resolution adding a measure repealing Measure B to the ballot for the voter's consideration at the City's next General Municipal Election scheduled for March 7, 2017. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion. Mayor Dicringer suggested that it might be better to wait to put a measure on the ballot until discussions about amending the ordinancc are well underway and a new ordinance is in place. Following brief discussion, the motion carried with Mayor Dieringer opposed. Minutes City Council Meeting 11-14-16 MATTERS FROM STAFF DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION IN PROVIDING COMMENTS CONCERNING THE NEW PROPOSED STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES THAT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN 2017. City Manager Cruz reported that the State is scheduled to release the proposed regulatory framework for implementation of 2017 water conservation measures and Cal Water is holding a meeting to review the proposed regulatory framework to gain input from its municipal customers. He stated that staff will be meeting the Cal Water to discuss the framework and provide input on behalf of the City. No action was taken. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS None. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— INITIATION OF LITIGATION Government Code §54956.9(d)(4) 13ased on existing facts and circumstances, the City Council shall determine whether initiation of litigation is appropriate Number of potential cases: 1 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Goverment Code §54957 Title: City Manager The City Council recessed into closed session at 10:06 p.m. to discuss the matters listed above on the closed session agenda. The meeting returned to open session at 10:27 p.m. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION (ORAL REPORT). Mayor Dieringer called the meeting back to order in open session at 10:27 p.m. City Attorney Jenkins reported that the City Council met in closed session and no reportable action was taken. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Dieringer adjourned the meeting at 10:28 p.m. in memory of long time RHCA employee Art Heckler. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, November 28, 2016 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Approved, ea Dieringcr Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 11-14-16 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within proceeding; my business address is 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. On the 101h day of November, 2016,1 serve the within City Council Meeting - 11/14/2016 a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, and the person, or persons, named below were emailed or mailed the agenda: E -MAILED MAILED Interested RH Web site listSery Parties Interested parties DropBox 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. 1 declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 10th day of November, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California. Ewa Nikodem Administrative Assistant AGENDA REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2016 7:00 P.M. INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Next Resolution No. 1195 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME Next Ordnance No. 348 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. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 5. COMMISSION ITEMS A. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-22. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO A RESIDENCE WITH RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION, INCLUDING AN AS -BUILT ADDITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES AND A 5 -FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WALL TO ACCOMMODATE A 4 -FOOT WIDE WALKWAY ALONG THE REAR OF THE HOME AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH NEW COVERED PORCHES INTO THE FRONT SETBACK, IN ZONING CASE NO. 911 AT 3 POPPY TRAIL, (LOT 8 -PT), ROLLING HILLS, CA (JONAS). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES, SECTION 15303. Page I of 4 -e B. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-23. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING, HOUSE AND GARAGE ENLAGEMENT, A SWIMMING POOL AND NEW DRIVEWAY AND REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 910, AT 85 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 69 C -1 -MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (ZEE). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES, SECTION 15303; AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO APPROVE A NEW DRIVEWAY APRON AT 85 CREST ROAD EAST. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING CASE NO. 902, AT 23 CREST ROAD EAST WILL BE CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 28, 2016. ZONING CASE NO. 902. REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 11,100 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE, WITH 11,100 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT, 1,540 SQUARE FEET ATTACHED GARAGES, 2,654 SQUARE FEET COVERED PORCHES, 864 SQUARE FOOT SWIMMING POOL AND SPA, TRELLISES, NEW DRIVEWAY AND AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN AND GRADING FOR A TOTAL OF 51,625 CUBIC YARDS OF DIRT, WHICH INCLUDES OVER -EXCAVATION AND RE -COMPACTION; CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT AN 800 SQUARE FOOT GUEST HOUSE, AND A 1,300 SQUARE FOOT STABLE; IN ZONING CASE NO. 902, AT 23 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 132A -MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (HYNES). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303, CLASS 3 EXEMPTION GUIDELINES. 7. OLD BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING THE APPEALS OF DR. AND MRS. STEPHEN NUCCION AND MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM HASSOLDT AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS BY DECLARING THAT SPECIFIC TREES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD HAVE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT TO THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND SETTING FORTH RESTORATIVE ACTION TO ABATE THE IMPAIRMENT. B. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A CONTRIBUTION OF CITY UTILITY FUNDS TOWARD THE COSTS ASSOCITED WITH TWELVE HOMES ON EASTFIELD DRIVE TO COMPLETE A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN AND ASSESSMENT ENGINEERING STUDY CONCERNING A PROPOSED UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. City Council Agenda 11/14/16 Page 2 of 4 8. NEW BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FILED BY DR. JEFFREY OSTRIICER PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.24.070 REGARDING A DETERMINATION MADE BY THE CITY MANAGER SUBSEQUENT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO MUNCIPAL CODE SECTION 6.24.090 FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A PREVIOUS DETERMINATION IN AN AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL COMPLIANT AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 1183. B. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FOR AWARD OF A BID TO CHRISP COMPANY FOR FY 2016-17 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS PROJECT. C. CONSIDERATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ANIMAL PEST MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. FOR SUPPLEMENTAL COYOTE CONTROL SERVICES. 9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS A. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TRAFFIC COMMISSION. B. STATUS REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TREES AND VIEWS AD HOC COMMITTEE ON ITS EFFORTS TO AMEND THE VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND TO POSSIBLY BRING FORWARD A BALLOT MEASURE TO MODIFY OR REPEAL MEASURE B. (ORAL REPORT) 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF A. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION IN PROVIDING COMMENTS CONCERNING THE NEW PROPOSED STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES THAT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN 2017. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS 12. CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — INITIATION OF LITIGATION Government Code §54956.9(d)(4) Based on existing facts and circumstances, the City Council shall determine whether initiation of litigation is appropriate Number of potential cases: 1 B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Government Code §54957 Title: City Manager City Council Agenda 11/14/16 Page 3.of 4 13. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 14. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Monday, November 28, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item. Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the 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 11/14/16 Page 4 of 4 4 rt� INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2016 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 7:00 P.M. Next Resolution No. 1195 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME This is the appropriate time for members of the public to ma erments regarding the items on the consent calendar or items flat listvrl on this -agenda. Pursuant to.the>Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda. \Next Ordnance No. 348 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may he actei,upon>hy 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. Payment of Bills: RECOMMENDATION Approve.a's presented. 5. COMMISSION=ITEMS RESOLUTION NO. 2016-22. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY\dF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR/IMPROVEMENTS TO A RESIDENCE WITH RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION, INCLUDING AN AS -BUILT. ADDITION AND COINISTRU ON OF ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES AND A 5 -FOOT MA`XI C' I MU v1 HEIGHT WALL TO ACCOMMODATE A 4 -FOOT WIDE WALKWAY ALONG/THE REAR OF THE HOME AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH NEW COVERED PORCHES INTO THE FRONT SETBACK, IN ZONING CASE NO. 911 AT 3 POPPY TRAIL, (LOT 8 -PT), ROLLING HILLS, CA (JONAS). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES, SECTION 15303. U Page I of4 B. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-23. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING, HOUSE AND GARAGE ENLAGEMENT, A SWIMMING POOL AND NEW DRIVEWAY AND REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 910, AT 85 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 69 C -1 -MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (ZEE). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES, SECTION 15303; AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO APPROVE A NEW DRIVEWAY APRON AT 85 CREST ROAD EAST. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING CASE NQ. 902, AT 23 CREST ROAD EAST WILL BE CONTINUED TO NOVEMBEE�R"28, 2016. ZONING CASE NO. 902. REQUEST FOR/A4ITE PLAN REVIEW) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 11,100 SQUARE FOOTARESIDENCENWITH 11,100 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT, 1,540 SQUAREkEET/ATTACHED GARAGES, 2,654 SQUARE FEET COVERED PORCHES, 864\SQUAA'RE FOOT SWIMMING POOL AND SPA, TRELLISES, NEW DRIVEWAY ANDEAN OUTDOOR KITCHEN AND GRADING FOR A TOTAL OF 5.1,625 CUBIC YAth SiOF DIRT, WHICH INCLUDES OVER -EXCAVATION AND RE -COMPACTION; CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT AN 800 SQUARE -FOOT GUEST HOUSE, AND A 1,300 SQUARE FOOT STABLE; IN ZONING CASE N0(902t.A 23 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 132A -MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA,,(HYNES). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA -ENVIRONMENTAL TAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 153034CCASS 3 EXEMPTION GUIDELINES. 7. OLD BUSINESS < \ )L A. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLL-ING.•HILLS\DEN\YING THE APPEALS OF DR. AND MRS. STEPHEN NUCCION$ND MR\AND MRS. WILLIAM HASSOLDT AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS BY DECLARING THAT SPECIFIC TREES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD HAVE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT TO THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND SETTING FORTH RESTORATIVE ACTION TO ABATE THE IMPAIRMENT. B. EASTFIELD UNDERGROUNDING 8. NEW BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FILED BY DR. JEFFREY OSTRIKER PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.24.070 REGARDING A DETERMINATION MADE BY THE CITY MANAGER SUBSEQUENT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO MUNCIPAL CODE SECTION 6.24.090 FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A PREVIOUS City Council Agenda 11/14/16 Page 2 of DETERMINATION IN AN AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL COMPLIANT AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 1183. B. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FOR AWARD OF A BID TO CHRISP COMPANY FOR FY 2016-17 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS PROJECT. C. CONSIDERATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ANIMAL PEST MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. FOR SUPPLEMENTAL COYOTE CONTROL SERVICES. 9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS A. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROMTHE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TRAFFIC COMMISSION. e\\ B. STATUS REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL>TREES • e VIEWS AD HOC COMMITTEE ON ITS EFFORTS TO AMEND THE VIEW 'EflESERVATION ORDINANCE AND TO POSSIBLY BRINGGFORWARD A BALLOT MEASURE TO MODIFY OR REPEAL MEASURE B. (ORAL <REPORT -, ,\/I 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF A. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLEiD1RRECTION 1N PROVIDING COMMENTS CONCERNING THE NEW P•ROP_OSED�STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES THAT WILrL.BE IMFL' EMENTED IN 2017. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS NONE. 12. CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITHkEGAL COUNSEL — INITIATION OF LITIGATION Government -Code §5`495&9(d)(4) At'''. on exis,ting,facts and circumstances, the City Council shall determine whether initiation of litigation is appropriate Number of potential cases: 1 B. God ernment Code §54957 ,ublic Employee Performance Evaluation Title: City/Manager 13. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION NONE. 14. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Monday, November 28, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. City Council Agenda 11/14/16 Page 3 of Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item. Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting. City Council Agenda 11/14/16 Page 4 of 4 CHECK CHECK NO• DATE •• 24524 • 24545 • 24546 • 24547 • 24548 • 24549 " 24550 • 24551 24552 24553 24554 24555 24556 24557 24558 24559 24560 24561 24562 24563 24564 24565 24566 24567 24568 24569 24570 24571 24572 24573 • PR LINK • PR LINK City oMapSid Agenda Item No: 4-A Mtg. Date: 11/14/16 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 11/142016 -CHECK RUN PAYEE 10/10/2016 CALPERS 11/012016 BOLTON ENGINEERING CORPORATION 11/01/2016 CALPERS 11/012016 CALPERS- 11/012016 DELTA DENTAL 11/01/2016 LA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 11/01/2016 11/01/2016 11/142016 11/14/2016 11/14/2016 11/14/2016 11/14/2016 11/142016 11/14/2016 11/14/2016 11/14/2016 11/14/2016 11/14/2016 MAILFINANCE 11/142016 MARTIN & CHAPMAN CO. 11/14/2016 MCGOWAN CONSULTING 11/14/2016 PETTY CASH-EWANIKODEM 11/14/2016 REMOTE SATELLITE SYS INTL 11/14/2016 ROGERS, ANDERSON, MALODY 11/142016 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 11/142016 TERMINIX 11/14/2016 USCM 11/14/2016 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS - II/14/2016 WILLDAN INC. 11/14/2016 XEROX CORPORATION 10/28/2016 PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING 10/28/2016 PR LINK - PAYROLL 22 & PR TAXES STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY VISION SERVICE PLAN - (CA) CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES COX COMMUNICATIONS DAILY BREEZE EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC. FOUNTAINHEAD CONSULTING INC. ICMA JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP JOHN L HUNTER & ASSOC., INC. LA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 3771521 FAX: (310) 3777288 AMOUNT SEPT 2016 PERS CONTRIBUTIONS 7,078.73 MAPPING SERVICE 80% COMPLETE 2,000.00 HEALTH INS NOV 2016 5,662.69 RETIREMENT OCT 2016 4,719.15 DENTAL INS NOV 2016 840.19 SUPPLE TRAFFIC ENFORCE AUG2016 2,848.88 LIFE INS NOV 2016 201.49 VISION INS NOV 2016 80.95 WATER SERVICES 928 TO 10/26 1,146.54 COYOTE CONTROL/ VARIOUS SITES SEPT 2016 379.64 PHONE -INTERNET 10/26 TO 11/25 390.93 ADVERTISING - PENINSULA NEWS OCT 2016 250.38 JANITORIAL SERVICES OCT 2016 384.00 NETWORK & LAPTOP MGMT NOV 2016 516.00 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL JAN-DEC'I7 1,400.00 ATTORNEY SERVICES & VIEW CASES OCT 2016 7,569.24 TRASH SURVEY - CONDUCT LAKE 1,440.00 SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SEPT 2016 4,115.05 COPIER LEASE, 10/30/16 590.14 CONSULTATION FEE & HANDBOOK ELECTION 1,016.72 STORM WATER CONSULTING SERVICES R/I/15 4,195.40 2016 HOLIDAY OPEN HOUSE 1,318.40 SATELLITE PHONE OCT 97.90 ACCOUNTING SERVICES SEPT 2016 6,855.00 ELECTRICITY BILL 9/22 TO 10/24 1,100.12 GENERAL PEST CONTROL 10/31 50.00 457 PAYROLL ENDING 11/10/16 1,380.00 457 PAYROLL ENDING 11/10/16 182.00 BUILDING & SAFTEY SEPT 2016 3,619.50 OCTOBER MONTHLY COPIER LEASE 37.00 PROCESSING FEE 57.45 PAY PERIOD - OCTOBER 12, 2016 THROUGH OCTOBER 25, 2016 16,714.52 I, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, California certify that the above demands arc accurate and there is available in the General Fund a balance of $78,238.01 for the payment of e items. 5mo'.: R ry City Manager • Previously Disbursed "Previously Disbursed & Not Listed On Check Register Dated: 10/24/16 S 78,238.01 61.466 04 Printed on Recycled Paper ear eit Seatdi=e 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: 11/14/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR U,'I THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2016-22. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO A RESIDENCE WITH RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION, INCLUDING AN AS -BUILT ADDITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES AND A 5 -FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WALL TO ACCOMMODATE A 4 -FOOT WIDE WALKWAY ALONG THE REAR OF THE HOME AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH NEW COVERED PORCHES INTO THE FRONT SETBACK, IN ZONING CASE NO. 911 AT 3 POPPY TRAIL, (LOT 8 -PT), ROLLING HILLS, CA (JONAS). 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 applicant, Mr. Robert Jonas requested a Site Plan Review to legalize a 375 square foot as -built living area and to construct covered porches, totaling 705 square feet, on a property with a restricted development condition. In addition, the applicant, subject to a condition of approval applied by the Planning Commission in the public hearing, proposes to construct a maximum 5 -foot tall wall in the rear of the residence to accommodate a 4 -foot wide walkway along the home. The applicant also requests a Variance to locate two of the three proposed covered porches, 505 square feet, within the front yard setback. 3. The Planning Commission held public hearings on September 20, 2016, in the field and later that same day in Council Chambers and following the review and discussion of the project, directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval. On October 18, 2016 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2016-22 by a unanimous vote, with the following conditions specific to this project: • provide a not less than 4' wide walkway around the residence • the retaining wall, to accommodate the construction of the walkway, shall not exceed 5' in height • obtain building permits for the rear addition and retrofit the addition to comply with building code requirements • the exterior walls of the residence that encroach into the front setback shall not be demolished; however the windows may be replaced within the existing openings. The Planning Commission found that the project is not obtrusive, that it fits on the lot and that it utilizes the available area. The location of the residence in the front setback and the steep slopes behind it constraint the lot to development in the front only. The Planning Commission found that the porch additions are minor and will not affect any residents but provide shade to the owners. Further, they found that the proposed attached covered porches will have an open design and will add visual interest without adding significant additional building mass. With this construction, two non -conforming situations will be corrected, 1) the unauthorized addition will be legalized and retrofitted to meet the current building standards and 2) a walkway will be provided around the residence. BACKGROUND 4. The property is zoned RAS-2 and consists of 2.7 acres (117,612 square feet) gross and 2.18 acres (95,160 sq.ft.) net lot area for development purposes. With this proposal a previously constructed addition of 375 square feet with a flat roof at the rear of the residence will be legalized and the roof reconfigured to match the existing residence. The entire roof will be raised by 12". As part of this application, regardless if the variance for the porch is granted or not, it will be a requirement that a building permit be obtained for this addition, a new roof be constructed and utility lines be undergrounded to the property and a 4' walkway around the rear provided, which necessitates the construction of a 5' high wall. 5. In November, 2009 the applicant was granted a CUP and a SPR to construct an 800 square foot recreation room and access thereto, that required grading and a retaining wall along the access way. A restriction that all future development would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission was placed on the property. 6. Currently the property is developed with a 3,598 square foot residence, (including the 375 sq.ft. non -permitted addition), 462 square foot garage, a 720 square foot swimming pool/spa, 802 square foot pool decking, 48 square foot pool equipment, 270 square foot cabana, 660 square foot stable, 96 square foot service yard, and an 800 square foot recreation room with 396 square foot covered porch. ZC NO. 911 3 Poppy Trail 7. Over 40% of the existing residence is located in the front yard setback, and is legal non -conforming. At the worst condition, (north-west corner), the house encroaches 37' into the required 50' front yard setback. The proposed 505 square feet porches at the front of the house would encroach additional 6' into the front setback; up to 41' at the north west corner and up to 34' at the north east corner and requires a Variance. No grading or further disturbance is proposed with this project. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 8. Pursuant to Section 17.16.140 of the Zoning Code, architectural features (which include porches) may project 4' into the required front setback. With the house already projecting more than 4', the proposed covered porches would project even further into the setback. 9. The net lot area of the lot is 95,160 square feet. The structural lot coverage is proposed at 7,755 square feet or 8.1% of the net lot area, which includes all of the structures, (20% permitted). The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork is 12,436 square feet or 13.1% of the net lot area, (35% permitted). 29,440 square feet of the net lot, or 30.94% is disturbed. No additional disturbance is proposed. (40% max. permitted). 10. There are 3 building pads on the property. The Zoning Code sets a guideline for each building pad coverage at 30%. The residential pad is 4,480 square feet, outside of setbacks, and will have coverage of 122.6% (due to the fact that over 40% of the house plus the covered porches would be located in the front setback; area of which is not included in the building pad area calculations). The stable pad is 3,360 square feet and has coverage of 19.6%, and the recreation room pad is 3,600 square feet with 31.0% coverage, with allowed deduction. 11. The residential "as built" addition and attached porches will not impact drainage on the lot. No change to the drainage pattem is proposed. 12. All of the development standards are being met except for the requirement that no development occurs in a setback. The 505 square foot attached porches encroach in its entirety into the front yard setback. 13. In response to justification for the Variance request the applicant notes that the entire front of the house is in the front setback and they are requesting to further encroach by 6'. Due to the topography of the lot there is no space to construct covered porches in the rear of the house. The proposed porches will not result in any additional disturbance. ZC NO. 911 3 Poppy Trail CONCLUSION 14. This proposal would legalize a 375 square foot as -built addition. Section 17.24.020 of the Municipal Code requires that illegal uses or structures be legalized in conjunction with any discretionary review application. Therefore, approval by the Planning Commission, the Rolling Hills Community Association, and a building permit is required as part of the consideration for the proposed attached porches and for the "as built" residential addition. In addition, an accessway around the property will be provided. Pursuant to the current zoning ordinance, only one accessory structure greater than 200 square feet and used for recreation, guest house, hobby shop or storage room is permitted. The 800 square foot recreation room approved in 2009 pre -dates the current requirement, which went into effect in 2011 (Ordinance No. 324). 15. When reviewing a development application the Planning Conunission considers whether the proposed project is consistent with the criteria for Site Plan Review and Variances enumerated below. 16. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 17. The Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee will review the project for architectural elements and design at a later date. ZONING CASE NO. 911 SITE PLAN REVIEW/VARIANCE EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S-2 ZONE SETBACKS SF Residence & accessory structures Legalize addition, construct a retaining wall & walkway; add covered porches to residence • Front: 50 ft. from road easmnt. line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES Residence Garage Pool/spa Pool equip Cabana Stable Att.porch Service yd Rec Room 3458 sq.ft 462 sq.ft. 720 sq.ft 48 sq.ft. 270 sq.ft 660 sq.ft 396 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft Residence. Garage Pool/spa • Pool equip Cabana ' Stable Att. porch Service yd Rec Room 3598 sq.ft 462 sq.ft 720 sq.ft. 48 sq.ft 270 sq.ft. 660 sq.ft. 1101 sq.ft 96 sq.ft. 800 sq. ft. - Site Plan Review required on properties with a Restricted Development Condition & over 3' high walls. - Variance for structures in setbacks. TOTAL 6,910 sq.ft. TOTAL 7,755 sq.ft ZC NO. 911 3 Poppy Trail 0 STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 7.3% 8.1% of 95,160 sq.ft. net lot area (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 12.2% 13.1% of 95,160 sq.ft. net lot area (35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE Residence= 112.8% of 4,480 sq.ft. pad Stable=19.6% of 3,360 sq.ft. pad Rec room=31% of 3,600 sq.ft pad Residence=122.6% of 4,480 sq.ft. pad Stable=19.6% of 3,360 sq.ft. pad Rec room=31% of 3,600 sq.ft pad RESIDENTIAL (30% maximum guideline) GRADING N/A NONE Site plan review required if grading is triggered DISTURBED AREA 29,440 sq.ft. - 30.9% of lot 29,440 sq.ft. - 30.9% of lot - was previously disturbed (40% maximum; 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 (minimum 450 sq. ft.) and 660 sq.ft 1,050 sq.ft. 660 sq. ft. 1,050 sq.ft. CORRAL (minimum 550 sq. ft.) STABLE ACCESS From Poppy Trail ACCESSWAY Existing from Poppy Trail Existing from Poppy Trail VIEWS N/A N/A PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A N/A 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. 911 3 Poppy Trail 0 SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 11.46.010 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. 11.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. 13. 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. 911 3 Poppy Trail RESOLUTION NO. 2016-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO A RESIDENCE WITH RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION, INCLUDING AN AS -BUILT ADDITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES AND A 5 -FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WALL TO ACCOMMODATE A 4 -FOOT WIDE WALKWAY ALONG THE REAR OF THE HOME AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH NEW COVERED PORCHES INTO THE FRONT SETBACK, IN ZONING CASE NO. 911 AT 3 POPPY TRAIL, (LOT 8 -PT), ROLLING HILLS, CA (JONAS). 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. Robert Jonas requesting a Site Plan Review approving a 375 square foot as -built living area and three covered porches, totalling 705 square feet. In addition, the applicant, subject to a condition of approval applied by the Planning Commission in the public hearing, proposes to construct a maximum 5 -foot tall wall at the rear of the residence to accommodate a 4 -foot wide walkway along the home perimeter contiguous to the as -built living area. The applicant also requests a Variance to locate two of the three proposed covered porches within the front yard setback. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on September 20, 2016 including a morning field trip and an evening meeting. 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 the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants' representative was in attendance at the public hearings. During the September 20, 2016 field visit a concern was expressed by a resident and discussed regarding the need for a walkway to provide access around the residence perimeter at the rear, which may involve constructing a new retaining wall up to 5 feet in height. This concern has been addressed through the conditions of approval. Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 2.7 acres. The net lot area is 2.18 acres or 95,160 square feet. The lot, with the exception of three graded building pads (main home, stable and acccessory recreation room) has a steep descending slope, rear to front. Due to the location of the residential pad within the front setback, over 40% of the residence is nonconforming in that it lies within the front setback. Reso. 2016-22 3 Poppy Trail 1 Section 4. On March 17, 2009 the applicant was granted a Conditional Use Permit and a Site Plan Review that allowed the construction of an 800 square foot recreation room and access thereto. A "No further development" restriction (condition AF) was imposed on the property, requiring any future structural modifications to be reviewed by the Planning Commission in a Site Plan Review public hearing. Section 5. The property, including a 375 square foot as -built living area being legalized by this approval, is currently developed with a 3,598 square foot residence, 462 square foot garage, 96 square foot service yard, 720 square foot swimming pool, 48 square foot pool equipment enclosure, 270 square foot detached cabana, 800 square foot accessory recreation room with a 396 square feet attached covered porch, and a 660 square foot stable. With this approval, an additional 705 square feet total of covered porches will be constructed, of which 595 square feet is attached to the front and side of the residence within the front setback and 110 square feet at the rear. The entire roof will be remodeled and the portion above the as -built area will be modified to match the main roof. Section 6. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Section 7. Section 17.16.190F requires a Site Plan Review for walls over 3 feet in height. A not to exceed 5 -feet tall wall is anticipated to be required in order to construct a 4 -foot wide walkway along the rear perimeter of the residence as a condition of approval. In addition, the project improvements are subject to a Site Plan Review in that the site is a "restricted development" as noted in Section 4 of this Resolution. With respect to the Site Plan Review application for the walkway wall and other structural improvements to the home, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan and surrounding uses because the proposed project complies with the requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to development standard requirements for lot coverage and disturbance of the Zoning Ordinance and no grading is proposed. A new wall up to 5 feet in height is required to accommodate construction of a 4 -foot access walkway at the rear of the home, adjacent to as as -built living area that is legalized with this approval. The new wall will be located at the rear of the home, away from any other residence and street and will not be visible or obtrusive to neighbors. At the front of the home, 595 square feet of two proposed attached covered porches will have an open design and will add visual interest without adding significant additional building mass. Reso. 2016-22 3 Poppy Trail 2 ® B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot because the new improvements will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. The proposed development will be located on an area that is already a graded pad. Significant portions of the 2.7 -acre 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 will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the changes to the existing building including proposed porches, and roof replacement, are relatively minor changes. The proposed project is not expected to 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 the neighborhood, as it is on a large lot. The lot coverage maximums set forth in the Zoning Code will not be exceeded. D. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to the maximum extend practicable, utilizing existing groomed and usable areas of the lot. Natural drainage courses will not be affected by the project. No grading is proposed - and existing drainage channels will not be modified. The project is not located in a canyon or on existing slopes that exceed 25%. E. The project preserves much of the existing vegetation elsewhere on the lot and any new landscaping to be introduced will be required to be drought -tolerant, which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed development will utilize the existing driveway. Section 8. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a. Variance granting relief from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity or zone. In proposing to encroach in the front setback with 705 square feet of covered attached porches, a Variance is required to grant relief from Section 17.12.190 of the Zoning Ordinance (setback definitions requiring that setbacks be free of structures). With respect to the aforementioned request for a Variance from Zoning Ordinance Section 17.16.150, the Planning Commission finds as follows: Reso. 2016-22 3 Poppy Trail 3 A. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions on the subject property, including the natural slope, location of the building pad and the shape of the lot, all of which constrain development. The lot has a relatively steep natural downward slope from rear to front. Due to this constraint, the main building pad was originally created at the front of the lot, with a considerable portion of the pad (and 40% of the existing residence) located within the 50 -foot wide front yard setback. This leaves little area suitable for covered porches at the rear of the building, outside of the setback area. Also the lot has a relatively long frontage (435.5 lineal feet) along Poppy Trail, which exacerbates the amount of the lot while being suitable, is also restricted to development due to a long front setback. B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question by strict application of the code. The proposed porches are common to residences in Rolling Hills and encouraged by the Architectural Committee to maintain the ranch style type of development, and this approval permits the applicants to enjoy the same amenities. The porches, although in setback are not intrusive or massive. 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 in that the increase in nonconformity for the front setback will be relatively minor, being a further encroachment of only 6 feet and comprised of an open element (porch) and not enclosed living area. D. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed in that the proposed porches will be orderly, attractive, and will not detrimentally affect the rural character of the community. 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. The proposed porch additions are to be located along and parallel to the exterior building line of the residence and will not alter the existing configuration of the lot, including existing sloped conditions and large amount of open space between structures. F. 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. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance and Site Plan Review in Zoning Case No. 911 for 705 Reso. 2016-22 3 Poppy Trail 4 C) square feet total of three attached covered porches of which 595 square feet, for two porches, is within the front yard setback and approval of an as -built living area (375 square feet) and maximum 5 -foot tall retaining wall to create a 4 -foot walkway along the rear of the home adjacent to an as -built living area, subject to the following. conditions: A. This 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 17.38.070 and 17.46.080 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. If any condition of this resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by this resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the violation. The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee's determination that a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for which the agenda has not yet been posted, the Applicant shall be provided written notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, the Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on the property until and unless the violation is cured by the deadline, other than work designated by the Council to accomplish the cure. If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at the Applicant's request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by this Resolution pursuant to Chapter 17.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, LA County Building Code 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. 2016-22 3 Poppy Trail D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated September 20, 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. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and 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. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 7,755 square feet, or 8.15% (with allowable deductions). Total lot coverage shall not exceed 13.07% or 12,436 square feet. Building Pad coverage on the 4,480 square foot residential pad (pad area does not include portion within front setback) shall not exceed 122.6% (existing condition). H. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 30.94% (of net lot area), which includes the existing stable and corral area. No further disturbance is proposed. I. A minimum of four -foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided along the rear of the home, to allow passage around the home. A retaining wall is permitted at a height of 5 -feet maximum (measured from finished grade) as needed to accommodate the path/walkway. J. All existing house walls that are in the front yard setback shall remain structurally intact and not be demolished. Windows may be replaced "in -kind" meaning of the same size opening as existing. K. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modification to this project or to the property, which would constitute additional strcutural development, grading, excavation of dirt and any modification including, but not be limited to retaining walls, drainage devices, pad elevation and any other deviation from the approved plan, shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. Reso. 2016-22 3 Poppy Trail 6 L. 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. M. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. During construction, to maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City. N. 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. 0. 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. P. A minimum of 50% of the construction material spoils shall be recycled and diverted. The hauler shall secure a "Construction and Demolition Permit" from the City of Rolling Hills, and provide the required documentation. Q. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permit. 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. R. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at: http//www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard definitions#FIRE. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. 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. S. All utility lines to the residence shall be placed underground. T. Prior to finaling of the project, an "as constructed" plans and certifications shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Reso. 2016-22 3 Poppy Trail 7 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 "as built/as graded". U. 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 18th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016. HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK BRAD C LF, CHAIR b AN • 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. Reso. 2016-22 3 Poppy Trail 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-22 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO A RESIDENCE WITH RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION, INCLUDING AN AS -BUILT ADDITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES AND A 5 -FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WALL TO ACCOMMODATE A 4 -FOOT WIDE WALKWAY ALONG THE HOME PERIMETER AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH NEW COVERED PORCHES INTO THE FRONT SETBACK, IN ZONING CASE NO. 911 AT 3 POPPY TRAIL, (LOT 8 -PT), ROLLING HILLS, CA (JONAS). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 18, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick, Seabum and Chairman Chelf. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. Reso. 2016-22 3 Poppy Trail CITY CLERK 9 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 5-B Mtg. Date: 11/14/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR (y% THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGERP1 (// SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2016-23. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL, POOL EQUIPMENT AREA, DECKING AND TRELLIS, ROOM ADDITION, GARAGE AND BREEZEWAY AND NEW DRIVEWAY AND MOTOR COURT WITH RELATED GRADING/RETAINING WALLS AND A VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 910, AT 85 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 69 -C -1 -MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (ZEE). 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 applicant, Mr. Tien Zee requested a Site Plan Review to construct a 396 square foot living area addition, new 960 square foot garage connected to the existing home via a new 510 square foot breezeway, 135 square foot attached trellis, new 1,300 square foot swimming pool, 45 square foot pool equipment enclosure and 1,024 square feet pool decking, new 20 -foot wide driveway along the lot front and 3,000 square foot motor court and a total 2,296 cubic yards of grading to accommodate the new driveway and pool, and to export 388 cubic yards of dirt. New maximum 3 -foot high retaining walls are proposed in the area of the new pool equipment enclosure and along the new driveway. An existing 792 square foot garage and existing connecting breezeway will be demolished, and the existing 586 square foot pool and driveway accessed from a common apron will be abandoned (i.e. pool filled in/landscaped and driveway converted to decomposed granite path). A Variance is requested to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area in that proposal will increase disturbance from 32.7% existing disturbance to 55.1% (maximum permitted 40%). The new driveway will have a 30' wide apron where it meets the improved roadway and will then narrow down to 20' in width. The apron must be roughened and the first 20' of the apron/driveway must be no steeper than 7%. The Traffic Commission reviewed the new driveway apron at their July 28, 2016 meeting and recommended approval. 3. The Planning Commission held public hearings to consider the application at their regular meetings on August 16 and September 20, including a field visit on September 20th and directed staff to prepare a Resolution approving the project. On October 18, 2016 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2016-23 by a 4-0 vote, with Chairman Chelf recused due to vicinity of his property to subject site. The resolution contains standard finding of facts and conditions as well as conditions specific to this case: • The applicant shall vegetate all graded areas for erosion control; in addition • The driveway and the driveway wall shall be screened from view from the property across the street (86 Crest Road East), with input from the neighbor. • The portion of the driveway along the east side of the property adjacent to 87 Crest Road East shall also be screened • Any proposed planting in the RHCA easement shall be approve by RHCA • Plants shall not be planted so that their growth would result in a hedge like wall, but must be offset • A drainage plan shall be prepared for the entire site, not just for the construction areas,. and be reviewed and approved by Building Department engineers • A curb or a rubble wall shall be constructed across the existing access onto the subject site from the shared driveway • The existing driveway shall be demolished; and the northern portion, as shown on the Site Plan, shall be landscaped and the remaining resurfaced with D.G. or gravel. The Planning Commission found that the project is not obtrusive, the lot would not appear to be overdeveloped as the addition is in the same area as the existing structures and will be updated; reducing the number of units using the shared access would benefit the neighbors as less cars would be using the shared access; Moving the swimming pool to the rear makes it for a better development and the grading is minimal for the project, with majority of grading being for the improved access. ZC NO. 910 85 Crest E BACKGROUND 5. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 3.13 acres. The net lot area is 2.82. acres, as calculated for development purposes. 6. The property is currently developed with a 4,685 square foot residence, a 792 square foot garage, a 586 square foot swimming pool, a 32 square foot pool equipment area, a 458 square foot stable, a 492 square foot breezeway, a 408 square foot shed, 22 square foot shed and a 418 square foot service yard. The garage and swimming pool will be demolished and a new 960 square foot garage, and a 1,300 square foot swimming pool will be constructed. A 396 square foot addition to the residence is also being proposed. Grading, including for the new driveway, is proposed at 2,296 cubic yards of dirt, of which 388 cubic yards will be exported, and portion used in the rear to enlarge the existing building pad for the pool area. 7. Records indicate that in 1969 a variance was approved to build a 458 square foot stable with a 698 square foot corral in the front yard. The applicant proposes to abandon the existing driveway and construct a new one off of Crest Road East. Currently access to the property is taken from a common driveway apron mostly located on the adjacent property at 63 Crest Rd. E. and partially on 85 Crest Rd. E. This driveway apron flares out into driveways to several properties to the south. The driveway to the subject property turns to the east of the common apron and is then located entirely on 85 Crest E. The existing driveway ranges in width from 10'-15' and it travels along and around the entire rear property before accessing the existing garage. The new driveway will be constructed on the subject property, adjacent to the common apron, and will follow along the front (north) and east side of the lot. The new driveway will have a 30' wide apron where it meets the improved roadway and will then narrow down to 20' in width. The apron must be roughened and the first 20' of the apron/driveway will be no steeper than 7% slope. The existing driveway will be closed off at the property line, leaving the shared apron of off Crest Road East intact for use by the properties to the south. The applicant proposes to retain the existing driveway on their property but demolish the asphalt and change the surface to decomposed granite, which is considered softscape surface (pervious). Concerns were expressed by the resident at 63 Crest Road East regarding the proximity of the new driveway apron to the existing shared apron; the impact of drainage on the shared driveway once the owners' driveway is converted to D.G.; stability of the slope behind (west of) the existing driveway and its impact on the neighboring shared driveway, if the asphalt is removed. The Planning Commission expressed that the proposed project would benefit everyone and with grading soils report will be required. They also required that a drainage plan be prepared for the entire site. ZC NO. 910 85 Crest E e A letter was also received from the neighbor at 87 Crest Road East expressing concerns about the proximity of the proposed driveway to their residence. The applicant's representatives met with the resident at 87 Crest Road and the neighbor was present at the field trip where his concerns were adequately addressed. A neighbor across the street submitted a letter regarding the visibility of a portion of the new driveway from his driveway. With the condition to screen the driveway, the neighbor's concern was addressed. Enclosed with this report is the correspondence received from the neighbors. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 8. The project's disturbed area is currently 32.7%. The proposed disturbed area will increase due to the disturbance for the new driveway, the pool, and yard areas to 67,694 square feet or 55.1% of the net lot area, which requires a variance. 388 cubic yards of dirt from the pool will be exported. The applicant's agents advise that the proposed residential addition and garage demolition/construction will be on a previously constructed pad where little to no grading will be required. The existing pool will be demolished and will be filed in and become a grass and landscaped area. The proposed pool will be located partially on a previously disturbed area and partially on a newly disturbed area and will require some grading and excavation for the pool. A 3' high wall to enclose a 45 square foot pool equipment area is also proposed in hillside near the pool. 9. The structural coverage on the lot will be 8,750 square feet or 7.1% and the total coverage (structures and hardscape) will be 24,009 square feet or 19.6%, both in compliance with the code. 10. The 396 square foot addition to the existing 4,685 square foot residence will result in a 5,081 square foot house. The residential building pad will increase by 1,908 square feet and with the addition the coverage on this pad will be 8,615 square feet or 20.7%. 11. All of the existing and proposed structures will be located outside of setbacks. As disturbance exceeds 40%, a variance is needed but otherwise all are compliant with the Municipal Code. The project does not qualify for allowance for greater disturbance, as more than half of the slopes (mostly for the driveway) will be steeper than 3:1 gradient. 12. The existing driveway will be relocated and the new driveway will be 20' wide to comply with Fire Department requirements. 3' high maximum retaining wall is proposed along the perimeter of the driveway leading to a 3,000 square foot motor court area. The Traffic Commission recommended approval of the driveway apron on July 28, 2016. ZC NO. 910 85 Crest E 13. Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. 14. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission considers the criteria for Site Plan Review and Variances listed below. 15. In justifying the variance, the applicant's agent states that much of the grading and disturbance is for the driveway, which will be much safer than what is there now. The existing driveway does not meet Fire Dept. requirements and is very long and winding. In order to minimize export of dirt, thus limit the number of trucks on site and in the City, some of the dirt will be placed in the rear on an existing gently sloping area to create a slightly larger flat area for use by the pool. The resulting slope will not exceed 6:1 gradient. 16. This project will be required to comply with all zoning requirements, including among others, undergrounding of utility lines, Health Department requirements for a septic system, Fire Department for access and fuel modification. 17. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 3. ZONING CASE NO. 910 SITE PLAN REVIEW/ VR EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, GARAGE, STABLE, POOL ADDITION TO RESIDENCE, NEW GARAGE, POOL, POOL EQUIPMENT, SERVICE YARD, ADDITION TO BREEZEWAY, COVERED PORCH & DRWY Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from side property line Rear: 50 ft. from rear property line SPR required for grading, pool, and Residence Garage Swimming Pool Pool equip. Stable Service yard Breezeway Attch porches Attached trellis Shed Shed 4,685 sq.ft. 792 sq.ft. 586 sq.ft. 32 sq.ft. 458 sq.ft. 418 sq.ft. 492 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 22 sq.ft. 408 sq. ft. Residence Garage Swimming Pool Pool equip. Stable Service yard Breezeway Attch porches Attached trellis Shed Shed 5,081 sq.ft. 960 sq.ft. 1,300 sq.ft. 45 sq.ft. 458 scj.ft. 96 sq.ft. 510 sq.ft. 165 sq.ft. 135 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sic .ft. driveway. Variance is required for exceeding disturbed area. TOTAL 7,893 sq.ft. TOTAL 8,750 sic .ft. GRADING N/ A 1,342 c.y. cut & 954 c.y. fill 388 c.y. to be exported 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 sf. STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 6.08% 7.1% of 122,743 s.f. net lot area ZC NO. 910 85 Crest E (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 21.6 % 19.6% of 122,743 s.f. net lot area (less, due to changing out asphalt to D.G.) (35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% 18.83% of 39,630.ft. pad 20.7% of 41,538 sq.ft. pad maximum -guideline) Residential DISTURBED AREA 27.06% or 40,178 sq. ft. (122,743 sq. ft. net lot area) 55.1% or 67,694 sq.ft. (122,743 sq. ft. net lot area) (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. 458 sq.ft. existing w/corral 458 sq.ft. existing w/corral & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS Existing Existing ROADWAY ACCESS Existing driveway approach New 20' wide drwy VIEWS N/A Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission review ZC NO. 910 85 Crest E 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. 910 85 Crest E 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.. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC NO. 910 85 Crest E RECEIVED From: Tony Wang <wangtonyk@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 1:47 PM To: Yolanta Schwartz Subject: Objection to the proposed new driveway and the new grading of 85 Crest Road East Dear Planning Commission Members and Yolanda, SEP 14 2016 City of Rolling Hills By We are the owners of the house at 86 Crest Road East, right across from 85 Crest Road East. We oppose the proposed new driveway and the new grading of 85 Crest Road East. The new driveway will affect our view from our front entry door and the front yard tremendously. Currently, we have a view of rural green pasture scenery which is the reason that we move to RH in the first place. With the proposed change, we will be looking at a long driveway and a long stretch of retaining wall. The proposed new driveway no doubt will enhance the property value of 85 Crest Road East, but will be at a very big expense of our home at 86 Crest Road East. We would like to invite the Planning Commission and all interested parties to take a look at the silhouette from the front yard and the front entry door of our house during your upcoming field visit on September 20. When you take a look from the side of our property, you will understand our viewpoint. Please feel free to walk around our front yard, even we'll be out of town on the 20th. Thank you in advance to take a look on this matter. Sincerely, Vivian & Tony Wang 86 Crest Road East THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ' Tuesday, August 9, 2016: :03:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: 85 Crest East Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:00:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Nina Ritter To: Wendy Starks CC: Yolanta Schwartz, Rhca Kristen Raig - �9yI(, - I ahl-acllta /- C-3 . Wendy, Yolanta asked me to address my letter to the Planning Commission and said she would be out of the office today but that my letter needed to be received today and to send it to you. In addition to this letter there are several attachments I would ask that you include: i) Zee's plans which I was sent ii) color coded copy of my survey showing the corner where 63 Crest and 85 crest meet iii) 3 aerial photographs of area under discussion Dear Planning Commission: I am writing to you about the proposed project at 85 Crest Rd. East. I have been out of town since mid - June and was not aware of this project (though I am sent all my mail) until the beginning of this week. It's taken me a few days to attempt to educate myself so excuse me if I've not properly understood something. I will not be back in town until Sept. so cannot attend any of the meetings myself. I will try to make my concerns brief. 1) as I understand it, the Stringbergs (87 Crest E.) objected to the new proposed driveway at 85 Crest E. being close to their property so the Zees moved the entrance to the west side of the property. While I sympathize with the Strindberg's concerns (and appreciate the Zee's cooperation) we currently have 8 families (and all the attendant cars and trucks) entering and exiting from the access road situated at the western side of the Zees' property at an angle that can be dangerous enough as it is. Currently, these cars are funneled onto one road before entering onto the faster flowing Crest Rd. Adding yet a separate driveway onto Crest Rd.-- right next to this access road exit for 7 homes-- is questionable in my mind. Has the Commission considering asking the Zees to more appropriately move the driveway to the center of their property to maximize safety for all the neighbors concerned? This is an unusual situation where there are not just 2 neighbors flanking a third, but in fact in the present case, 8 homes total flank 85 Crest Rd. E. This unusual situation deserves more than the usual scrutiny as to safety. 2) Another important concern is the original driveway. Neither the original driveway nor the topographical aspects appear on the plan I was given (see below). In my experience plans submitted for approval always include proposed improvements superimposed on the current "as builts" with topographical references included. The Zees appear to propose the removal from the site of tons of asphalt currently used to pave the present, steep driveway and replace it with decomposed granite. While 1 appreciate this will lower their hardscape numbers I find the details of how this is to be achieved, crucial to both my property and the access road of my neighbors. The (original & present) 85 Crest E. asphalt driveway is very long. It's on steep grade leading down onto an asphalt apron at the property line of 85 Crest E. & 63 Crest E. and then onto the asphalt access road which runs along the 63 Crest Rd. property and which is used as a common entrance and exit for all the properties to the south of us, out onto Crest Rd. Without retaining walls or asphalt to hold it back, that prevents thousands of tons of new decomposed granite from running down the hillside onto the access road/apron, and/or down my own driveway/hillside and/or into Crest Rd: - Page 1 of 2 either when it starts raining or settling over the years? While Yolanta explained that engineering issues come after the Planning Commission process, in this particular case why would that would be so? For example, the safety issues involved in moving the driveway were examined before the Planning Commission vote of approval, I am not clear why such an important issue as removing tons of asphalt from a site and the question of the retainment and drainage of an entire hillside affecting many neighbors would not also be part of Planning Commission's consideration of safety before approval? Furthermore, I assume your approval of this project rests on consideration of the balance of hardscape/improvement on the property. How can you approve a new motor court and larger pool area (i.e. increase the hardscape elsewhere on the property) without considering that the Zee's may be seriously ignoring a vital part of the equation they are proposing to you? How can you safely consider this project without considering the realities and practicalities of how it is actually going to be achieved on the property since it's not addressed on the plans? This is a long driveway which circles the steepest grade of the property which is at the highest point of Rolling Hills. I'm not an engineer but I have to assume this asphalt driveway girdles the hillside to some important extent. The wisdom of replacing it with sand on a steep hillside in an area such as ours —without further investigation-- would appear to defy common sense. Even aside from asking for engineering at this stage: Where is the decomposed granite beginning and ending exactly both in length and width? Retaining walls? Aprons? needed to hold in the decomposed granite to keep it from liquifying flowing downwards? Would these structures be considered hardscape were they to be properly included in your considerahbn? Moreover, if you approve this plan and it is later decided due to engineering issues the driveway/asphalt should not be removed, then what happens to the increased hardscape you have already approved on the property? Do the Zee's get to proceed even though they will have doubly maxed the hardscape on their property? Do they have to go back to the drawing board and completely redo their plans for a Motorcourt and larger pool area? Wouldn't it be better for all involved to tackle this issue head on, now? That is a very long driveway. That is a steep, large hillside important to several RH homes. That is a lot of asphalt. That could be a lot of grading, drainage, soils engineering. I don't see the wisdom of pretending it will go away somewhere between Planning Commission and the Building Department. I thank you for your consideration, and as always, the great staff of Rolling Hills who are helping us puzzle this all out. Respectfully, Nina Ritter 63 Crest E. 310-283-5125 Page 2 of 2 l A S / r — Or in. i i"G3TMar ry fi eir N sr ,/kc Es s 204 b a. Y ro taw PTTA' O At S _esSIZEP itif Dirt beget 'De L. MK1 GOA1kA R'R' 4 Dot ill tria-V 1 ifty or a SCALE r a It :1.•r 1 sapuan soled oyouea ise3 . 51191 6u!110)3•.o saIe6uy soi . V3 . seleIS pal!un . PPM 85 Crest East Proposed driveway C ei • - enhet ;Ire pepe+edaMray - t ." l ti.. N _ w h' •� wi'• +.�• w � w 4 f '. • • e .i *� ., a' T'SIA N I4 •..., C .: ,_t_�.` Why not more safely J 7 families use this Access Road & locate new driveway to have to turn out here. They are coming the center of approx. up a grade and cannot see oncoming traffic here? RECEIVEf JUL 2 5 2016 City of Rolling Hills By /o 774t , 4 3 eA5, ,,t4F-e_e_Le-e-,(75eg art‘t-P°4A*M V>7 v?) ntszt_otp-et kwq,,ae-z-tt—A- (A f}teratte,( e v-- �I/•r" 6 - 1 a 8C C /ee° t- c _ ��,�',e /tip ,&L v' e t -� aL e CA, C c d to CAZ Q -f 0-9p-61- DG A', TS 1 s r l 7 PIL Ce7a4i -7 3/a a4 RECEIVED AUG 15 2016 City of Rolling Hills By ZC No. 910 85 Crest Road East On 8/15/16, 2:13 PM, "Tony Wang" <wangtonyk@gmail.com> wrote: I have few questions on the construction of a new driveway of the subject property: 1. Is the new driveway replacing the existing riding trail leading to the stable? What will happen to the stable and the trail? 2. Will the grading change to accommodate the new driveway affect the rain drain towards the Crest Road East? 3. What will happen to Crest Road's traffic during construction? Will one of the lane on Crest Road East be closed? Thank you for your help! Tony Wang (86 Crest Road East) 310-989-7878 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL, POOL EQUIPMENT AREA, DECKING AND TRELLIS, ROOM ADDITION, GARAGE AND BREEZEWAY AND NEW DRIVEWAY AND MOTOR COURT WITH RELATED GRADING/RETAINING WALLS AND A VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 910, AT 85 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 69 -C -1 -MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (ZEE). 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. Tien Zee with respect to real property located at 85 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills (Lot 69 -C -1 -MS) requesting a Site Plan Review to construct a 396 square foot living area addition, new 960 square foot garage connected to the existing home via a new 510 square foot breezeway, 135 square foot attached trellis, new 1,300 square foot swimming pool, 45 square foot pool equipment enclosure and 1,024 square feet pool decking, new 20 -foot wide driveway along the lot front and 3,000 square foot motor court and a total 2,296 cubic yards of grading to accommodate the new driveway and pool, and including 388 cubic yards to be exported. New maximum 3 -foot high retaining walls are proposed in the area of the new pool equipment enclosure and along the new driveway. An existing 792 square foot garage and existing connecting breezeway will be demolished, and the existing 586 square foot pool and driveway accessed from a common apron will be abandoned (i.e. pool filled in/landscaped and driveway converted to decomposed granite path). A Variance is requested to exceed the maximum' permitted disturbed area in that proposal will increase this area from 32.7% existing disturbance to 55.1% (maximum permitted 40%). Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at their regular meetings on August 16 and September 20, including a field visit also on September 20th. Neighbors within 1,000 -foot radius were notified of the public hearings and notices were published in the Peninsula News on September 8, 2016. The applicant and his agents were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and the applicant's agents were in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff. The Planning Commission has reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. During the public hearings neighbors expressed concerns regarding screening of the proposed driveway wall, visible from Crest Road, drainage of the lot, proximity of the proposed driveway apron to the existing shared driveway apron, stability of the slope once the asphalt driveway is removed and converted to D.G. surface, erosion control and drainage of the D.G. 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 1 surface. The concerns have been addressed by conditions of approval incorporated into this Resolution. Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-2. The gross lot area excluding the roadway easement is 3.3 acres and for development purposes the net lot area is 122,743 square feet or 2.81 acres. Section 4. The request for new driveway apron coming off Crest Road E. was reviewed and recommended by the Rolling Hills Traffic Commission at its meeting of July 28, 2016. Neighbor concerns expressed at public meetings regarding possible visual impacts of new walls proposed for the new driveway have been satisfactorily addressed during the public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission through incorporation of a condition of approval for new landscaping. Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303) in in that the project is a proposed construction of minor addition and alteration of an existing single-family residence, and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 6. Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section Chapter 17.46 contains Site Plan Review regulations. Under Section 17.46.020, a development plan shall be submitted for Site Plan Review for the proposed swimming pool and grading and addition of over 999 square feet. With respect to the Site Plan Review application for these improvements, 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 structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures and maintaining sufficient setbacks and proposed landscaping to provide buffers between residential uses. The project is situated on a large, but topographically constrained site; with the added development, however, the lot would not appear to be overdeveloped. The existing driveway presents significant access challenges due to a number of physical factors including reliance on a common driveway apron located on the adjacent property and shared with other properties, narrow width (10 to 15 feet), steep slope, and unusual length, wrapping around approximately two-thirds of the property from Crest Road to the private garage. The proposed new driveway, while requiring new grading mainly at the front of the lot, has several positive and mitigating results in that it will eliminate reliance upon a shared apron, be widened to meet Fire Department standards, will comply with all current zoning standards and its location, following Crest Road at the lot front has a significantly shorter and more efficient travel distance to the garage and proposed motor court. In addition, new landscaping will be added to screen the view from Crest Road of a maximum 3 -foot tall retaining wall that supports the new driveway. The existing driveway will be closed off at the apron, asphalt removed and replaced with a pervious, decomposed granite (D.G.) material 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 2 and a portion will be replaced with landscaping. Concerns about potential erosion due to the existing driveway conversion and location of the new driveway have been addressed by a condition that requires submittal of a site -wide drainage plan for review and approval concurrent with checking of construction plans for building permit plan -check. The proposed swimming pool requires minor grading at the rear of the lot and will require a modest expansion of disturbed lot area. The location at the rear is suitable in that it will be shielded by the home on one side and hillside on other sides. The location of the pool equipment is also suitable in that it will be outside of the side and rear setbacks, and will be recessed into the hillside which will assist in buffering sound if any, emanating from it. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and modestly developed condition of the lot in that the addition to the existing enclosed building area will be relatively small, thereby minimizing building coverage. The topography and the configuration of the lot, have been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures, because the proposed project will be constructed largely on an existing building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with vegetation, is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. The lot will not be built up or raised to accommodate the development (except a minor amount for the proposed pool), but will utilize to the maximum extent practicable the existing topography. The grading for the driveway, while modifying the existing topography at the front of the lot, requires modest height (3 -feet maximum) retaining walls, the view of which will be mitigated by new landscaping. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in the vicinity of said lot. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped and some areas will have existing improvements abandoned or converted to more passive uses (existing pool to be filled in and landscaped and existing driveway to be converted to pathway with pervious surface). The proposed driveway will be screened at the front from Crest Road by new landscaping, and the new pool will be screened at the rear by the existing residence and rear hillside. D. The development plan will introduce additional landscaping, which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and the landscaping will provide a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the project will capture all resident and visitor parking on -site with guest parking spaces accommodated in the proposed motor court and in the new 4 -car garage. The new driveway and apron will conform to all the existing standards including, but not necessarily limited to width and slope and will decrease 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 3 the number of properties relying upon the existing shared apron, thereby enhancing public safety. Section 7. Chapter 17.38 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code contains regulations authorizing approval of Variances, for the purpose of granting relief from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity or zone. The project requests a Variance from Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.16.070 in that the disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be increased from 32.7% to 55.1%, in excess of 40% permitted disturbance. With respect to the Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions on the subject property as follows: The property is uniquely constrained by the steep topography especially at the lot's front and east side, and this in turn has an influence on siting the proposed driveway and new apron. The proposed additional disturbance to provide a slightly larger building pad for the pool and to a larger degree, to construct the new driveway, is warranted because of the significant improvement in resulting site access. To the maximum extent practicable, given topography and existing degree of disturbance (32.7%) the proposed development blends with existing conditions. B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question by strict application of the code. The property right which would otherwise not be enjoyed is the ability to efficiently and safely access one's property, while complying with all applicable fire, and building codes and without substantially changing the existing topography and configuration of the lot. C. The granting of the Variances 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 in that the proposed reconfigured driveway access increases safety to the property. Additionally, the improvements to the property will not be easily viewed from adjacent properties, and the street and visual impacts are minor given the addition of screening vegetation to new walls. To the maximum extent practicable the proposed development works within and follows the existing conditions on the lot and therefore will not be materially or otherwise detrimental to the public. The project is not expected to negatively impact property values in that neighboring views would not be affected. D. In granting the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed in that the proposed driveway, retaining walls, and the new residential construction will be orderly, attractive, and will be buffered with landscaping and a wall of a relatively low height, to ensure it will not affect the rural character of the community. The subject property 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 maintains a suitable stable and corral, which will not be affected by the proposed development. E. The Variance request is consistent with the General Plan df 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. F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed development will provide a new driveway approach, that will comply with the Fire Code requirements so as to better accommodate emergency vehicles. Further the construction of a new motor court and garage will accommodate site visitors on private property without need for cars to park in the roadway easements. G. The Variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waster Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Zoning Case No. 910 requesting a Site Plan Review for living area and garage additions, breezeway, trellis, swimming pool and pool equipment enclosure, pool decking, new driveway along the lot front, motor court and grading to accommodate a new driveway and pool and a Variance, allowing the applicant to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area from 32.7% to 55.1%, subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan and Variance approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080 and 17.38.070, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. It is declared and made a condition of this approval that if any condition of this Resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by this Resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the violation. The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee's determination that a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for which the agenda has not yet been posted. The Applicant shall be provided written notice of the hearing. The stop work notice shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not been cured, the Council shall provide the Applicant 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 with a deadline by which to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on the property until and unless the violation is cured by the deadline, other than work designated by the Council to accomplish the cure. If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at the Applicant's request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by the resolution pursuant to Chapter 17.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). C. All requirements of the Buildings 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 this permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated August 10, 2016 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the approved development plan. All conditions of the Site Plan Review and Variance approvals shall be incorporated into the building permit working drawings and where applicable complied with prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the building department. The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto building plans submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times. E. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to the Building and Safety Department for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. F. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. Certificate forms for both plan preparation and construction work compliance may be obtained from the City of Rolling Hills. G. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 8,750 square feet or 7.13% of the net lot area in conformance with lot coverage limitations (20% maximum). The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork, including new driveway and motor court, shall not exceed 24,009 square feet or 19.6% of the net lot area. H. Grading for this project shall consist of 2,296 cubic yards (cy) total, including 1,342 cy of cut, 954 cy fill and 388 cy to be exported. The disturbed area of the lot, shall not exceed 55.1% as proposed. 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 I. The residential building pad shall be 41,538 square feet and will have coverage not to exceed 8,615 square feet, or 20.7%. J. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Lighting Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills (RHMC 17.16.190 E), pertaining to lighting on said property, roofing and material requirements of properties in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. K. All utility lines to the development shall be placed underground, subject to all applicable standards and requirements. L. A drainage plan shall be prepared for the entire site (not just construction areas) and approved by City Engineer prior to issuance of a construction permit. Such drainage plan shall be subject to LA County Code requirements. M. Prior to obtaining a grading permit a landscaping plan shall be submitted to the City that shall provide as follows: a) Planting of new vegetation on all graded slopes in conformance with Fire Department Fuel Modification requirements and for erosion control; b) Planting of new vegetation to screen the view of the new driveway along the site front including the retaining wall from view of the neighbor across at 86 Crest Rd. E. and the Applicant shall provide an opportunity for said neighbor to review the plan and provide constructive input in advance of submittal to the City; c) Planting of new vegetation to screen the view of the new driveway along the east side from the adjoining residence; d) Planting for the new pool and pool equipment area with landscape screening; e) As shown on the approved Site Plan, demolition of the existing asphalt driveway and improvement of the northern section with landscaping with vegetation with the remaining section to be resurfaced with decomposed granite, gravel or similar pervious/decorative material; f) Construction of a rubble wall across the accessway from the shared driveway onto the subject site (thereby blocking car access to the area of the former driveway that in the past relied on a shared driveway); g) Any trees and shrubs shall be planted in an offset manner, such that they do not form a hedge like screen and shall be of a height, which shall not at any time grow into other nearby residents' views; h) To the maximum extent feasible, plants shall be utilized that are native to the area and are consistent with the rural character of the community. N. If landscaping of 5,000 square foot area or greater is introduced or redeveloped as part of the subject project, the landscaping plan shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. O. Any proposed landscaping within the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) easement shall be reviewed and approved by the RI-ICA. 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 P. Per the Los Angeles County Building Code, a pool barrier/fencing shall be required. The swimming pool equipment shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. Q. The entire roadway easement line and the east side setback line in the vicinity of the construction for this project shall remain staked throughout the construction. A construction fence may be required. R. • The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permit. 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 RHCA. S. A minimum of 50% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain from the City a "Construction and Demolition Permit" prior to start of work, and provide the appropriate documentation to the City. T. 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. U. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at: http;//www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard definitions#FIRE. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. 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. V. During construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby unimproved roadway easement adjacent to subject site. There shall be no blocking of adjacent driveways or of the roadway easement for passage of pedestrians and equestrians. During construction a flagmen shall be used to direct traffic when it is anticipated that a lane may be impeded. W. 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) as applicable. Further the 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 property owners shall be required to conform to the County Health Department requirements for a septic system. X. Prior to final inspection of the project, "as graded" and "as constructed" plans and certifications shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed project is in compliance with the Planning Commission approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during construction, shall be depicted on.the "as built/as graded" plan. Y. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. The affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution. PASSED, D ADOPTED THIS 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016. CHE F, C ATTEST: cycit HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. • 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-23 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL, POOL EQUIPMENT AREA, DECKING AND TRELLIS, ROOM ADDITION, GARAGE AND BREEZEWAY AND NEW DRIVEWAY AND MOTOR COURT WITH RELATED GRADING/RETAINING WALLS AND A VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMIT 1"ED DISTURBED AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 910, AT 85 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 69 -C -1 -MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (ZEE). was approved and adopted at regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 18, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Kirkpatrick, Seaburn and Vice Chairman Gray. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Chairman Chelf (recused). and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices HE DI LUCE, CITY CLERK 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 ]0 8(4 Resat gal 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: 11/14/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR NATALIE C. KARPELES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTOR EY SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 1195 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING THE APPEALS OF DR. AND MRS. STEPHEN NUCCION AND MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM HASSOLDT, AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS BY DECLARING THAT SPECIFIC TREES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD HAVE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT TO THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND SETTING FORTH RESTORATIVE ACTION TO ABATE THE IMPAIRMENT. DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2016 ATTACHMENT: Resolution No. 1195 BACKGROUND The City Council has been presented with two timely appeals of Resolution No. 2015-03 CTV, adopted by the Committee on Trees and Views ("CTV") adopted on October 7, 2015. Mr. and Mrs. Hassoldt filed an appeal on the basis that: (1) the Nuccions have not established by clear and convincing evidence, or at all, the existence of a protected view over 15 Portuguese Bend Road; (2) there was no view from 18 Portuguese Bend Road prior to April 2009; and (3) each of the trees subject to the Nuccions' complaint are exempt because they were mature on April 22, 2009. The appeal submitted by Dr. and Mrs. Nuccion declared that: (1) the CTV 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 (2) the CTV abused its discretion by O 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 (therefore the decision of the CTV to render those trees mature is not supported by substantial evidence). On October 24, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to conclusively determine the extent of the Nuccions' view as it existed in April of 2009. Evidence was presented from all interested persons, and included the original complaint filed by the Nuccions; the October 15, 2015 declaration of Mr. Martin Jimenez; email exchanges between the Hassoldts and the Nuccions; photographs received by the City on April 25, 2016; the arborist reports of Mr. Dane Shota, Mr. William McKinley, and Mr. David De la Torre; a photometric analysis prepared by Ms. Anastasia Kostiuk; the metadata of the photos submitted along with a summary of said photos, provided by Mr. Weinberg; correspondence submitted by Mr. Weinberg including the declarations of Stephen Nuccion, Diana Nuccion, Margaret Schmit, Suzanne Sussman, Keith Kelley, Karina Santana, Yasmine Ryan, Sean Cardenas, James C. Roberts III, and Lianne Koeberle; and correspondence submitted by Mr. Light, including the declaration of Mr. Ruben M. Green. The Council also heard testimony from Mrs. Hassoldt, Mrs. Nuccion, Mr. Light, Mr. Weinberg and Mr. Green. Based on the evidence the City Council directed that staff return with a resolution memorializing its findings and upholding the decision of the Committee on Trees and Views. The Council's findings and directions (setting forth the restorative measures necessitated by said impairment) are expressed in further detail in Resolution No.1195, attached hereto. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that, after careful consideration of the facts and confirmation of the accuracy of the enumerated findings, the City Council adopt: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING THE APPEALS OF DR. AND MRS. STEPHEN NUCCION AND MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM HASSOLDT, AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMIT I'EE ON TREES AND VIEWS BY DECLARING THAT SPECIFIC TREES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD HAVE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT TO THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND SETTING FORTH RESTORATIVE ACTION TO ABATE THE IMPAIRMENT. RESOLUTION NO. 1195 A RESOLUTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEALS OF DR. AND MRS. STEPHEN NUCCION AND MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM HASSOLDT AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS BY DECLARING THAT SPECIFIC TREES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD HAVE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT TO THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND SETTING FORTH RESTORATIVE ACTION TO ABATE THE IMPAIRMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City's View Preservation Ordinance was enacted in June 1988. The ordinance established preservation of views to be of primary value to the community and created a process by which a property owner could seek to restore a view obstructed by landscaping. In March 2013, the Rolling Hills electorate passed an initiative entitled Measure B amending the 1988 View Preservation Ordinance. The principal effect of Measure B was to shift the application of the Ordinance from protecting views that are capable of being enjoyed from a property to views that were actually enjoyed from a property when the property owner first acquired the property. In particular, the initiative amended the View Preservation Ordinance as follows: • Protecting only those views which existed when the current property owner acquired ownership of the property; • Limiting the protection of the ordinance to views obstructed by "maturing" vegetation (thereby excluding views obstructed by trees that were "mature" at the time of the property acquisition); and • Restoring views from "view corridors," and "views through trees." Section 2. On April 24, 2014, Dr. and Mrs. Stephen Nuccion, the owners of the property located at 18 Portuguese Bend Road ("Nuccions"), filed a View Impairment Complaint ("Complaint") against trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road, a property owned by Mr. and Mrs. William Hassoldt ("Hassoldts"). The Complaint alleged that at the time the Nuccions purchased their property in April of 2009 they enjoyed a panoramic view of the Santa Monica Mountains, Mount Baldy and the City lights to the north of Rolling Hills and that since 2012 the Hassoldts had failed to maintain the trees located upon their property such that the view from 18 Portuguese Bend Road was significantly impaired. Pursuant to the Complaint, the Nuccions requested that their view be restored to the condition that it was in during April of 2009. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code 17.26.040(B), the Complaint was referred to a mediator and both parties engaged in mediation; the mediation was unsuccessful. The Nuccions thereafter applied to the City's Committee on Trees and Views ("CTV") in order to resolve the Complaint. By the end of December 2014, City staff had informed the Nuccions that their application was incomplete and requested additional information; this information was not provided to the City until February 4, 2015. Resolution No. 1195 -1- After several postponements, duly noticed public hearings (per Rolling Hills Municipal Code Sections 17.26.040(C) and 17.26.050(A) -(B)) were conducted before the CTV on March 17, 2015, April 21, 2015, May 14, 2015, July 7, 2015, July 21, 2015 and September 22,. 2015. Additionally, the CTV attended a duly noticed field trip to both the 15 and 18 Portuguese Bend Road properties on April 21, 2015. At each of the aforementioned meetings, evidence was received from all persons interested in the matter and from members of the City staff. The CTV reviewed, analyzed and studied the evidence submitted. At its July 7, 2015 meeting, the CTV determined that it did not have sufficient evidence to determine whether the trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road that are the subject of this Complaint ("Obstructing Trees") were mature in April of 2009 and directed the City to retain a certified arborist to provide an opinion as to the maturity of the Obstructing Trees. The City conducted a request for proposals and selected David de la Torre as the independent arborist. Mr. De La Torre concluded that of the 11 trees at issue, only two (trees #4A and #7) were not mature in 2009 and would therefore be eligible for remediation under Measure B. Notwithstanding the report of Mr. De La Torre, the historical photographs in ROLLING HILLS The Early Years, by A.E. Hanson (1978), in addition to other substantial evidence in the record, indicated that of the 11 Obstructing Trees, only trees #9 and #9A were mature when the Nuccions acquired their property in 2009, thereby rendering the remaining nine (9) Obstructing Trees eligible for remediation under Measure B. Ultimately, the CTV found that: (1) a view as defined in the Municipal Code existed from 18 Portuguese Bend Road when the Nuccions acquired the property in 2009; (2) the view from the Nuccions' property is significantly impaired because 11 trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road impair the view of the City lights from the Designated Viewing Areas; and (3) restorative action on the nine (9) Obstructing Trees is necessary to abate the view impairment by creating view corridors and views through the trees. To this effect, the CTV adopted Resolution No. 2015-03-CTV on October 7, 2015. On October 27, 2015, the Hassoldts filed an appeal of the CTV's decision to the City Council contesting the CTV's determination that the nine (9) Obstructing Trees were not mature in 2009. Specifically, in their appeal the Hassoldts asserted that: (1) the Nuccions have not established by clear and convincing evidence, or at all, the existence of a protected view over 15 Portuguese Bend Road; (2) there was no view from 18 Portuguese Bend Road prior to April 2009; and (3) each of the trees subject to the Nuccions' complaint are exempt because they were mature on April 22, 2009. Also on October 27, 2015, the Nuccions filed an appeal of the CTV's decision to the City Council contesting the CTV's determination that trees #9 and #9A were mature in 2009 and ineligible for remediation under Measure B; a determination that the Nuccions claim arose out of the CTV's unsupported and unsubstantiated decision to reject one arborist's report over another. Both appeals were timely filed pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code section 17.26.050(G) and the provisions of Chapter 17.54. At the November 23, 2015 City Council meeting, City staff provided an overview of the case and the evidence for the Council's consideration. Thereafter, the Council heard public testimony and concluded the meeting by scheduling a field trip to both properties, which after several postponements was held on March 21, 2016. At the field trip, the City Council determined that the Nuccions had a view (as defined by Rolling Hills Municipal Code section 17.12.220), which could be observed from the living room at the north side of the residence and a patio/pool deck area immediately adjacent thereto along the northern side of the residence. At the April 25, 2016 City Council meeting, the Council was provided with aerial photographs of both properties, a list of the Obstructing Trees, tree measurements and calculations extrapolating the age of Resolution No. 1195 -2- the Obstructing Trees and their heights in 2010 (provided by Mr. Howard Weinberg, attorney for the Nuccions), a photometric analysis to determine the height of the trees in 2010 (prepared by Ms. Anastasia Kostiuk, a 3D Engineer, on behalf of the Nuccions), and a declaration provided by Mr. Brandon Gill (an arborist hired on behalf of the Nuccions). The Council also heard testimony from Mr. Ruben Green, a Registered Consulting Arborist (hired by the Hassoldts); Mrs. Diana Nuccion; Mr. Howard Weinberg; and Mr. Hal Light with regard to the maturity of the Obstructing Trees. At the conclusion of the public hearing, and after considerable deliberation, the City Council concluded on the basis of the evidence that the Nuccions had a view when they acquired their property; that only two of the Obstructing Trees were mature in 2009. The City Council then directed staff to return with a resolution declaring that the view from 18 Portuguese Bend Road is significantly impaired by the nine identified immature trees located on 15 Portuguese Bend Road, and setting forth restorative action to abate the impairment. In the course of implementing that direction, the City Attorney and staff determined that it would be beneficial to introduce an intermediate step in the process in order to assure that the findings placed into the resolution were consistent with the Council's direction and with the requirements of the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. Consequently, a meeting was scheduled for June 13, 2016. In anticipation of the June 13, 2016 City Council meeting, staff prepared a report outlining all of the evidence presented to date relating to the extent of the view which existed from the Nuccions' property in April of 2009 and presented three options for the City Council to consider: (1) reaffirm its direction from April 25, 2016 and direct staff to return with a resolution upholding the CTV's October 7, 2015 decision; (2) re -open the public hearing after public notice and schedule another hearing; or (3) provide alternative direction to staff. During the course of the June 13, 2016 meeting, the Nuccions proferred additional evidence which had not been submitted during the hearing. In order to lawfully consider such additional evidence, the Council moved to reopen the public hearing for the limited purpose of considering the issue of whether a view existed at the time the Nuccions' acquired their property. The Council further instructed the Nuccions to submit digital copies (including the metadata) of all photographs that had been submitted in support of the view impairment complaint, and instructed both parties to submit any and all additional evidence for the Council's consideration. Section 3. On October 24, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing (Rolling Hills Municipal Code Sections 17.26.040(C) and 17.26.050(A) -(B)) to conclusively determine the extent of the Nuccions' view as it existed in April of 2009. Evidence was presented by all interested persons, including the Complainants; the October 15, 2015 declaration of Mr. Martin Jimenez; email exchanges between the Hassoldts and the Nuccions; the photographs received by the City on April 25, 2016; the arborist reports of Mr. Dane Shota, Mr. William McKinley, and Mr. David De la Torre; the photometric analysis prepared by Ms. Anastasia Kostiuk; the metadata of the photos submitted along with a summary of said photos, provided by Mr. Weinberg; correspondence submitted by Mr. Weinberg including the declarations of Stephen Nuccion, Diana Nuccion, Margaret Schmit, Suzanne Sussman, Keith Kelley, Karina Santana, Yasmine Ryan, Sean Cardenas, James C. Roberts III, and Lianne Koeberle; and correspondence submitted by Mr. Light, including the declaration of Mr. Ruben M. Green. The Council also heard testimony from Mrs. Hassoldt, Mrs. Nuccion, Mr. Light, Mr. Weinberg and Dr. Nuccion. This evidence was fully considered by the City Council, whose findings are expressed in further detail below. Resolution No. 1195 -3- 0 Section 4. The City Council finds as follows: A. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code section 17.26.090(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: (1) photographs; (2) expert testimony; and lastly (3) other evidence, which may include testamentary evidence and any documentation (other than photographs). B. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.050 D(3), a view as defined in Section 17.12.220 of the Municipal Code existed from 18 Portuguese Bend Road when the Nuccions acquired the property in 2009. The Council finds, pursuant to the March 21, 2016 field trip to the property located at 18 Portuguese Bend Road, that the viewing area from the Nuccions' property includes a living room at the north side of the residence and a patio/pool deck area immediately adjacent thereto along the northern side of the residence, from the standing perspective of an average height person ("Designated Viewing Areas"). C. The Nuccions provided numerous photographs of their view from the Designated Viewing Areas; these photos were supplemented and four bore handwritten dates claiming that the photographs were taken in either 2010 or 2011. The Council notes that the photographic evidence in this case is further complicated by the fact that the Nuccions had the opportunity to, and in fact did, arrange for the trimming of the trees on 15 Portuguese Bend Road prior to the date that the Hassoldts purchased their property in 2012. Pursuant to a recent request for the production of metadata, the earliest photograph submitted for the Council's consideration was taken during dusk on July 14, 2010; this image is dark and does not adequately/clearly depict the Offending Trees. For these reasons, none of the photographs submitted, including the July 14, 2010 photograph, conclusively establish the view, as it existed in from the Nuccions' property in 2009. D. In the absence of clear and convincing testamentary evidence provided by the experts and conclusive photographic evidence, the Council relied heavily upon the declarations of the parties and their witnesses to establish the scope of the view from 18 Portuguese Bend Road. The Council commented on the integrity of the declarants provided by the Nuccions, and found their declarations persuasive; specifically, the Council found the declaration of Mr. Roberts (whose father sold 15 Portuguese Bend Road to the Hassoldts) to be particularly persuasive. Additionally, the Council concluded that the MLS listing from February 2008 established clear and convincing evidence that a view existed from 18 Portuguese Bend Road at or about the time the Nuccions purchased their property. The listing included a description of the view as follows: "Panoramic City Lights and partial ocean views... Pool and spa overlooking views." The Council finds persuasive the testimony provided that the Nuccions' relied upon this statement in viewing the home and would not have purchased the home if it did not in fact have the views described in the 2008 MLS listing. E. The only evidence presented by the Hassoldts to rebut the evidence provided by the Nuccions is a report by arborist Ruben Green, who concludes on the basis of historic aerial photographs of some of the Obstructing Trees dated 2008 that a view could not have existed from the Nuccion property in 2009. However, while the aerial photographs show the height and spread of the trees from above, they do not show how the trees affected the view from the Designated Viewing Area on the Nuccion property. Mr. Green argues from the aerial photographs that the Nuccions "could not" have had a view; however, the Council finds this testimony to be speculative because the photographs do not take into account the height differential and viewing angle from the Nuccion residence. The Council Resolution No. 1195 finds that the overwhelming testamentary evidence of persons who visited the property in 2009 outweighs the speculative conclusions arrived by reviewing aerial photographs. F. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.12.220 "View Impairment," Section 17.26.050(D)(3) and Section 17.26.090 (3), the Council finds that the Nuccions have shown by clear and convincing evidence that the view from the Nuccions' property is significantly impaired because 11 trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road significantly impair the view of the Santa Monica Mountains, Mount Baldy and the City lights from the Designated Viewing Areas. The Nuccions provided an aerial photograph of the Obstructing Trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road. The Obstructing Trees have been identified as Tree Number One through Tree Number 9A, looking in a northerly direction from the perspective of 18 Portuguese Bend Road. The aforementioned photograph is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution. G. Further, the Council finds that, while the photographic evidence submitted by the parties was not persuasive with regard to the maturity of the trees, the testamentary evidence provided, coupled with the time and diligence devoted to this issue by the CTV indicates that only two of the Obstructing Trees (#9 and #9A) were mature when the Nuccions acquired their property in 2009 and are therefore ineligible for remediation under Measure B. Therefore, because the remaining nine trees were not mature when the Nuccions acquired their property, the Council hereby orders restorative action set forth below. H. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.050(E), the Council finds the restorative action set forth below in this Resolution is necessary to abate the view impairment by creating view corridors and views through trees, that the restorative action will not adversely affect the environment, and that the action will not unreasonably detract from the enjoyment or privacy of the property at 15 Portuguese Bend Road. I. The City reviewed the proposed restorative action's environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seg., ".`CEQA") and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seg., the "CEQA Guidelines") and determined the proposed project to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15304 (Minor Alterations of Land) and Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines. The project is exempt because no trees will be removed. Instead, the Obstructing Trees will be cleaned out, shaped and trimmed and a substantial amount of the foliage will remain. No evidence was introduced to suggest that the restorative action will cause an adverse environmental impact. Thus, it can be said with certainty that there will be no environmental impact from the proposed actions. Section 5. The Council orders the following restorative action pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.050(E): A. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.060(A), within thirty (30) calendar days of adoption of this Resolution, the Nuccions are hereby required to obtain and present to the Owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road, a minimum of three (3) bids from licensed qualified contractors for the performance of the Initial Restorative Action set forth in this Resolution as well as a cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. The contractors must provide insurance, which protects and indemnifies the City and the Nuccions from damages attributable to negligence or wrongful performance of the work. Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of the City. Resolution No. 1195 -5- 0 B. Pursuant to Section 17.26.060(B), the Owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road may select any licensed and qualified contractor to perform the Initial Restorative Action (defined below) (as long as the insurance requirement of the above paragraph is satisfied), but shall pay for any cost above the amount of the cash deposit. The work for the Initial Restorative Action shall be completed no later than January 31, 2017 or pursuant to an alternative schedule (but no later than March 1, 2017) if the selected contractor determines that the health of the trees would be compromised if the work is performed by January 31, 2017. C. Subsequent maintenance of the subject vegetation shall be performed at the cost and expense of the owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road. All vegetation subject to the restorative action described in this Resolution and any future planting, including replacement trees, shall be maintained so that the view shown in the photograph to be taken by City staff or designee following the Initial Restorative Action, as detailed below, is preserved. The trees shall be maintained so as to not allow for future view impairments from the Designated Viewing Areas of 18 Portuguese Bend Road. Tree maintenance shall be done in the winter months (December — March) and shall be completed by March 1 of each year in which the work is to be done, as specified in paragraph F of this section of this Resolution. D. An informational covenant shall be recorded against the title of 15 Portuguese Bend Road and shall run with the land, thereby giving notice of this Resolution to all future owners. E. Initial Restorative Action shall be limited to the 9 Obstructing Trees as identified in the table below. F. The Initial Restorative Action shall consist of the following: TYPE OF TREE AND TREE # LOCATION ACTION MAINTENANCE 1 Eucalyptus NO ACTION NO ACTION 2 Eucalyptus- along Roadway easement -front Lace, shape & crown reduce to no higher than the current height of Palm Trees Every two years 3 Washington Fan Palm- along N/E side of property Remove the dead fronds Every two years 3-A Washington Fan Palm- along N/E side of property Remove the dead fronds Every two years 4 Eucalyptus & various volunteers- S/W corner of lot Lower the canopy and trim to old cuts for city view Every two years 4-A Olive & various volunteers- S/W corner of lot Lower the canopy and trim to old cuts for city view Every two years Resolution No. 1195 -6- TYPE OF TREE AND TREE # LOCATION ACTION MAINTENANCE 5 Eucalyptus- by garage Reduce crown to the height of top of pole Every two years 6 Califomia Pepper- along front Shape & reduce canopy to old cuts Every two years 6-A California Pepper -along front Shape & reduce canopy to old cuts Every two years 7 Olive Tree- along front; S/E corner Shape, reduce crown and trim to old cuts for city view Every two years 8 Acacia NO ACTION NO ACTION 9 Olive Tree- lawn area NO ACTION NO ACTION 9-A Olive Tree- lawn area NO ACTION NO ACTION TOTAL 9 Trees Subject to Initial Restorative Action I The locations of the above listed trees are shown on the aerial photograph attached hereto as Exhibit A. G. The actions described above shall be accomplished per ISA industry standards and best arborist practices, and the following definitions shall apply: Crown Reduction: Height reduction to specified height by removing selective branches, deadwood, stems and foliage to reduce the height and spread of a tree. • Lace: Thin out thick areas of the canopy to expose the structure of dominant branches, clean out the crown, shaping and balancing the tree. Section 6. Upon conclusion of the Initial Restorative Action, the Nuccions shall contact the City to schedule a site visit during which City staff shall visit 18 Portuguese Bend Road and take photograph(s) from the Designated Viewing Areas to be attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution for the purpose of establishing the level of restorative action for future maintenance. Section 7. There shall be no restorative action required for the remainder of the trees on the property at 15 Portuguese Bend Road not listed in the Initial Restorative Action in this Resolution. However, trees on the property not included in this Resolution shall be maintained at current configuration and any new growth that extends into the view established by this Resolution shall be removed at the same time as the maintenance is conducted for the Obstructing Trees, at the sole expense of the Owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road. Resolution No. 1195 7 O Section 8. The parties by mutual agreement, if they so desire, may modify the implementation action in this Resolution, as set forth in Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.060(D). Any such mutual agreement shall be recorded. Section 9. In the event that any party requests inspection of implementation of Resolution No. 1195 on grounds that the restorative action or maintenance is not compliant with this Resolution, the City may be required to incur substantial costs in investigating the complaint. Therefore, the City shall be entitled to recover its costs from a non -compliant party, for activities including, but not limited to, hiring independent consultants. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by Members of the City Council this day of November 2016. Bea Dieringer Mayor ATTEST: Heidi Luce City Clerk Resolution No. 1195 -8- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ) SS The foregoing City Council Resolution No. 1195 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEALS OF DR. AND MRS. STEPHEN NUCCION AND MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM HASSOLDT, AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS BY DECLARING THAT SPECIFIC TREES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD HAVE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT VIEW IMPAIRMENT TO THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND SETTING FORTH RESTORATIVE ACTION TO ABATE THE IMPAIRMENT. was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council on, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Heidi Luce City Clerk This decision is final and conclusive. Any action challenging this administrative order must be filed with a court of law within the time limits set forth in section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Resolution No. 1195 -9- EXHIBIT A `"` cm .d, _ .. e ".� .1,144 C at , Resolution No. 1195 do- la EXHIBIT B Resolution No. 1195 -11- ea? a4( 'e INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 7-B Mtg. Date: 11/14/16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A CONTRIBUTION OF CITY UTILITY FUNDS TOWARD THE COSTS ASSOCITED WITH TWELVE HOMES ON EASTFIELD DRIVE TO COMPLETE A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN AND ASSESSMENT ENGINEERING STUDY CONCERNING A PROPOSED UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2016 Attachments: • Magnitude of Order construction and engineering design estimates table from the three utilities. • Correspondence from Marcia Schoettle requesting Utility Funds for the revised Eastfield Drive Undergrounding Project Area. RECOMMENDATION Discussion and decision regarding contribution of City Utility funds to the scaled down Eastfield project proposal to underground overhead utilities. BACKGROUND At its regular meeting on May 11, 2015, the City Council considered requests for contribution of City funds to supplement the undergrounding of utilities in two proposed assessment districts (Eastfield Drive and Williamsburg Lane) and one private project (I-lackamore Road). After extensive discussion, Council directed staff to return on June 8, 2015 with responses to a number of questions. As a result of a discussion from that meeting, the City Council approved funding for each of these projects, including $77,000 for 33 homes associated with the Eastfield Drive project led by Michael and Marcia Schoettle. Since that appropriation to the Eastfield Drive project in June of 2015, the Schoettle's found the support from the original 33 homes in the project area had weakened and decided to scale back the project area to twelve homes in the Summer of 2016. A request to the City was made by the Schoettle's to facilitate a new "Order of Magnitude" estimate from Edison, Cox and Frontier to provide the costs to underground the overhead utilities and for developing the engineering design. Those costs were just finalized and provided to the Schoettle's last week. The Schoettle's therefore asked that staff place this item on tonight's agenda in order to request Utility funds for the amended Eastfield Drive project for engineering design and assessment engineering costs. DISCUSSION Undergrounding of utilities is a priority in the City. New development projects are generally required to place utilities underground and the City has since FY 2004/05 maintained a Utility Fund whose primary objective is to assist residents with costs associated with undergrounding overhead utilities. The Utility Fund currently has a balance of $1,236,507. When in the winter of 2013 the residents on Eastfield approached the City with a request to proceed with obtaining cost estimates to underground utility lines to 35 parcels, staff obtained the estimates from all three utility companies and engaged technical consultants to provide information on the formation of an Assessment District and Bond Issuance process. They have also provided a very rough cost estimate for their services and for the anticipated cost to each parcel based on a 30 -year bond issue. The total levy was divided equally among the 35 parcels. The actual levy per parcel could vary significantly depending on allocation of benefits. The parties involved in the formation of Assessment District and Bond Financing include the following: Issuer: Design Engineer: Assessment Engineer: Bond Counsel: Disclosure Counsel: Underwriter: Underwriter's Counsel: Sponsoring agency, (City of Rolling Hills), serves as conduit for bonds. After obtaining the final design for the undergrounding from the utility companies, reviews their design and costs, including quantities and unit costs. Develops Engineers' Report, which determines how cost of the project is allocated among parcels (Sometimes the Design Engineer is the same person as the Assessment Engineer) Provides legal guidance to issuer on the formation of the District and structure of the Bond. Prepares Official Statement and offering documents. Sells bonds to investors. Provides legal guidance to underwriter. Based on the 35 parcels, the consultants estimated that the cost of consultants for the Design and Assessment Engineering would be $23,000 and for District 0 I Formation/Bond/Financing/Underwriter - $178,000. The up front cost for the Bond Counsel and underwriter was estimated at $61,000. Speaking with the consultants to determine how these costs translate to a smaller district, staff was informed that the process and efforts required to accomplish an Assessment District is the same for smaller or larger districts. The Design and Assessment Engineering cost could be less based on the number of parcels; however there are not much of savings otherwise. According to the consultant the saving for 12 parcels versus 35 parcels would be 10-12%. Contribution previously approved by City Council for the Eastfield Drive Project The following contribution requests were considered at the June 8, 2015 City Council meeting: Eastfield Drive Leader(s) Request: Number of Homes Amount Requested: Previous Approval: FISCAL IMPACT Michael and Marcia Schoettle Engineering Deposit Cost Grant 33 $149,550 $77,000 The Utility Fund currently has a balance of $1,236,507. The City Council for FY 16/17 approved to make an additional $250,000 contribution to the Utility Fund and budgeted $150,000 towards undergrounding and sewer related projects. The revised request from the Schoettle's for the 12 house Eastfield Drive Undergrounding Project Area is for City Council to contribute a portion of the costs associated with the utilities' engineering design and for the benefits study performed by the assessment engineer and other assessment district consultants. The following are the engineering design costs for each utility and rough estimate of benefits study from the assessment district consultants: Edison Cox Frontier Benefit Study Costs* TOTAL $50,000 $ 3,700 $ 800 $20,700* $75,200 *This is a very rough estimate and not based on a formal proposal from assessment district consultants. NOTIFICATION Mr. and Mrs. Michael Schoettle, the residents of the Proposed Eastfield Drive Undergrounding Project Area and the Rolling Hills Community Association. EASTFIELD DRIVE UNDERGROUNDING - ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COST ESTIMATES • Construction Cost Preliminary design and engineering (up front cost) EDISON $750,000 $50,000 COX $62,000 $3,700 FRONTIER $10,774 $800 TOTAL: $822,774 $54,500 Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 3:20:41 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: request for funding Date: From: To: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 1:09:27 PM Pacific Standard Time Marcia Schoettle Ray Cruz Dear Ray: I would like to ask the City Council to approve giving some funds to the Middle Eastfield Under Grounding District for an Engineering Study and a Benefits Study. The estimate for the Engineering Study is $54,5000. We do not have the exact amount yet for the Benefits Study, but we are told that it is usually close to or less than the Engineering Study. The Middle Eastfield District consists of the following properties: #25 Eastfield #27 Eastfield #29 Eastfield #31 Eastfield #33 Eastfield #35 Eastfield #2 Chuckwagon Galvin Baumann Vaisch Gargantos/Aquino Haenel Axtell• Corette• #22 Eastfield #24 Eastfield #26 Eastfield #28 Eastfield #30 Eastfield Yoshimira Schoettle Clinton Hollingshead Murdock 'Do NOT want to under ground Thank you for your help with this matter. Marcia Page 1 of 1 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: eerf el Raga, qeek INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310)377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 8-A Mtg. Date: 11/14/16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER %fl'c" CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FILED BY DR. JEFFREY OSTRIKER PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.24.070 REGARDING A DETERMINATION MADE BY THE CITY MANAGER SUBSEQUENT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO MUNCIPAL CODE SECTION 6.24.090 FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A PREVIOUS DETERMINATION IN AN AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL COMPLIANT AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 1183. DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 1183 Animal Complaint Report filed by Norm La Caze dated 08-04-16 Animal Control Officer's Dog Attacks Animal Report dated 08-20-16 Animal Complaint Report filed by Mrs. Geraldean Belleville dated 08-19-16 City Manager's letter dated 08-24-16 Animal Control Officer's Dog Attacks Animal Report dated 09-07-16 City Manager's letter dated 09-12-16 Photos submitted at Administrative Hearing (by La Caze) City Manager's Determination dated 10-06-16 Appeal letter submitted by Dr. Jeffery Ostriker dated 10-26-16 RHMC Chapter 6.24 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council determine, from reviewing the record from which the City Manager made his determination, if the City Manager made the determination based on substantial evidence in the record. The City Council may uphold, reverse or modify the order. BACKGROUND On December 18, 2015, the City received a formal complaint filed by Mr. Matthew Chaisson (8 Crest Road East) regarding Azul, owned by Dr. Jeffrey Ostriker (27 Caballeros Rd.). The complaint alleged that Azul has entered Mr. Chaisson's property on three occasions (the last being on December 11, 2015) and has killed one of his chickens during each incident. As is standard procedure, the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control was requested by the City to conduct an evaluation of the complaint. The investigation included an interview and a visit to the site. On January 28, 2016, the City received a report inclusive of findings and recommendations from Animal Care and Control Officer Eva Landas. The investigative report concluded that the incident involving Azul occurred and thus, it was determined that the complaint received by the City was meritorious. Thereafter, on February 3, 2016, a letter was sent by the City Manager to the parties transmitting Officer Landas' report and, along with City Manager's determination and order that Azul be confined to Dr. Ostriker's property and under restraint of a leash by a person capable of controlling Azul when off his property. As a result of City Manager's decision, Dr. Ostriker filed the paperwork to appeal the decision to the City Council. On March 1, 2016, a letter was forwarded to the. parties involved acknowledging receipt of the appeal and informing the parties that the appeal hearing would take place at the March 14, 2016 City Council meeting. At its meeting on Monday, March 14, 2016. the City Council heard the appeal of the City Manager's determination with regard to the Animal Complaint Report - Dog attacks animal filed by Mr. Matthew Chaisson (8 Crest Road East) against Dr. Ostriker's dog, Azul pursuant to Municipal Code Section 6.24.070. After reviewing the evidence submitted and taking public testimony, the City Council affirmed the City Manager's decision that Azul be confined to Dr. Ostriker's property; but modified the decision to allow Azul to be walked without a leash under specified circumstances. At its meeting of Monday, April 11, 2016, the City Council adopted a resolution memorializing that action. Within the April 14, 2016 letter that the City sent Dr. Ostriker included a copy of the resolution that warned that noncompliance with this resolution may cause further actions by the City against Azul pursuant to Section 6.24.090 of the RHMC. Since that City Council action, there recently have been two subsequent Animal Complaint Reports - Dog attacks animal -- filed with the City regarding dogs owned by Dr. Ostriker—including Azul. The first complaint report was filed on August 4, 2016 by Mr. Norm La Caze (24 Portuguese Bend Road) alleging that Dr. Ostriker's dog Azul, a large, broad chested, whitish colored dog; a cocker spaniel owned by you and unknown third dog entered his property on two different occasions and attacked his chickens, each incident resulted in the death of numerous chickens, with the most recent incident on August 3, 2016 where 40 juvenile chickens were killed. The second report was filed on August 19, 2016 by Mrs. Geraldean Belleville (12 Crest Road East) alleging that Azul again, a long body, medium length legs, blonde colored cocker spaniel type hair dog: entered her property on August 5, 2016 where the dog broke down the chicken coop and killed all the chickens within it. Upon the City's receipt of these complaints, two separate letters were sent to Dr. Ostriker to advise him of the alleged attacks and that the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control was contacted to conduct an investigation into the alleged attacks. Both of these investigations were completed and since these complaints were submitted close in time to one another, with Azul involved with both incidents, the parties involved were informed in an August 24th letter that the decision for both incidents would be combined into one. DISCUSSION Since the City already made a ruling on as similar attack on chickens owned by Mr. Chaisson (8 Crest Road East) from a complaint filed on December 18, 2015; the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, Section 6.24.090, requires that the City Manager conduct an administrative hearing to determine if the conditions of the original order have been violated concerning Azul. The hearing was to determine whether there has been a violation of the Municipal Code. The administrative hearing on the alleged incidents referenced in the animal complaint reports received on August 4 and August 19, 2016 took place on Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in the Rolling Hills City Council Chamber. At the hearing, each involved party made its initial presentation and brief rebuttals before the hearing was concluded. After reviewing the incident investigation reports from the LA County Department of Animal Care and Control officers, written documents provided by the parties involved, and the oral testimony provided at the administrative hearing, it was determined that the complaints received by the City about Azul are meritorious and violate the conditions of the resolution enacted by the City Council on April 11, 2016. Specifically the requirement that when being walked, Azul remain more than 300 feet from the property line of the Chaisson home and any other residence that keeps chickens was violated. As such, per Municipal Code Section 6.24.090(A), it was necessary that Azul be removed from the City immediately, unless in accordance of Municipal Code Section 6.24.070, Dr. Ostriker appealed the order to the City Council. Dr. Ostriker filled out the paperwork and paid the fee in order to process appeal to be heard by the City Council pursuant to Section 6.24.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. During the pendency of the appeal, Azul was ordered confined to the Ostriker property; and if the dog is to leave the property, it is required to be under the control and restraint of a leash by a person capable of controlling it. Non-compliance with this condition is grounds for dismissal of the appeal. In hearing the appeal, the City Council is to determine if the determination and order of the City Manager, based on the findings from Animal Care & Control officers' reports, are justified. The City Council may uphold, reverse or modify the order. The decision of the City Council is final. NOTIFICATION The parties involved in the appeal have been notified. CONCLUSION Based on the evidence and record, it is recommended that the City Council uphold, reverse or modify the determination and order by the City Manager in regard to the complaint filed by Mr. Norm La Caze (24 Portuguese Bend Road) and Mrs. Geraldean Belleville (12 Crest Road East) regarding Azul, owned by Dr. Jeffrey Ostriker (27 Caballeros Road). RRC:hl Ostriker Animal Attack appeal.docx 0 RESOLUTION NO. 1183 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN THE OSTRIRER/CHAISSON AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL CASE ORDERING THE CONFINEMENT OF AZUL TO THE OWNERS' PROPERTY AND MODIFYING THE DECISION BY ALLOWING THE OWNER TO WALK AZUL WITHOUT A LEASH UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. The proceedings described in this Resolution were conducted pursuant to the authority and procedures set forth in Chapter 6.24 of Title 6 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, entitled "Aggressive Animals." All "section" references in this Resolution are to sections contained in Chapter 6.24. Section 2. The subject of the proceedings described in this Resolution is a male Spaniel named Azul ("the dog"), owned by Dr. Jeffrey Ostriker ("Owner"), who reside at 27 Caballeros Road in the City of Rolling Hills ("City"). Section 3. The course of events that led to this proceeding are summarized as follows, more detailed descriptions of which can be found in the City Council staff report dated March 14, 2016 and the attachments thereto, all of which are hereby incorporated into this Resolution by reference as though fully set forth: A. Upon receipt of a complaint on December 18, 2015 from Mr. Matthew Chaisson, 8 Crest Road East, an investigation conducted by the City Manager and the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control (the "Department") determined that on December 11, 3015, Azul had, while off the Ostriker's property, engaged in an aggressive act (an attack) against Mr. Chaison's chicken, killing it in an unprovoked attack. Pursuant to Section 6.24.050, the City Manager, in his letter to the Ostriker's dated February 3, 2016, determined that the nuisance allegations had merit and based on the severity of' the attack and the fact that Azul killed the chicken, ordered Azul permanently confined to the Ostriker's property and uder a restraint of a leash by a person capable of controlling Azul when off the Ostriker property. Section 4. Pursuant to Section 6.24.070, the Owners appealed the City Manager's order of February 3, 2016. A hearing on the appeal was scheduled for and conducted on March 14, 2016. The City Council received a written staff report containing numerous attachments and correspondence from the Owners and a report from the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control. Testifying at the hearing were the City Manager and the Owners. The City Council reviewed and considered all of the written and oral evidence submitted in the matter prior to making its decision. Section 5. Based on all of the foregoing, the City Council makes the following factual findings: A Azul by all accounts has a history of aggressive behavior towards chickens. Evidence suggests that Azul has been involved in aggressive behavior towards Mr. Chaisson's chickens prior to this event, but Mr. Chaisson chose not to file a complaint for an attack prior to this event. This is the first confirmed attack by Azul. B. The evidence shows that Azul killed Mr. Chaisson's chicken during the December 1, 2015 incident. r Section 6. In addition to the foregoing findings, the City Council draws the following conclusions from the evidence: A. Animal Control Officer Landas through her report confirmed that Azul killed the chicken. However, she found Azul friendly and there is no history that he has attacked humans or other types of animals other than chickens. B. The City Council finds that if allowed to roam free near the Chaisson's property or any other property where chickens may be located, Azul may pose a risk of harm to chickens. An attack by a dog against another animal is unacceptable in a community without a leash law. The evidence shows that the attack occurred, and that future aggressive behavior is possible. Resolution No. 1183 C. At the hearing of March 14, 2016, the Owners were directed by the City Council that Azul must be permanently confined to the Owner's property. The Owner must also maintain the perimeter fencing in proper working order. D. Dr. Ostriker testified that he is disabled and unable to walk his dogs by utilizing a leash. E. Dr. Ostriker testified that if permitted to walk Azul without a leash, he will not travel near the Chaisson's home with Azul. Further, Dr. Ostrlker stated for the record that he will assume financial responsibility for any damages if Azul harms a chicken while off leash. Section 7. The City Council hereby affirms the decision of the City Manager requiring that Dr. Ostriker permanently confine Azul to his property and maintain the perimeter fencing on the property in proper working order. The City Council hereby modifies the decision of the City Manager based on the evidence received de novo at its hearing of March 14, 2016 pursuant to Section 6.24.070 relieving Dr. Ostriker of the requirement that Azul be restrained by a leash when being walked by Dr. Ostriker himself, so long as he remains more than 300 feet from the property line of the Chaisson home and any other residence that keeps chickens. Except when being walked by Dr. Ostriker himself Anil must be restrained by a leash by a peson cabpable of controlling Azul when off the Ostriker property. Violations of any of the provisions of this Resolution or failure of confining devices that cause Azul to escape the confinement of the Osktiker property shall be investigated pursuant to the provisions of Section 6.24.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of April, 2016. ATTEST: egiattima Heidi Luce City Clerk Resolution No. 1183 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS The foregoing Resolution No. 1183 entitled: SS A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN THE OSTRIKER/CHAISSON AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL CASE ORDERING THE CONFINEMENT OF AZUL TO THE OWNERS' PROPERTY AND MODIFYING THE DECISION BY ALLOWING THE OWNER TO WALK AZUL WITHOUT A LEASH UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on April 11, 2016, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Black, Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Dieringer. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Heidi Luce City Clerk Resolution No. 1183 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ,,deny ae Rateefer Weeea INCORPORATED JANUARY 24,1957 Date Received by City RECEIVED AUG 0,4 2016 City of Rolling Hills By ANIMAL COMPLAINT REPORT Animal Attacks Person Ch. 6.24 RHMC Animal Attacks Animal Ch. 6.24 RHMC Animal Displaying Violent or Threatening Behavior Ch. 6.24 RHMC I> Nuisance. Occurrence: 0 Barking Dogs and Other Animal Noises Ch. 6.46 RHMC 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 E-mail CityManagert@cityofrh.net City Manager's extension Of applicable) This form must be submitted to the City within ten (10) days of an incident, unless the City Manager grants an extension for good cause as indicated by the City Manager's initials above. N» -/n 2a zc. 8/s� Name of Person Filing Report Ad s /4 3:33 Dgte of Time of Incident Incident AM/1.2 o/4 Datts of Report Telephone No. aj' ��t� Ese �-e,'7 Place of fficident �7 OgM//orS Owner's Name OwneTr's Address a QLPScr4cec2 i /) S7�iP can Breed + Color eight Weight Was animal wearing a license tag? Yes 0 No 0 Unknown Information about Attacking/Nuisance Animal: AN % DSTim•ier. Describe Incident/Nuisance Occurrence --If barking dog or other animal noise complaint include description of noise and times of day it is heard: (Please use other side of form for additional information.) See- a -7 -7 -ac e Over (Page I. of 2) Describe Injury: Witnesses: (You may attach statements from witnesses or other supporting documentation veterinarian or physician bills if there was an injury.) F 4 ,n&4d& Name Name Additional Information: 02,44900 a/r7u-rzich S ce S 7 To rflnce, L'19 90047.:)/ Address/Phone No. �f �lrz_3 67g0 . Address/Phone No. .. . . _ &t»mimeo .S- z` -e -s -tie* / e � aas Send - hf g --/k6 erei eaL i4 e/1 the d �10y al du 71e rje c $7z'pg d //,`m Rev. 12/2014 public/animal complaint form Our first incident happened on March 8th or 9th 2016. Armando, our gardener, and I saw a large broad chested whitish type dog with two different color eyes and a large cocker spaniel type dog exiting our property through a hole they dug under our fence. They had torn into our chicken coop and killed every chicken in the coop except for one who escaped by flying to the rafters....approximately 30 adult chickens both hens and a rooster. I reported the incident to the city and the clerk said that Dr. Ostriker had come in because his dogs had gotten out and were gone all night. The description fit the dogs I saw. I said I wouldn't file a written report because I assumed it would not happen again. Yesterday 8/4 about 3:30 our gardener heard rustling and saw the same dogs plus another had ripped into our second chicken coop after they had tried to enter the original coop where they had killed in March. The dogs succeeded in getting in to the second chicken coop and killed 40 juvenile chickens we had purchased to replace the ones killed in March. Armando came up on them and the larger dog started to attack him!! He picked up a rock and threw it at the dog which deterred the dog from advancing further. Armando watched them go back out through a hole they had dug under our fences. We saw on the March agenda for the city that Dr. Ostriker had appealed another dog incident with a Mr. Chaisson. We have two small children and two small dogs and a larger gentle Labrador living on our property and we are terrified that these dogs have not been relocated after previous incidents. Also our third young grandchild had taken baby chicks from both flocks and raised them for a couple of weeks. She will again be traumatized with this second incident. Norm La Caze THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RECEIVED 00/22/2016 07:18 3183777288 ROLLING HIILS CITY 13105389279 RECEIVED 06:52:77 a.m. 08-22-2016 1117 AUG 2 0 2016 Page of S Of Rolling CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 Portuguese Raid Road Rolling Sias, CA 90374 TMephoae No. (310) 377.1521 • FAX No. (310) 377.7288 /D(DOG ATTACKS ANIMAL () DOG ATTACKS PERSON () ANIMAL NUISANCE OCCURRENCE: ( ) A. Baddog Dogs and Other Animal Noises Running or Charging RT FORM Iomtlgnllon most be eompl6M within 10 days after receipt of cumpleht (Note: An attack mast involve injurious bodily contact, without provocation, per R11MC Section 6.08.1330) DATE REPORT SUBMITTED TO CITY NAME OF ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER C t',s3 ti -4 0` /6t NAME OF INJURED PERSON/OWNER OF INJURED DOG NAME C4/Lo€c rt/rc 4.1-4.4- e- DATE GP.03-/Ie ADDRESS 29F 70Xruo-c,erE 1S.v/D R7 CITY 7-04c4.416- #/GCf STATE C/4 ZIP 50L7`f HOME PHONE (9'g VVY. «9 WORK PHONE ( ) BREED CmFtctcdCOLOR SEX (M) (F) NAME LICENSE NO. EXPIRATION DATE STATEMENT TO OFFICER Y/cr/iq eaF.toc Tf L#C$2c S?WFC.» boa-, FROM 4P n 27 Cafgesttce.e.os RP cotnc "nen' e h`C2 )%#i€ .R.✓D Kic r er» 4 -cc 30 c,%'c,c a -,'t oP "vex.:. CgecoCc Apt cro C74 rep $.9.atE aobS .5/.pa ,C/GG6D 3 0 .s'rog, c-7i/a,eevy of Soar 9 .4an rnl eat, . ARMS Indeed peon pmm 7/97.1 RECEIVED 08/22/2016 07:18 3103777288 ROLLING HIILS CITY 3105369229 66:52:36 a.m. 08-22-2016 i 2/12 Page Z 0f5 INFORMATION REGARDING ATTACKING/NU 1NCE ANIMAL NAME OF OWNER Terri"), y »p,tal Otr,t/, .C- DATE es •0p•/6 ADDRESS 27 CAt84LLtleos ga_ CITY 2OGC/y6- ff/c.Lf STATE Ce4 ZIP fot79 HOME PHONE (3 /o ) 93k•irk Y WORK PHONE( ) BREED s MdGCOLOR r4A✓ SEXS®NAME rota//42u/r4fi✓c# LICENSE NO. Ct.e,e/-Cirl EXPIRATION DATE STATEMENT TO oFFIcER %corecr" TEPPzsy 4D4/4 ot72e/ktcR.- Sr4rcD //IS J 06.s /fnPre- SEER." aft,"7H hi/ n 4cC DAty "Corp /Worn= Hor CcPr »4s , eafee 77• OrT)CieeciG s' 7.t rep C.tao LC ra-✓t tog Laze Alfa per /f REPoetr- 4/ Ahcwrt"t 46-0 Rattle D /A✓k- Mac 3 0 4f carrier - let ctS'p $y ,wr Do6-5 4flo craED t','° pt/N 6- ne vc. OBSERVED TEMPERAMENT OFATTACKWO/NUISANCE ANIMAL ( )WILD ( )VICOUS ( )SCARED ( )FRIENDLY jelkiNPREDICTABLE ( )INIURED ( )SICK ( )OTHER__ WITNESS STATEMENT TO OFFICERR (1) NAME '42M4i✓D o Pci2 r% Z DATE °A -CIS • /6 ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP HOME PHONE (q4 UP 0770 WORK PHONE( ) Mang McidafEger/ m RECEIVED 88/22/2016 07:18 3103777280 ROLLING HIILS CITY 3105389229 06:52916 a.m. 08-22-2016 3/12 COMMENT Page 3 oft W.rn.t<ss fl cae esa•Po fee E_ srn,t p /Ser6r.t S ere2Kale,-- o.r, c.SoCe. rr..2" 49c.fl2a ?�eoPi",ery /.v 7241! P. -D he,,,C) role /nine. /9ie.n4-ro'Do Snfr o //rKR.✓ To tee' a -M.# r x~44' bo.m' . oN *Two S.¢.✓ 7y✓'o eocceic_ r#,..+., cc P /err, DC TWE CNr c, '•✓ .00h. .4•ConAyDo tramp one a r r*'C Dobs c /,U/.c6 p .4r- N/M ? £4-.eEs. re C,' ri .w s- . rte+ .4. rflq-e, — M.M . 4a.... n t a S rA rep /f£ G,c4$C D #4 /Loe/L Ai✓P 7`A'Lpee✓ . r.A-r The" ti C-- ( (' AME DATE ADDRE CITY STATE ZIP HOME PHON COMMENT WORK PHONE ( ) DESCRIPTION OF INJURY TO ANIMAL/PERSON OBSERVED EY OFFICER: (Attach any supporting evidence collected i.e., doctor/veterinarian bills, photos. police report, etc.) tty 7 /cr✓2cf of 7g. q4.e 7 y/ ev,6a S r -'I c -! d 77 C4f,GCc'lo$ 9z9. OFFICER'S DESCRIPTION OF WHAT OCCURRED (based on interview with all parties): Dohs 670,4, 4DD2ccr 27 Coal $4-4CSRdsRD s✓c..r,ns C ear 1je.o'cre7y 2� 1po2Tu6-ucSC fE.✓P /2D ,n/D X/GGa'D 30 c/fic,C6t.C5 . Aabnaln9dntl aqw, Arm 7192,3 RECEIVED 08/22/2016 07:18 3103777288 ROLLING HIILS CITY 3105389229 06:52:57 a.m. 08-22-2016 4112 Page ofS pOES INCIDENT MEET DEFINITION OF AN ATTACK AS OUTLIVED INRBMC 6,0803Q ("For purposes of this title, a person or animal shall be deemed to have been "attacked" by an animal if such animal, without provocation, has injurious bodily contact, including but not limited to biting, with such person or animal.") YES,(1 NO ( ) ( ) FIRST OFFENSE QQ SECOND OFFENSE ANIMAL _CONTROL OFFICER'S RECOMMEND�I�TION-•I ATTACKS PERSON OR ANIMAL () () ATTACK UNSUBSTANTIATED —NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED. (RHMC 6.24.020) ATTACK SUBSTANTIATED, ANIMAL UNLICENSED —PERMANENT REMOVAL FROM THE CITY REQUIRED. (RBMC 6.24.030) () ATTACK SUBSTANTIATED —PERMANENTLY CONFINE ATTACKING DOG TO PROPERTY/USE LEASH. (RFIMC 6.24.030) () SECOND ATTACK ON PERSON SUBSTANTIATED --PERMANENT REMOVAL FROM THB CITY REQUIRED. (REMC 6.24.070) r SECOND ATTACK ON ANIMAL, SUBSTANTIATED / I NTINUE CONFINEMENT/USE LEASH. (6.24.070) —( ) OVAL FROM THE CITY RECOMMENDED. (6.21.070) ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION —NUISANCE OCCURRRNCF A. BARKING DOGS AND OTHER ANIMAL NOISES (RSMC 646) () FIRST OFFENSE —CITY MANAGER SEND LETTER ADVISING OF ALLEGED NOISE AND REQUEST IMMEDIATE STEPS BE TAKEN TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER DISBURBANCE. (6.46.020B) ( ) SECOND OFFENSE -SCHEDULE HEARING BEFORE CITY MANAGER (6.46.030) B. RUNNING/CHARGING (RHMC 648.020) () CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT CONFINEMENT TO PROPERTY/USE OF LEASH (RHMC 6.48.020) () OWNER ELECTS TO CAUSE DOG TO BE PERMANENTLY REMOVED FROM THE CITY (RHMC 6.48.020) A,eeml IeaSmlEqu,1 Farm 7/924 to RECEIVED 88/22/2016 07:18 3103777288 ROLLING HIILS CITY 3105389229 06:53:10 a.m. 08-22-2016 5/12 OTHER OBSERVATIONS/RF.COMMENDATEONS/COMMENTS OP OFEtCEs / Bee/ere vfr.,V w/Yitr , ,96»a P , rD Page ofS oSs-ea vc Is're/it C 4fle ttre TNAr P 2's ,tel" r/At ,CEr:meeC_ G✓lircc Does 'tee ii✓ goof e9'✓ nn --..o .vcro iF Pd (> s is c C b e./,.. r w'4 c.0 fl' 7Wty .sra.TT ,7e e..✓ ceYAfeit ,9 -GC- rya: Cl. Amend IaedhalReps poem 7,974 RECEIVED, 08/22/2816 B7:18 y- 3103777288: i ziROLLING HIILS CITY I1 - ', -- c VI /40 4C 4 yc � to z 2i "4Y C n. . w�• X22-Mi6 w"�„T, t2 -$A NY +.,:iwld,,q.i. ' �'� ��t �?i Ofi.56: Saa m .'�1 p9— ROLLING HILLS CITY 06:57:29a.m. 06-22-2016 12112 RECEIVED 88/22/2016 07:18 3103777288 ,3105369229 ga L • C. % Ir rar• • '�N It ea, 01 R M., glad INCORPORATED JANUARY 24,1957 Date Received by City RECEIVED AUG 19 2016 City of Rolling Hills By ANIMAL COMPLAINT REPORT ❑ Animal Attacks Person Ch. 614RHMC ASK Animal Attacks Animal Ch. 6.24 RHMC ❑ Animal Displaying Violent or Threatening Behavior Ch. 6.24 RHMC Ci Nuisance Occurrence: 0 Baridng Dogs and Other Noises Ck 646 RHMC 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 E mail CityManager@dtyofrh.net City Manager's extension (if applicable) This form must be submitted to the City within ten (10) days of an incident, unless the City Manager grants an extension for good cause as indicated by the City Manager's initials above. Q' kod g _��C(lr Ile . sic e-, ame of Person Filing rt Date f Rep rt cg, 01 ,54- 2cQ E—st- arQ stir Address / / n Telephone No. V -€11-t_ k_ge. ate df Time of ejtaticeLia of incident -1 �.6-c5p cident Incident on about Attacking/Nuisance Animal: Owner's Name Owners Address e d Color Height Weight� o ,J Was animal wearing a license tag? Yes O No 0 Unknown lit W/& a 4 gp1 CitPeSS c4.c&v,"77 ak cizei le'-Gzle », Describe Incident/Nuisance Occurrence --If barking dog or other animal noise complaint t include description of noise and times of day it is heard: (Please use other side of form for ' additional information.) ac1LJ f /h (.c)0 (Ccaa / e2cc. CICQ ) a,e,F i e a4 // 17,0/62 cbten wanes Inn( THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK August 24, 2016 city °/earn, 4/& INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 3771521 FAX: (310) 3777288 VIA HAND DELIVERY & CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL Dr. & Mrs. Jeffrey Ostriker 27 Caballeros Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Dr. & Mrs. Ostriker, This is to inform you that an Animal Complaint Report - Dog attacks animal -- was filed with the City on August 19, 2016 by Ms. Geraldean Belleville (12 Crest Road East) alleging that your dog, a long body, medium length legs, blonde colored cocker spaniel type hair dog: entered her property on August 5, 2016 where the dog broke down the chicken coop and killed all the chickens within it. In response to the City's receipt of the complaint, the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control has been contacted to conduct an investigation into the alleged attack. An officer will be contacting the parties involved and ultimately, providing a report to the City. The report will be utilized to prescribe a course of action. Since this complaint was submitted before the decision of a similar complaint by Norm LaCaze (24 Portuguese Bend Road) about this same dog from an incident on August 4, 2016, my decision for both incidents will be combined into one. During the investigation and until this matter is resolved, it is necessary that your dogs remain confined to your property. If your dogs are to leave the property, please have them under the control and restraint of a leash and a person capable of controlling them. Noncompliance with this condition may cause further actions by the City against the dog. For your information, we have enclosed a copy of the Animal Complaint Report as well as Municipal Code Sections 6.24 and 6.48.020. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions Thank you very much for your cooperation. Sincerely, r arni Raymond R. Cruz City Manager RRC:hl 08-24-16 Oslriker_Belleaille.docx c: Officer Ricardo Ramos, Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control Gera'dean Belleville, 12 Crest Road East Mr. Norm La Caze, 24 Portuguese Bend Road Printed on Recycled Paper THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RECEIVED (Animal Attacks Person Ch. 6.24 RHMC SEP 0 7 2016 City of Rolling Hills By " 64a/sat gal Pagel __of 4_ INCORPORATED JANUARY 24 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 ANIMAL CONTROL OFF(CFR'S INVESTIGATION REPORT Animal Displaying Violent or Threatening Behavior Ch 6.24 RHMC fhLIAISANCE OCCURRENCE: LjBarking Dogs and Other Animal Noises Ch 6.46 RHMC �/ Animal Attacks Animal Ch. 6.24 RHMC NOTE: Investigation must be completed within 10 days alter receipt of complaint DATE REPORT SUBMITTED TO CITY 8/19/2016 NAME OF ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER R.RAMOS #160 NAME OF INJURED PERSON/OWNER OF INJURED DOG NAMEGERALDEAN BELLEVILLE ADDRESS 12 CREST ROAD EAST CITyROLLING HILLS STATE CA HOME PHONE 310-5415256 WORK PHONE DATE 8/5/2016 Zip 90274 BREED CHICKENS COLOR VARIOUS S6)Q P4 NAME NONE LICENSENO. NONE EXPIRATION DATE NONE STATEMENT TO OFFICER On September 1, 2016 I made contact with Geraldean Belleville at 12 Crest Road. Belleville stated that on August 5, 2016 at approximately 1200 hours she arrived home and drove in through her driveway that is located on the east side of 12 Crest Road when she noticed a chicken on the middle of her driveway. Belleville stopped her vehicle, Belleville got off and picked up the chicken and noticed it was deceased. Belleville walked over to her chicken coop that is located in the back yard of her property and observed that there was a blonde medium size dog inside the chicken coop where she keeps her five chickens cooped. Belleville walked over to the chicken coop and observed the dog escaping the chicken coop through a hole the dog had made to enter the chicken coop and run off from her property. Belleville staled that she Inspected her chicken coop and observed (here were four more deceased thickens inside the coop with signs that they had been attacked by an animal. Belleville stated that all her five chickens were deceased due to the attack. /Wined 6aidml Report farm 2016 Page 2 of 4 INFORMATION REGARDING ATTACKING/NUISANCE ANIMAL NAME OF OWNER DR&MRS.JEFFREY OSTRIKER ADDRESS 27 CABALLEROS ROAD CITY ROLLING HILLS STATE CA DATE 9/7/16 ZIP 90274 HOME PHONE (310 ) 938-2883 WORK PHONE ( )____� BREED_ UNKNOWN COLOR BLONDE SEJJIv❑FNAME UNKNOWN LICENSE NO. UNKNOWN EXPIRATION DATE UNKNOWN STATEMENT TO OFFICER On September 1, 2016 I arrived at 27 Caballeros Road and did not observe the suspect dog on the property. I approached the front door and pressed the door bell and got a response through doorbell intercom. The person identified himself as Dr. Ostriker and stated that he was not home. I informed Dr.Ostriker that I was at his property to take a statement of the incident that was reported of a dog that attacked five chickens at 12 Crest Road East on August 5, 2016, and Dr.Ostriker stated that he had already gave the statement to Animal Control Officer Vargas. I informed Dr.Ostriker that this was another incident that was reported of another attack. Dr.Ostriker stated that he was not aware of the attack and will contact Rolling Hills City Hall. After making several attempts to take a statement from Dr.Ostriker in person. The report was completed and submitted to the City of Rolling Hills due to the statue of limitations. OBSERVED TEMPERAMENT OF ATTACKING/NUISANCE ANIMAL ❑WILD ❑VICIOUS 11 SCARED FRIENDLY DJN'PREDICTABLE I —INJURED CSICK EZOTHER Did not observe the suspect dog on the property. WITNESS STATEMENT TO OFFICER (1) NAMENONE ADDRESS DATE CITY STATE ZIP HOME PHONE WORK PHONE Animal lntidenl Report fans 2016 Page 3 _of 4_ COMMENT NONE (2) NAME DATE ADDRESS CITY _.._ STATE ZIP HOMEPHONE WORK PHONE COMMENT NONE DESCRIPTION OF INJURY TO ANIMAL/PERSON OBSERVED BY OFFICER: (Attach any supporting evidence collected i.e., doctor/veterinarian bills, photos, police report, etc.) Upon arrival on September 1, 2016, all five chickens were disposed and Belleville had no pictures of the deceased chickens. OFFICER'S DESCRIPTION OF WHAT OCCURRED (based on interview with all parties): sv.p.adaa•.,nWoe and (wood *Sy :w.diAn [cop on.pop.mthe" the dcghid nos.,m,de e be Irvine w,p.o deg wn ee.erndhues the mrza.n coopwh loedamned wmn. Suspect dog has a history of attacking Dickens In the past. Based upon my experience it is my belie! this dog Is dangerous to have in the City al Rolling Hills. Animal Incident Report Form 7)977 Pagc4 of 4 DOES INCIDENT MEET DEFINITION OF AN ATTACK AS OUTLINED IN RHMC 6.08.030 ("For purposes of this title, a person or animal shall be deemed to have been "attacked" by an animal if such animal, without provocation, has injurious bodily contact, including but not limited to biting, with such person or animal.") E YES nfrIRST OFFENSE EINO jECOND OFFENSE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION DOG ATTACKS PERSON OR ANIMAL, ANIMAL DISPLAYING VIOLENT OR THREATENING BEHAVIOR HATTACK UNSUBSTANTIATED —NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED. (RHMC 6.24.020) ATTACK SUBSTANTIATED, ANIMAL UNLICENSED —PERMANENT REMOVAL FROM THE Y REQUIRED. (RHMC 6.24.030) TTACK SUBSTANTIATED --PERMANENTLY CONFINE ATTACKING DOG TO PROPERTY/USE I (RHMC 6.24.030) SECOND ATTACK ON PERSON SUBSTANTIATED ---PERMANENT REMOVAL FROM THE CITY REQUIRED. (RHMC 6.24.070) SECOND ATTACK ON ANIMAL SUBSTANTIATED CONTINUE CONFINEMENT/USE LEASH. (6.24.070) REMOVAL FROM THE CITY RECOMMENDED. (6.24.070) ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION NUISANCE OCCURRENCE KING DOGS AND OTHER ANIMAL NOISES (RHMC 6.46) L_IFIRST OFFENSE --CITY MANAGER SEND LETTER ADVISING OF ALLEGED NOISE AND REQUEST IMMEDIATE STEPS BE TAKEN TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER DISTURBANCE. 6.0208) ECOND OFFENSE —SCHEDULE HEARING BEFORE CITY MANAGER (6.46.030) ETW/ING/CHARGING (RHMC 6.48.020) CUMSTANCES WARRANT CONFINEMENT TO PROPERTY/USE OF LEASH (RHMC 6.48.020) NER ELECTS TO CAUSE DOG TO BE PERMANENTLY REMOVED FROM THE CITY (RHMC 20) d ! h¢idnil Report form 7/97-4 City o/k?J/, fie& INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 September 12, 2016 Dr. Jeffrey Ostriker 27 Caballeros Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Mr. Norm La Caze, 24 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Dr. Ostriker, Mr. La Caze and Mrs. Belleville: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 3771521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Mrs. Geraldean Belleville 12 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 This is to inform you that two Animal Complaint Reports - Dog attacks animal -- were filed with the City regarding dogs owned by Dr. Ostriker (27 Caballeros Road). The first complaint report was filed on August 4, 2016 by Mr. Norm La Caze (24 Portuguese Bend Road) alleging that Dr. Ostriker's dogs, a large, broad chested, whitish colored dog; a cocker spaniel and unknown third dog entered his property on two different occasions and attacked his chickens, each incident resulted in the death of numerous chickens, with the most recent incident on August 3, 2016 where 40 juvenile chickens were killed. The second report was filed on August 19, 2016 by Mrs. Geraldean Belleville (12 Crest Road East) alleging that the dog, a long body, medium length legs, blonde colored cocker spaniel type hair dog: entered her property on August 5, 2016 where the dog broke down the chicken coop and killed all the chickens within it. Upon the City's receipt of these complaints, two separate letters were sent to Dr. Ostriker to advise him of the alleged attacks and that the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control was contacted to conduct an investigation into the alleged attacks. Both of these investigations have now both been completed. Since these complaints were submitted close in time to one another, with one dog involved with both incidents, I informed the parties involved in my August 19th letter that my decision for both incidents will be combined into one. Since the City already made a ruling on as similar attack on chickens owned by Mr. Chaisson (8 Crest Road East) from a complaint filed on December 18, 2015; the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, Section 6.24.090, requires that the City Manager conduct an administrative hearing to determine if the conditions of the original order have been violated. The hearing is to determine whether there has been or continues to be a violation of the Municipal Code. Enclosed for your reference is a copy of the Animal Nuisance Occurrence report as well as a copy of Municipal Code which specifies the evidence that will be considered at the hearing and which identifies the possible outcomes from a hearing. page 1of2 ® Printed on Recycled Paper Ostriker, La Caze, Belleville September 12, 2016 p.2of2 This letter is to schedule the administrative hearing on the alleged incidents referenced in the animal complaint reports received on August 4 and August 19, 2016. The hearing will take place on Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in the Rolling Hills City Council Chamber located a 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274. At the hearing, please be prepared to present your case. Following your presentations, public testimony, and your brief rebuttals, the hearing will be concluded. Remedies will be considered and ordered in a written decision following the hearing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Sincerely, 2 Raymond R. Cruz City Manager RRC:hl 09-12-16 Ostriker Hearing-Itr.doex Enclosures: August 4, 2016 Dog Attacks Animal complaint (LaCaze) August 5, 2016 Letter to Ostriker re: Dog Attacks Animal complaint August 20, 2016 Dog Attacks Animal Investigation Report August 19, 2016 Dog Attacks Animal complaint (Belleville) August 24, 2016 Letter to Ostriker re: Dog Attacks Animal complaint September 7, 2016 Dog Attacks Animal Investigation Report • City Council Resolution 1183 Regarding Ostriker/Chaisson Incident Rolling Hills Municipal Code Chapter 6.24 cc (without enclosures): Cesar Vargas, Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care & Control Ricardo Ramos, Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care & Control PHOTOS SUBMITTED AT ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING (BY LA CAZE) ;,, _ • stM1Falli ' mm.mw0111 •�,r -. ��ra�olc_. yip • �ir�*ririrra �_ • / - eras ru City o/Ro//nv INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 October 6, 2016 VIA REGULAR AND CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL Dr. & Mrs. Jeffrey Ostriker 27 Caballeros Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Dr. & Mrs. Ostriker, N0. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 3771521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 At its meeting on Monday, March 14, 2016 the City Council heard your appeal of the City Manager's determination with regard to the Animal Complaint Report - Dog attacks animal filed by Mr. Matthew Chaisson (8 Crest Road East) against your dog, Azul pursuant to Municipal Code Section 6.24.070. After reviewing the evidence submitted and taking public testimony, the City Council affirmed the City Manager's decision that Azul be confined to your property; but modified the decision to allow Azul to be walked without a leash under specified circumstances. At its meeting of Monday,. April 11, 2016, the City Council adopted a resolution memorializing that action. Within the April 14, 2016 letter that the City sent you that included a copy of the resolution, you were warned that noncompliance with this resolution may cause further actions by the City against Azul pursuant to Section 6.24.090 of the RHMC. As you know, there recently have been two subsequent Animal Complaint Reports - Dog attacks animal -- filed with the City regarding dogs owned by you —including Azul. The first complaint report was filed on August 4, 2016 by Mr. Norm La Caze (24 Portuguese Bend Road) alleging that your dog Azul, a large, broad chested, whitish colored dog; a cocker spaniel owned by you and unknown third dog entered his property on two different occasions and attacked his chickens, each incident resulted in the death of numerous chickens, with the most recent incident on August 3, 2016 where 40 juvenile chickens were killed. The second report was filed on August 19, 2016 by Mrs. Geraldean Belleville (12 Crest Road East) alleging that Azul again, a long body, medium length legs, blonde colored cocker spaniel type hair dog: entered her property on August 5, 2016 where the dog broke down the chicken coop and killed all the chickens within it. Upon the City's receipt of these complaints, two separate letters were sent to you to advise you of the alleged attacks and that the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control was contacted to conduct an investigation into the alleged attacks. Both of these investigations were completed and since these complaints were submitted close in time to one another, with Azul involved with both incidents, I informed all parties involved in my August 19th letter that my decision for both incidents will be combined into one. Printed on Recycled Paper Since the City already made a ruling on as similar attack on chickens owned by Mr. Chaisson (8 Crest Road East) from a complaint filed on December 18, 2015; the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, Section 6.24.090, requires that the City Manager conduct an administrative hearing to determine if the conditions of the original order have been violated concerning Azul. The hearing was to determine whether there has been a violation of the Municipal Code. The administrative hearing on the alleged incidents referenced in the animal complaint reports received on August 4 and August 19, 2016 took place on Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in the Rolling Hills City Council Chamber. At the hearing, each involved party made its initial presentation and brief rebuttals before the hearing was concluded. After reviewing the incident investigation reports from the LA County Department of Animal Care and Control officers, written documents provided by the parties involved, and the oral testimony provided at the administrative hearing, it is determined that the complaints received by the City about Azul are meritorious and violate the conditions of the resolution enacted by the City Council on April 11, 2016. Specifically the requirement that when being walked, Azul remain more than 300 feet from the property line of the Chaisson home and any other residence that keeps chickens has been violated. As such, per Municipal Code Section 6.24.090(A), it is necessary that Azul be removed from the City immediately. We have enclosed a copy of the applicable Municipal Code Sections for your information. In accordance of Municipal Code Section 6.24.070, any person may appeal this order to the City Council within 10 days of the date of this letter. The appeal must be filed in writing with the City Clerk. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Raymond R. Cruz City Manager RRC:hl 10.06-16OstTikerdecision-I t r.docx Enclosures c: Officer Eva Landas, Los Angeles County Dept. of Animal Care & Control Officer Cesar Vargas, Los Angeles County Dept. of Animal Care & Control Officer Ricardo Ramos, Los Angeles County Dept. of Animal Care & Control Mr. Matthew Chaisson, 8 Crest Road East Mr. Norm LaCaze, 24 Portuguese Bend Road Mrs. Geraldean Belleville, 12 Crest Road East Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 2:30:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Letter of Appeal RECEIVED Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 2:21:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Jeffrey ostriker <jeffreyostriker@me.com> OCT 2 6 2016 To: Ewa Nikodem <enikodem@cityofrh.net> Letter of Appeal to City Council By ity of Rolling Hills I am writing this letter to appeal to the city council. During the last appearance the council decided that I could continue to walk my dogs off leash as long as I avoided Mr Chaison's property. I pledged never to walk my dogs on the trail (Juanita Crane) where the incidents with Mr Chaison's chickens occurred. I informed the council that I had walked the dogs off leash literally thousand of times without incident. ( once or twice a day for several years). (Letter Kristin Kudravd). I was informed at the time that there might have been another chicken incident involving my dogs that the owner did not want to pursue. I was never given details or an address were that incident occurred. At the previous ruling, the council noted that it was impossible for me to be aware of all the households where chickens were kept This August, I was walking my dogs mid afternoon on I hot day. I was ascending a steep hill arising from the Caballeros riding ring. At the top of the hill I stopped to rest from being overheated. My dogs sitting behind me took off to chase a squirrel. After resting a few minutes I resumed walking thinking my dogs were ahead of me on the trail. I heard or saw nothing to presume otherwise. They did eventually join me further up the trail. Later that evening animal control informed me of a chicken incident that might have involved my dogs. After doing some checking, I realized that this occurred very near to where I rested and my dogs took off after the squirrel. At this point I decided to seek leash training for my dogs and made an appointment. The following day I decided to avoid all trails and I walked my dogs on Portuguese Bend Road between Caballeros and Georgoff. I assumed this was safe because all the houses were set back from the road and no chicken coops were visible. This proved far too dangerous with all the cars and I barely noticed that Azul lagged behind the others on my return trip. (That is when the second incident occurred). Given all this stress I determined I would walk the dogs on a leash from then on as it was impossible to know where chickens resided). I voluntarily informed Mr Cruz of my decision. I hired Sue Doyle a dog Behavior therapist from "Bark Busters. (See letter from Sue Doyle. Additionally I purchased the upgraded "Invisa fence Beyond" system their advanced an secure product and hired them for dog training to insure its effectiveness. (Letter from Invisa fence). Since that time my dogs have not left my property without a leash. They have responded well to training and we continue to walk on a once or twice daily basis. I have developed a special bond with Azul. As previously mentioned I have been disabled with a degenerative bone disease. For several years I was housebound and depressed. Azul's mother Sancha appeared at my house stray and pregnant. I nursed her through the pregnancy and raised her puppies. I formed a special bond with Azul (the first born) and began to be more active walking on the trails. My therapist noted that Azul was in fact my "emotional support dog". (Letter Cathleen Cunningham)Y Azul is a dog who instinctually sees chickens as prey. This does not make him an aggressive dog. Yes he may bark if someone takes his food away but he has never been aggressive towards any humans, dogs, or horses on the trails. Sue Doyle a dog behavioral therapist has assured me that a dogs behavior towards chicken does not translate into aggressiveness. (See letter Sue Doyle). Azul' s groomer and Vet both have known him from birth. They have observed him numerous times around people and animals. They do not classify Azul as an aggressive animal. (See enclosed letters) 6 7 - As previously promised I have reimbursed the La Cazes for their damages. This exceeded the loss of their chickens and included damages to their coop $6552.72. I did not question their figure. I apologized to all the injured parties and continue to feel remorse over these unfortunate incidents. Sadly, what occurred can not be undone. In summary, it is apparent to me that although I complied with the City Councils previous ruling, due to the prevalence of chickens in the city I must continue to walk Azul on a leash. All chicken incidents occurred during walks. Despite the fact that my dogs do not have a history of wandering, I have assured they will remain confined to my property. I have installed the top model and most secure Invisa fence with a back-up battery. (48hrs). I have demonstrated to the city council with letters from neighbors and professionals that Azul is not an aggressive animal and was merely demonstrating instinctual behavior. I have given documentation from my therapist that Azul is my "emotional support dog" and important to my mental health. My plan is to keep my dogs confined to my property and only walk them on a leash.I have taken definitive steps to insure that no more chicken incidents occur. Thank you for your consideration. Sent from my iPhone This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email as spam. October 23, 2016 Dear City of Rolling Hills, 1 am writing to you on behalf of a Rolling Hills resident, Jeffrey Ostriker regarding his dog Azul. Recently, an incident occurred involving Azul and some chickens. Apparently, Azul allegedly attacked another residents Chickens, which resulted in the demise of the chickens. As a consequence, Azul is now under question for being removed from Rolling Hills. I am sorry for the loss of the birds, but 1 would like to come forward as an advocate for the dog. First of all, l would like to point out that it is instinctual for a dog to view a chicken as prey. 1 think it was a case of wrong place wrong time. I have been hiking on the trails of Rolling Hills for over 10 years. I have come to know Mr. Ostriker and his dogs. I have a large dog as well. We have never encountered any kind of aggression from Azul. He is always friendly and happy to greet my dog and myself. I have to conclude that the unfortunate mishap is clearly an isolated incident. I would further like to add that ever since the incident with the chickens, l have observed that Mr. Ostriker has taken precautionary measures to insure that this will never happen again. First of all, each of his dogs, including Azul are on leashes at all times. Secondly, Mr. Ostriker has installed a very costly electronic fence around the entire perimeter of his property in order to keep his dogs confined. It is clear that Mr. Ostriker loves Azul very much and is willing to exercise any measure in order to keep him. 1 appreciate your time, attention and compassion in this matter. I am once again sorry for the loss of the chickens, but do not feel that the solution is to take this dog away from his owner. Perhaps a warning or a probationary period would be more appropriate. Sincerely, Kristin Kudrave 17 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310-200-2497 teamk@cox.net September 21, 2016 City of Rolling Hills To Whom It May Concern: I was recently hired by Jeffrey Ostriker to assess the temperament of his dogs and to teach them to walk on leash by his side and without pulling. I have spent four hours of training with Dr. Ostriker and his three dogs,— Sancha, Azul and Jorge. I have found them to be calm, friendly and obedient dogs. Although the dogs had not walked on leash in the past, they all performed extremely well with a minimum amount of training. They are very respectful of Dr. Ostriker, and he handles them without difficulty. We began training on the city trails, and graduated to the narrower and more congested Esplanade in Redondo Beach. Afterseven_years-of dog training, I was very impressed with the dogs' calm behavior in such a highly -stimulating environment. I was also impressed by the ease with which Dr. Ostriker walked all three dogs together. For your reference, I am a Dog Behavioral Therapist and Trainer for Bark Busters Home Dog Training. Bark Busters is an international network of franchises, and was founded in 1989. Regards, Sue/Doyle. e. Sue Doyle Owner, Bark Busters of South Bay 3 Invisible Fence. Bid Dr. Ostriker, Your Invisible Fence® Brand containment system was installed on 8/12/16 for Azul, Sancha, and Jorge. Out introductory Perfect StartTM Plus training session for Azul, Sancha, and Jorge was also conducted that afternoon. Our first follow-up training session occurred on 8/25/16 where we began introducing the containment boundaries to Azul, Sancha, and Jorge. Our second follow-up training session occurred on 9/2/16. At that time our records indicated that each pet was visibly respecting the boundary and retreating back away from the signal field. Azul, Sancha, and Jorge have all successfully completed our Perfect StartTM Plus Training Protocol as of 9/2/16. Should you notice any changes or adjustments needed towards your Invisible Fence® Brand containment system, please contact us immediately. Thank you for your continued support of Invisible Fence® Brand! Invisible Fence® Brand of California Radio Systems Corporation 967 S. Coast Hwy 101 Suite 108-8 Encinitas, CA 92024 www.invisiblefence.com (800) 824-3647 k CATHLEEN CUNNINGHAM, MPA, LMFT 1826 S. ELENA AVE., SUITED REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277 (310) 427-1030 LICENSE #48917 October 23, 2016 RECEIVED OCT 2 1 2016 City of Rolling Hills By This letter is to confirm that Jeffrey Ostriker has been under my professional care for the past 6 years. Since the beginning of his treatment an emotional supportive dog was recommended as part of the treatment program developed for Dr. Ostriker. The presence of his emotional support dog, Azul, has been necessary for Dr. Ostrikers' mental health and has been with him since birth. Research shows that a supportive animal helps improve a number of mental health disorders. Removing this vital part of Dr. Ostriker's treatment component, Azul, would have determinately consequences to Dr. Ostriker's mental health. Respectfully Yours, Cathleen Cunningham, LMFT October 24, 2016 City of Rolling Hills To Whom It May Concern: In August 2016 I was hired by Jeffrey Ostriker to assess the temperament of his dogs and to teach them to walk on leash by his side without pulling. I have spent four hours of training with Dr. Ostriker and his three dogs —Azul, Sancha and Jorge. I have found them to be calm, friendly and obedient dogs. It is my understanding that a resident of the city has made a very serious accusation stating that Azul is a dangerous dog. This stems from the fact that Azul has killed chickens in the neighborhood. Chasing and killing chickens or other small animals is a result of his instinctive prey drive. Prey drive has nothing to do with aggressive, behavior toward people or other dogs. Aggression is a behavior some dogs exhibit as a response to fear. Azul is neither fearful nor aggressive. When conducting my lesson with Dr. Ostriker on the Esplanade, Azul walked calmly by dogs, adults, children and baby strollers. He displayed no aggressive behavior whatsoever. For your reference, I am a Dog Behavioral Therapist and Trainer for Bark Busters Home Dog Training. In the past seven years, I have worked with many dogs with aggressive behavior. Azul is definitely not in that category. For him to be taken away or destroyed would be senseless. It would cause great harm to Dr. Ostriker, as it would any loving dog owner. And it would needlessly take the life of a well -adjusted dog. Regards, Sue/Doyle. Sue Doyle Owner, Bark Busters of South Bay 6 GROOMING WONDERS 2543-C Pacific Coast Highway Torrance. CA 90505 Phone (310) 534-1130 October 20, 2016 To Whom It May Concern: I own the pet grooming salon where Azul Ostriker has been coming for over 5 V2 years ever since he was five months old. He has been coming into the shop to be groomed every one to two months for this entire time. At my shop, he has been exposed to all different personalities, sizes and breeds of our other clients' pets. Not once has there ever been a single issue with Azul's behavior towards any of the dogs or my staff. Azul is a very sweet and biddable dog and has never ever exhibited any bad behavior or aggression.. Sincerely, Sax Dianne Wyatt Owner Grooming Wonders October 20,2016 To Whom it May Concern: Re: Azul Ostriker 6 year old mix breed canine Intact Male Azul has been a patient of Pacific Veterinary Center since March of 2011. He has been seen for exams and medical care and has never shown signs of aggression in a hospital setting. Azul also boards with us and has not shown signs of aggression towards staff members or other pets while boarding at our facility. Sincerely, Maria Castiglione, DVM 23629 Hawthorne Blvd. a Torrance, CA 90505 4: Phone 310-791-5123 u Fax 310-791-5143 e E-mail support@pacificvetcenter.com RECEIVED From: Jeff Ostriker <jeffreyostriker@me.com> Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 7:20 PM To: Ewa Nikodem Cc: Ray Cruz Subject: Re: City of Rolling Hills - decision re Azul OCT 12 2016 City of Rolling Hills By As mentioned earlier I am out of town attending my ill mother. I Please consider this E-mail a written request to appeal within the 10 day limit. The fee will be paid upon my return. Thank you Sent from my iPad THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Title 6 ANIMALS Chapter 6.24 AGGRESSIVE ANIMALS i Sections: .aoh3x; Chapter 6.24 AGGRESSIVE ANIMALS 6.24.010 Unlawful to keep an aggressive animal. 6.24.020 Enforcement authority. 6.24.030 Commencement of enforcement. 6.24.040 City Manager investigation. 6.24.050 Imposition of remedy —Alternative 1. 6.24.060 Imposition of remedy—Altemative II. 6.24.070 Appeals. 6.24.080 Relief from conditions. 6.24.090 Failure to comply. 6.24.100 Inapplicability to trespassers. 6.24.101 Report to City Manager. 6.24.010 Unlawful to keep an aggressive animal. A. No person shall keep, harbor or own any aggressive dog or other animal within the City except in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. It shall be further unlawful for any person upon demand to refuse or fail to surrender a dog or other animal to a city enforcement official which has been deemed to be aggressive or is pending such determination pursuant to this chapter. B. A dog or other animal is deemed to be aggressive when it has attacked, bitten or caused personal injury to any person or injury to any domestic animal or livestock without provocation, or when such dog or other animal has demonstrated a propensity to attack, bite or cause personal injury to persons or injury to domestic animals or livestock as evidenced by violent or threatening behavior. C. "Violent or threatening behavior" shall mean any behavior that is not provoked by an attack or a threat of attack upon the animal or upon the animal's handler, owner or member of its household and that demonstrates a propensity to attack, bite or cause personal injury to any person or injury to any domestic animal or livestock, by engaging in one or more acts such as: 1. Charging at a fence or attempting to break free from fencing to reach individuals passing the property at which the dog or other animal lives; 2. Attacking animals within their own property enclosures; 3. Growling and showing teeth; 4. Snarling and curling lips; 5. Lunging; 6. Snapping at the air; 7. Intentionally blocking the path of a person or animal; 8. Barking aggressively in a threatening manner; 9. Attempting to break free of handler's leash to reach a person or animal; 10. Punching a person or other animal with the animal's nose (i.e., "muzzle punch"); Rolling Hills, California, Code of Ordinances Title 6 ANIMALS 11. Any other behavior or combination of behaviors reasonably interpreted to be violent or threatening under the circumstances of the incident in question. D. The following evidence shall be considered in the determination of whether a dog or other animal is aggressive and if so, what remedy should be imposed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter: 1. The animal's history of violent or threatening behavior; 2. The nature and extent of injuries inflicted, including emotional distress, or property destroyed and the number of victims involved; 3. The location where the attack, bite or injury occurred; 4. The existence and nature of any provocation for the attack; 5. The existence of evidence that the animal has been trained for fighting or attack, based on the animal's behavior and other factors; 6. The nature and number of characteristics of aggressive or unpredictable temperament or behavior that the animal exhibits in the presence of human beings or other animals; 7. Whether the animal can be effectively trained or re-trained to change its temperament or behavior; 8. Evidence concerning the manner in which the animal is kept, treated and maintained; 9. Any other relevant evidence pertaining to the animal, including but not limited to its propensity for violence; and 10. Any other relevant evidence pertaining to the animal's handlers and owners including but not limited to their efforts and abilities to control their animal(s) and prevent such animals from engaging in violent or threatening behavior as defined in Section 6.24.010(C). (Ord. No. 339, § 1, 11-10-2014) 6.24.020 Enforcement authority. A. The provisions of this chapter may be enforced by officers of Los Angeles County Animal Care and Control, the Los Angeles County Sheriff or the City Manager (collectively referred to as "city enforcement officials"). B. City enforcement officials are authorized to enter and inspect private property, impound aggressive animals and take such other actions as may be necessary to enforce the provisions of this chapter, all in accordance with applicable legal requirements. C. An officer of Los Angeles County Animal Care and Control or the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department may slay an aggressive dog or other animal, but only when the animal is attacking or poised to attack a person or other animal or presents a clear and present danger to persons or other animals and cannot safely be taken up and impounded after all reasonably available means of doing so have been exhausted. D. Any authority or duty of the City Manager or the Director of Animal Control (the "Director") set forth in this chapter may be delegated or assigned. (Ord. No. 339, § 1, 11-10-2014) Rolling Hills, California, Code of Ordinances Title 6 ANIMALS 6.24.030 Commencement of enforcement. A. Enforcement of the provisions of this chapter may be commenced either upon receipt of a complaint or upon observation by city enforcement officials of behavior demonstrating that a dog or other animal is aggressive as defined in Section 6.24.010. B. A complaint shall be filed within ten days of an incident unless an extension is granted upon the City Manager's finding of good cause, and shall include the date, time, and location of the incident, the names and statements, if any, of any known witnesses and any other pertinent information in the possession of the complainant. C. Upon receipt of a complaint or observation of an incident by city enforcement officials, the City Manager shall commence an investigation of the allegations. Pending the conclusion of that investigation, the City Manager may in his or her discretion and based on the nature and severity of the incident, order the animal confined to the premises of its owner or impounded. D. If the City Manager orders the animal confined to the premises, the owner may elect to place the animal in a kennel or veterinary facility. In either event, the animal shall not be removed from its place of confinement without the prior written approval of the City Manager and shall be made available to city enforcement officials for observation and inspection. The animal shall be confined indoors or outdoors on the animal owner's property. Outdoor confinement shall be by a fence, electronic fence, running line, pulley, or trolley system consistent with Califomia Health and Safety Code Section 122335 and California Penal Code Section 597t, or other device satisfactory to the City Manager that prevents the animal from escaping the owner's property. Notwithstanding the foregoing, when off the owner's property or premises, the animal must be equipped with a muzzle and securely held by a leash not exceeding six feet in length or similar device or other means to prevent the animal from escaping by an adult capable of restraining and controlling the animal, and under that person's immediate control. E. The City Manager may photograph, inspect and measure the animal as necessary to create a means of permanent identification to be retained in the City's records. (Ord. No. 339, § 1, 11-10-2014) 6.24.040 City Manager investigation. A. Prior to commencing an investigation, the City Manager shall immediately forward a copy of the complaint or observation report to the animal's owner with notification that the animal is the subject of an aggressive animal investigation. B. The investigation shall at a minimum consist of review and consideration of the complaint or observation report, statements, information and other evidence presented by the animal's owner, the victim(s), witnesses and other parties, and consideration of all of the factors set forth in Section 6.24.010(D). C. Upon conclusion of the investigation the City Manager shall either: 1. Find in writing that the complaint or observation is unsubstantiated, and take no further action, in which event the animal shall be released from confinement or impound; or 2. Implement the provisions of Section 6.24.050; or 3. Implement the provisions of Section 6.24.060. D. In the event that the City Manager elects to implement the provisions of Section 6.24.050 or Section 6.24.060, the owner of the animal shall be required to pay an administrative fee to the City in the amount established by resolution of the City Council to reimburse the City for its costs of administering this chapter. The administrative fee shall constitute a debt due and owing to the City until satisfied by payment in full. Rolling Hills, California, Code of Ordinances Title 6 ANIMALS E. The written findings and order shall be served by registered or certified mail or by personal service on the animal's owner and the complainant, if any, within ten days of commencement of the investigation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Manager may serve the written findings and order within twenty days of commencement of the investigation if the City Manager determines that additional time is needed to complete the investigation due to unavailability of critical witnesses or the need to interview a large number of witnesses. Any further delays require prior approval of the City Council. (Ord. No. 339, § 1, 11-10-2014) 6.24.050 Imposition of remedy —Alternative 1. A. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the City Manager may find that the complaint or observation is substantiated and that the dog or other animal is aggressive within the meaning of Section 6.24.010, but that mitigating circumstances exist to allow the animal to be retained by its owner rather than be removed from the City or humanely destroyed. Such a finding shall be prepared in writing. B. In the event of such a finding, the City Manager shall impose and the owner of the animal shall comply with any or all of the following conditions: 1. Annual registration of the animal with the City as an aggressive animal as long as the animal is alive and residing within the City, subject to payment of a fee set forth by City Council pursuant to Section 6.56.010. 2. The owner shall obtain a policy of liability insurance or a bond to provide coverage for damages or injuries caused by the animal, evidence of such insurance to be filed with the City Manager, in an amount deemed sufficient to deter any future incidents of violent or threatening behavior and to adequately compensate for a future incident should it occur. Such amount shall range from five hundred thousand dollars to two million dollars based on the evaluation by the City Manager of all the factors listed in Section 6.24.010(D) and the facts relating to the substantiated complaint or observation. 3. The animal shall at all times wear an aggressive animal tag and a bright fluorescent yellow collar visible at fifty feet in normal daylight, both provided by the City at the owner's expense. 4. The owner shall notify in writing the United States Post Office (local branch) and all utility companies providing service to the residence of the animal's aggressive status. 5. The City Manager may, in his or her discretion, order that the animal wear a muzzle at all times or only when off the owner's premises. 6. The animal shall be spayed or neutered. 7. The animal shall be microchipped. 8. The owner shall post one or more signs on the premises at a location or locations approved by the City Manager easily visible to all visitors stating that an aggressive animal resides on the premises. 9. The owner shall be required to permanently confine the animal to the property or premises of the owner. For purposes of this section "permanent confinement" means: a. The owner shall securely confine the aggressive dog or other animal indoors or if outdoors, to the owners property or premises by a fence, electronic fence, running line, pulley, or trolley system, or other device satisfactory to the City Manager and consistent with Califomia Health and Safety Code Section 122335 and California Penal Code Section 597t that prevents the animal from escaping the owner's property; b. The owner shall not allow the dog or other animal to run at large upon any street, lane, driveway, court or other public place, or upon any private property or premises other than Rolling Hills, California, Code of Ordinances 61 Title 6 ANIMALS private property or premises which the owner owns, has charge of, or has custody or control of; and c. The owner shall cause the dog or other animal to be securely held by a leash not exceeding six feet in length or similar device or other means to prevent the animal from escaping when off the owner's property or premises, by an adult capable of restraining and controlling the animal, and under that person's immediate control. At no time may the animal be left unattended in a public place. 10. The owner shall notify the City Manager immediately in the event the animal is at large, has' committed an attack on any person or animal, has been sold or otherwise disposed of, or has died. 11. Such other reasonable conditions as the City Manager deems necessary to protect the public safety and welfare. (Ord. No. 339, § 1, 11-10-2014) 6.24.060 Imposition of remedy —Alternative II. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the City Manager may find that the complaint or observation is substantiated, that the dog or other animal is aggressive within the meaning of Section 6.24.010, and that mitigating circumstances do not exist to allow the animal to be retained by its owner or that the owner is unwilling or unable to properly train, handle or maintain the animal. In such event, the City Manager shall revoke the animal's license and order that the animal be removed from the City or humanely destroyed. Such a finding shall be prepared in writing. (Ord. No. 339, § 1, I I-10-2014) 6.24.070 Appeals. A. Any person who is a party to a proceeding described in this chapter and who is dissatisfied with the order of the City Manager shall have the right to appeal to the City Council. 1. The appeal shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk within ten days after the date of mailing of the order. 2. Within ten days after receipt of a timely filed appeal, the City Clerk shall set the appeal for hearing on the next regular meeting agenda of the City Council. The City Council may continue the appeal hearing from time to time for good cause. 3. If an animal is ordered permanently confined, the order of the City Manager shall remain in effect while the appeal is pending and the owner shall comply with all the provisions thereof. If the owner of the animal is the appealing party, the failure to permanently confine the animal during the pendency of the appeal shall be grounds for dismissal. 4. If an animal is ordered removed from the City or humanely destroyed, the owner shall cause the animal to be permanently confined in accordance with Section 6.24.050(8)(9) while the appeal is pending. If the owner of the animal is the appealing party, the failure to permanently confine the animal while the appeal is pending shall be grounds for dismissal of the appeal. ' t. B. At the time of hearing the appeal, the City Council shall review and consider all evidence submitted orally and in writing relating to the order of the City Manager and shall either uphold, reverse or modify the order. C. An appeal fee shall be paid within the time allowed for filing the appeal, as set forth in Chapter 6.56. No appeal shall be processed or considered by the City Council unless such fee has been paid. Rolling Hills, California, Code of Ordinances Title 6 ANIMALS (Ord. No. 339, § 1, 11-10-2014) 6.24.080 Relief from conditions. A. The owner of a dog or other animal subject to an order of the City Manager pursuant to Section 6.24.050 or Section 6.24.060 may not sooner than twelve months following such order, apply to the City Manager for relief therefrom. The application shall contain an explanation of the circumstances justifying relief, including evidence that the animal has completed a training program approved by the Director that includes on -and -off leash obedience training, basic training and a course in behavioral problems. The application shall be accompanied by a certificate of completion and a statement from the trainer certifying that the animal is no longer aggressive within the meaning of Section 6.24.010. B. Upon receipt of an application for relief, the City Manager shall notify all complainant(s) and witness(es), if any, involved in the initial substantiated complaint or observation and conduct such investigation as he or she deems appropriate, which shall at a minimum consist of observation of the animal. The City Manager shall conduct a noticed hearing and based on the evidence presented, may: 1) with respect to an animal ordered removed from the City, allow it to retum, with or without imposition of conditions, or 2) with respect to an animal subject to conditions pursuant to Section 6.24.050(B), relieve the owner of some or all of the conditions. C. Any person who is a party to the aforementioned proceeding and is dissatisfied with the order of the City Manager shall have the right to appeal to the City Council pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 6.24.070. (Ord. No. 339, § 1, 11-10-2014) 6.24.090 Failure to comply. A. In the event that the owner of an aggressive dog or other animal who has been ordered to comply with any or all of the conditions contained in Section 6.24.050(B) fails or refuses to do so, the City Manager shall schedule and conduct an administrative hearing on the sole question of whether the conditions have been violated. The animal shall be impounded or confined pending the conduct of the hearing. The City Manager shall set a time and place for a hearing at which evidence may be introduced by all interested parties. At least ten days' written notice of the hearing shall be provided to the owner of the subject animal. If, based on the evidence presented, the City Manager determines that the owner has failed or refused to comply with the conditions, the City Manager shall order the animal removed from the City or humanely destroyed. B. If a dog or other animal deemed aggressive and ordered subject to conditions pursuant to Section 6.24.050(B) thereafter attacks a person or domestic animal causing injury, the City Manager shall proceed under Section 6.24.060. C. In the event that the owner of an aggressive dog or other animal which has been ordered removed or humanely destroyed fails or refuses to comply, the City Manager may request that the Director proceed to impound the animal and have it humanely destroyed. D. The remedies provided for in this section are in addition to any other remedies provided for in this Code and are subject to appeal pursuant to the provisions of Section 6.24.070. (Ord. No. 339, § 1, 11-10-2014) Rolling Hills, California, Code of Ordinances Title 6 ANIMALS 6.24.100 Inapplicability to trespassers. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to a dog which attacks, bites, or is aggressive toward a person who is a trespasser or an animal which is on the property of the owner of said dog or animal at the time of the attack without actual knowledge and permission of the property owner. (Ord. No. 339, § 1, 11-10-2014) 6.24.101 Report to City Manager. The Director or the Health Officer shall report any attack occurring within the City to the City Manager. (Ord. No. 339, § 1, 11-10-2014) Rolling Hills, California, Code of Ordinances 8(4 sat, giez INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310)377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 8-B Mtg. Date: 11/14/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL /� FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER net SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FOR AWARD OF A BID TO CHRISP COMPANY FOR FY 2016-17 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS PROJECT. DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: Chrisp Company Bid Schedule Agreement RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that members of the City Council award the FY 2016-17 City of Rolling Hills Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings on Certain Streets Project to Chrisp Company of Fremont, California in an amount not to exceed $33,718.30 which includes a 10% contingency for unexpected field conditions or change orders. Additional restriping may be authorized when needed, as the "on -call" cost included in the bid will apply for a 12 -month period beginning with award of the bid. BACKGROUND For FY 16/17, the City Council asked staff to formalize its recent practice to stripe the City's streets on a "as needed" basis. Therefore, staff worked with the City's Traffic Engineer and developed a methodology for a yearly review of all the City streets to determine which ones needed to be re -striped. A catalog of conditions was developed by the Traffic Engineer that will include illustrations of street striping examples to assist staff in determining when roadways demand re -striping. Staff, with the assistance of the Traffic Engineer each year will survey the streets and make the determination as to which streets meet the conditions for re -striping. When the survey is completed, including an inquiry with the Rolling Hills Community Association to determine what streets are planned to be repaved, staff will go out to competitive bid in order for the work to be completed. This year, the RHCA repaved the following four streets: Buckboard Trail, Hackamore Road, Meadowlark Lane and Reata Lane. Furthermore, staff retained a private street striping vendor this summer, J & S Striping, to complete a comprehensive street striping and marking inventory for the streets identified to be completed this fiscal year. This needed to be done because the existing inventory was broken down into two categories: all City streets and all major thoroughfares. Therefore, the City will need to continue to complete its street -by -street inventory in order to formally implement the "as needed" annual street striping and marking program. DISCUSSION The Traffic Engineer and staff assessed the condition of the roadway striping for FY 16/17, and determined its "as needed" recommendations that were included in the Request for Bids (RFB). On October 11, 2016 staff placed advertisements requesting bids in the Dodge Green Sheet, as well as posted at City Hall and on the City's website. The Dodge Green Sheet is a publication commonly used by local governments for the advertisement of public works projects. The bids were publically opened on November 7, 2016 at 11:00 AM at City Hall and the proposals are as follow: COMPANY NAME BID AMOUNT ON -CALL UNIT PRICES ONLY Chrisp Company $30,653.00 $7,181.86 (of which sandblasting is $5,000 per L.F.) J&S Striping $32,790.00 $4,153.89 (of which sandblasting is $2,800 per L.F.) Stemdahl Enterprises, Inc. $39,200.00 $3,380.64 (of which sandblasting is $2.50 per S.F) PCI $40,360.00 $4,839.55 (of which sandblasting is $2,500 per LF.) The Chrisp Company had the lowest bid of the four bidders for the FY 16/17 bid schedule, which is for the road striping work recommended to be done immediately because this year's scheduled street resurfacing project has already been completed by the RHCA. We don't have any on -call striping work scheduled and if the Association will be repaving more streets later in the year, no sandblasting will be necessary on the repaved streets. Staff has evaluated the Chrisp Company's bid package and found that the bid is in order and it includes the required Bid Bond. Furthermore, the Chrisp Company's California State Contractors License is current and active. Staff contacted the references provided by Chrisp Company and found out that the vendor is reliable and that projects were completed within budget and on time. The Chrisp Company also restriped the Rolling Hills roadways in FY 15/16 and did a satisfactory job, within the time frame and on budget. The proposed agreement provides for a 10% contingency for change orders and unexpected field conditions. The streets scheduled for striping include: Buckboard Trail Buggy Whip Drive Cinchring Road Crest Road East and West Eucalyptus Lane Hackamore Road Hillside Lane Hummingbird Lane Meadowlark Lane Outrider Road Pinto Road Poppy Trail FISCAL IMPACT Portuguese Bend Road Possum Ridge Road Quail Ridge Road South Ranchero Road Reata Lane Ringbit Road East Roadrunner Road Roundup Road Spur Lane Wideloop Road Williamsburg Lane Since the City already completed its initial striping and marking inventory, the remaining FY 2016/17 budget includes $45,617 for its citywide "as needed" restriping program. The funding for roadway striping comes from the Traffic Safety Fund. Below is the Chrisp Company's bid, including the 10% contingency. Bid Amount 10% Contingency Total $30,653.00 $ 3,065.30 $33,718.30 As you can see, the bid from the Chrisp Company is within the budgeted amount for FY 16/17 for street striping. NOTIFICATION The bidders have been notified that the City Council will be considering the bid award at its meeting of November 14, 2016. CONCLUSION With the City Council's approval of the bid and the appropriation, the City Manager will sign and execute the agreement. In addition, residents and the Rolling Hills Community • Association will be notified in advance of when the striping commences. RRC:en Award Striping 2016-17-CC-rpt.docx City of Rolling Hills COMPANY NAME: CA -EIS? Cow, y? f}OJ q BID SCHEDULE FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS U W a SQ N ai W U, 0 .1 . N gag a! em Cl v Ink R R ai _m in I m ., I m F It N s i a� —pro �.- nr.--rr--- X 5i �g R $S n <n 1/g4%1S B 0 pp q .0 8S § P 5i o 8 H 1 $ 1j1$�niY'PNR§Ila8g.g QQ 6� Q 6 1 eivesie € 0 e_ a us p i 8 4. lOw ! ff w l ui ig l 2 oar age lig 1111 3 2 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings Revised 09-19.2016 City of Rolling Hills COMPANY NAME: Clt-gi Co►k Imo- A Jq BID SCHEDULE - CONTINUED FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ITEM QUANTITY EACH TOTAL All Streets listed on page No. 9 N/A N/A t $ 7-1 653 Blue Reflective Pavement Markers (RPM's) at each fire hydrant 300 $ O6 0 " 92 $ 3e000 Yellow Reflective Pavement Markers (RPM's) 20 0p $ G$ o,: 100 TOTAL AMOUNT IN FIGURES $ 3o,(19s 3 TOTAL AMOUNT BID INWORDS: 1 \Klry \ooSoo4 S �`t� V 1VA''c< k4t&t'S Cl - Continue to page 11 - NOTE: Buckboard Lane, Hackamore Road, Meadowlark Lane & Reata Lane were recently repaved. There is no current striping there. CONTRACTOR Name C,u.e.(s9' C0012/4 j q Street Address 11365a Os&coo ?DAD City State CR Zip Code ply / Telephone Number 570. 6 s6. ?Z4D E-mail KWaIS13'Fct tCNTat SPCO• con r Signa e and Title of Bidder or Authorized ' epresentative 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings City of Rolling Hills COMPANY NAME: C,MjC..Is COY►'lyPF?Q`q ON -CALL UNIT PRICES FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS On -Call Service: Unit prices herein will apply for a 12 -month period beginning with award of the bid. The City may call upon Contractor during the 12 -month period for striping as needed at the per unit rates specified in the bid schedule. NqL Description___ y • _ Quantity, p _LUnit �' [Unit Price, _ _ 1. Repaint Detail 1 1 L.F. $ , lb 2. Repaint Detail 21 1 L.F. $ ;'2a 3. Repaint Detail 27B 1 L.F. $ , TA 4. Repaint Detail 38A 1 L.F. $ 156 , 5. Repaint 12" White x -walk 1 L.F. $ I W 6. Repaint 12" stop bar and stop legend 1 Each $ (.1-1 N' 7. Repaint 12" Yellow Line 1 L.F. $ Ve.� 8. Repaint STOP AHEAD legend 1 Each $ i ID °!-- 9. Repaint HORSE XING legend 1 Each $ j 10 G° 10. Repaint 24" White Line 1 L.F. $ 3 ?_° 11. Repaint ROAD ENDS legend 1 Each $ ii p °.; 12. Repaint 400 FEET legend 1 Each $ sic ?° 13. Repaint 500 FEET legend 1 Each $ J 9Q lj 14. Repaint SLOW CURVE marking 1 Each $ j (p t.!' 15 Blue Reflective Pavement Markers 1 Each $ Jot'? 16. Yellow Reflective Pavement Markers 1 Each $ s°% 17. Sandlasting 1 L.S. $ Cj bco °= t 18. Additional cost (if any) Each $ MOD TOTAL $ A TOTAL AMOUNT BID IN FIGURES swa,a bM j,wjgl e1t5lW ©nj T BID IN WORDS I p" �� (Signature, Name and Title) California, �i Tifday of /VOVen5 z. , 2016. 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings 1, 4211100 $ `1i (teh Vice 7 E,,51 Mi•S-t— City of Rolling Hills DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS BIDDER proposes to subcontract certain portions of the work which are in excess of one-half of one percent of the bid and to procure materials and equipment from suppliers and vendors as follows: NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER OF SUBCONTRACTORS, SUPPLIERS AND VENDORS SUB- CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NUMBER IDENTIFY WORK TO BE PERFORMED, MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT. \c 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings -12- City of Rolling Hills BIDDER'S REFERENCES The following are the names, addresses and phone numbers for three public agencies for which BIDDER has performed similar work within the past two years: 1. Name and address of owner Name and telephone number of person familiar y(i 2. Contract amount/Type of work Name and address of o Date completed Name and'teleph ru ber of .: son familiar with project Contra 3. e . work Date completed Name and a.. ess of owner a . - and telephone number of person familiar with project Contract amount/Type of work Date complete The following are the names, addresses, and phone numbers for all brokers and sureties from whom PRINCIPAL intends to procure insurance bonds: SoQn Q.: lii+tEL S CAWAL1t? 100 CAtjFOMIlit Sr, 5tW t?Aplcicl CM,']!!! AWvt J. C 04A-Aag- 11586477w sr /s01 SAu FCRNusw, GA (NM y15' 238. /644 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings -13- Chris p Company References 2016 Class Name & address Project Amount & Of work Job Information of General Contractor Contact Telephone Completion Date Paint Striping Thermo Markings Roadside Signs 2008-2016 Annual Citywide Street Maint. City of Fontana 16849 Orange Way Fontana, Ca 92335 City of Pico Rivera 6615 Passons Boulevard Pico Rivera, CA 90660 City of Corona 400 5 Vicentia Ave Corona, CA 92882 City of Whitter 13230 Penn Street Whittier, CA 90602 City of Rancho Mirage. 69825 Highway 111 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza . Santa Ana, Ca 92701 City of San Marcos 1 CMc Center Drive San Marcos, CA 92069 City of Simi Valley 2929 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Valley, CA 93063 Chad Gordon 909-350-7634 $200,000 Ongoing $70,000 Thermo Striping & Mrkg Grinding Removals Roadside Signs Annual Signing and , Striping Jose Loera (562) 801.4350 Apr -16 Thermo Striping Thermo Marking Pavement Markers Thermoplastic Traffic Striping, Markings, & Markers Scot Miller 951-817-5708 $100,000 Ongoing Non Skid Thermo Striping Non Skid Themo Marking Roadside Signs Annual Citywide Maintenance James Keena (562) 567-9514 $250,000 Ongoing $75,000 Paint Striping Annual Citywide Restriping Dave Martin 760-343-0561 ext. 512 Reoccuring Annually Thermo Striping Green Non -Skid Bike Lane Roadside Signs Green Bike Lanes Orlando Garcia 714-647-5049 $160,000 Dec -15 Stop Signs Speed Limit Signs TelesparlRound Post Citywide Sign Replace Michael Rafael (760) 744-1050 ext. 3274 $185,000 Feb -15 Stop Signs Speed Limit Signs No Parking Signs Citywide Sign Replace Rocky Nungester (805) 583-6882 $115,000 Jul -15 City of Rolling Hills EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE BIDDER certifies that in all previous contracts or subcontracts, all reports which may have been due under the requirements of any Agency, State, or Federal equal employment opportunity orders have been satisfactorily filed, and that no such reports are currently outstanding. CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE REQUIREMENT The undersigned certifies that he/she is aware that this contract cannot be awarded to him unless, at the time of the submittal of the bid, he/she is the holder of a valid California Contractor's License proper and adequate for the work required by this contract, and that the failure to obtain proper and adequate licensing for an award of the contract shall result in the forfeiture of the bidder's security. 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings -14- City of Rolling Hills BIDDERS' INFORMATION BIDDER certifies that the following information is true and correct: Bidder's ( /1 Name L4RISW rtrPaNu Business Address 142 (7 St OS GwD r? --0A ►, 12(LEflbM--, GA-- 944-39 Telephone itt State Contractor's License No. and Class 3746 00 4, CI 3/ C3z_ Original Date Issued 5/31/14'79 Expiration Date 513/,7-0/9" The following are the names, titles, addresses, and phone numbers of all individuals, firm members, partners, joint venturers, and/or corporate officers having a principal interest in this bid: Robin- 64-12-6? ,5rafivr- goca S V 0 Viet B-ES►Dflor tAu1p MaiLc VICE_ SIDES 5/0 2340 The date of any voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy judgments against any principal having an interest in this bid are as follows: N/A All current and prior DBA's, alias, and/or fictitious business names for any principal having an interest in this bid are as follows: NV4— 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings -15- City of Rolling Hills I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above representations are true and correct / Executed this '1 day of MOVEf,6"--, 2016, at a , California. Signature a.'t Title of Bidder or Authorize Representative (SEAL) 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings -16- City of Rolling Hills BID BOND FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Bidder CHRISPCOMPANY as PRINCIPAL, and Travelers Casualty end Surety Company ofAmerica , as SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Rolling Hills, as AGENCY, in the penal sum of TEN PERCENT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT SID— which is ten percent (10%) of the total amount bid by PRINCIPAL to AGENCY for the above stated project, for the payment of which sum, PRINCIPAL and SURETY agree to be bound, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION ARE SUCH that, whereas PRINCIPAL is about to submit a bid to AGENCY for the above stated project, if said bid is rejected, or is said bid is accepted and a contract is awarded and entered into by PRINCIPAL in the manner and time specified, and provides the required payment and performance bonds and insurance coverages to AGENCY, this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect in favor of AGENCY. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their names, titles, hands, and seals' this 2na day of NOVEMBER ,2016. PRINCIPAL: CHRISP COMPANY BY: BY: TAMMIE ALLISON, SECRETARY SURETY: TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA BY BETTY L. T TINO, ATTORNEY -IN -FACT Subscribed and swom to this NOTARY PUBLIC day of , 2016. (SEAL) 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings -17- CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of San Francisco On November 2, 2016 Date personally appeared before me, Janet C. Rojo, Notary Public Here Insert Name and Title of the Officer Betty L. Tolentino Name(s) of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. alt = r JR!?ET C. R0.10 a • COMM. #2041020 t C. NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA p \ W L / SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY . M "carom. Expires Oct. 9, 2017 Place Notary Seal Above I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL Signature of Notary Publi Though this section is optional, completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — 0 Limited 0 General ❑ Individual ❑ Attomey in Fact ❑ Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: Signer's Name: ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): 0 Partner — 0 Limited 0 General ❑ Individual 0 Attomey in Fact ❑ Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: • R' m.,xasitts mc-s�csW1cseF�rd vs rn, - c^s c,'tas�ctc; csEccs. .isotzt.0 ttiAg. ©2014 National Notary Association • www.NationalNotary.org • 1 -800 -US NOTARY (1-800-876-6827) Item #5907 WARNING: THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER TRAVELERSJ Attorneyln Fact No. POWER OF ATTORNEY Farmington Casualty Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company 229166 St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company Certificate No. 0 0 6 8 8 2 6 3 0 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That Farmington Casualty Company, Si. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company are corporations duly organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut, that Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Iowa, and that Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin (herein collectively called the "Companies"), and that the Companies do hereby make, constitute and appoint Susan Hecker, Maureen O'Connell, Robert Wrixon, Brian F. Cooper, M. Moody, Betty L. Tolentino, Janet C. Rojo, Virginia L. Black, K. Zerounian, and Kevin Re of the City of San Francisco State of California their tree and lawful Anomey(s)-in-Fact, each in their separate capacity if more than one is named above, to sign, execute, seal and acknowledge any and all bonds, recognizances, conditional undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof on behalf of the Companies in their business of guaranteeing the fidelity of persons, guaranteeing the performance of contracts and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings required or permitted in any actions or proceedings allowed by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Companies have caused this instrument to be signed and their corporate seals to be hereto affixed this day of July 2016 . Farmington Casualty Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company State of Connecticut City of Hartford ss. By: I1th St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company • Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company Robert L. Raney, Senior Vice President On this the I I th day of July - 2016 before me personally appeared Robert L. Raney, who acknowledged himself to be the Senior Vice President of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, and that he, as such, being authorized so to do, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained by signing on behalf of the corporations by himself as a duly authorized officer. In Witness Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. My Commission expires the 30th day of June, 2021. 58440-5-16 Printed in U.S.A. a. ja• Marie C. Tetreault, Notary Public WARNING: THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER WARNING: THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER , This Power of Attorney is granted under and by the authority of the following resolutions adopted by the Boards of Directors of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company; which resolutions are now in full force and effect, reading as follows: RESOLVED, that the Chairman, the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President, any Vice President, any Second Vice President, the Treasurer, any Assistant Treasurer, the Corporate Secretary or any Assistant Secretary may appoint Attorneys -in -Fact and Agents to act for and on behalf of the Company and may give such appointee such authority as his or her certificate of authority may prescribe to sign with the Company's name and seal with the Company's seal bonds, recognizances, contracts of indemnity, and other writings obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking, and any of said officers or the Board of Directors at any time may remove any such appointee and revoke the power given him or her; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairman, the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President or any Vice President may delegate all or any part of the foregoing authority to one or more officers or employees of this Company, provided that each such delegation is in writing and a copy thereof is filed in the office of the Secretary; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that any bond, recognizance, contract of indemnity, or writing obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking shall be valid and binding upon the Company when (a) signed by the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President or any Vice President, any Second Vice President, the Treasurer, any Assistant Treasurer, the Corporate Secretary or any Assistant Secretary and duly attested and sealed with the Company's seal by a Secretary or Assistant Secretary; or (b) duly executed (under seal, if required) by one or more Attorneys -in -Fact and Agents pursuant to the power prescribed in his or her certificate or their certificates of authority or by one or more Company officers pursuant to a written delegation of authority; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the signature of each of the following officers: President, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President, any Vice President, any Assistant Vice President, any Secretary; any Assistant Secretary, and the seal of the Company may be affixed by facsimile to any Power of Attorney or to any certificate relating thereto appointing Resident Vice Presidents, Resident Assistant Secretaries or Attorneys -in -Fact for purposes only of executing and attesting bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof, and any such Power of Attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signature or facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company and any such power so executed and certified by such facsimile signature and facsimile seal shall be valid and binding on the Company in the future with respect to any bond or understanding to which it is attached. I, Kevin E. Hughes, the undersigned, Assistant Secretary, of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., Si. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Power of Attorney executed by said Companies, which is in full force and effect and has not been revoked. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seals of said Companies this 2nd day of November Kevin E.HHughes, Assistant Sec tary 20 16. To verify the authenticity of this Power of Attorney, call 1-800-421-3880 or contact us at www.travelersbond.com. Please refer to the Attorney -In -Fact number, the above -named individuals and the details of the bond to which the power is attached. WARNING. THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189 :nzeteea A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate Is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of ALAMEDA On 11/3/16 Date personally appeared before me, KELLY R. AGUILAR, NOTARY PUBLIC Here Insert Name and Title of the Officer TAMMIE ALLISON Name(s) of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they-executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by tds/her/theirsignature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. KELLY R. AGUILAR • Commission # 2066619 ..•13 g- Notary Public - California z Alameda County I'v Comm. Ex ires Mayy 2, 2018i Place Notary Seal Above I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though this section is optional, completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: U Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — fl Limited n General ❑ Individual 0 Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee U Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: Signer's Name: ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): 0 Partner — 0 Limited Cl General fl Individual 0 Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee Cl Guardian or Conservator U Other: Signer Is Representing: si3tkv.wxca sf ©2014 National Notary Association • www.NationalNotary.org • 1 -800 -US NOTARY (1-800-876-6827) Item #5907 City of Rolling Hills NON -COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA State of California County of Los Angeles SS. P—DGEie- L E/513Th° , being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he or she is Vir f r ( DENT of 61,1yc-, COMP - the party making the foregoing bid, that the bid is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation; that the bid is genuine and not collusive or sham; that the bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other bidder to put in a false or sham bid, and has not directly or indirectly, colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any bidder or anyone else to put in a sham bid, or that anyone shall refrain from bidding; that bidder has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the bid price of the bidder or any other bidder, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the bid price, or of that of any other bidder, or to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the contract of anyone interested in the proposed contract; that all statements contained in the bid are true; and, further, that the bidder has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her bid price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto, or paid, and will not pay, : . ' fee to any corporation, partnership, company association, organization, bid depository, or to any em er or agent thereof to effectuate a collusive or sham bid. Subscribed and sworn to before me on Signature t(lnK 11 co (date) Signa (Notary Seal) l4mnuuunnmmnnmmnuunnnnnmmnnnnmm11mnmmmuu. 2016-2017 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings -18- KAY UKES = COMM. #2095563 1 ez `.�� a:c NOTARY PUBLIC• CALIFORNIA la $ :eq! AIAM®A COUNTY at at My Camm. Exp. Jan. 1, 2019 = i111110111mnhllnmmn0IIannn1nI11111u1IumhJII111mmuhnIII111Iltls City of Rolling Hills BID FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA Bids to be received on Monday, November 7, 2016, at 11:00 a.m. at the City of Rolling Hills City Hall. Completion Time: 15 consecutive working days unless otherwise agreed upon. Forfeiture Due to Delay - $250.00 per calendar day CONTRACTOR Name C}4TZ1Sp C-0r'1pAN Street Address t13& 5U l o PC City mOsJn-- State Ofr Zip Code gyEger Telephone Number 5/0. 656. 2&'4 o 2016-20(7 RFB Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings -19- ) CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA THIS CONTRACT AGREEMENT is made and entered into for the above stated project this 15`h day of November, 2016, BY AND BETWEEN the City of Rolling Hills as AGENCY, and Chrisp Company, as CONTRACTOR. WITNESS that AGENCY and CONTRACTOR have mutually agreed as follows: ARTICLE 1 The contract documents for the aforesaid project shall consist of the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Bid, Standard Specifications, Special Provisions, and all referenced specifications, details, standard drawings, and appendices; together with three (3) signed copies of the Contract Agreement, three (3) signed copies of required bonds, one (1) copy of the certificates (including Endorsement Form CG 20-10-11-85), permits, notices, and affidavits; and also including any and all addenda or supplemental agreements clarifying, amending, or extending the work contemplated as may be required to insure its completion in an acceptable manner. All of the provisions of said contract documents are made a part hereof as though fully set forth herein. ARTICLE II For and in consideration of the payments and agreements to be made and performed by AGENCY, CONTRACTOR agrees to furnish all materials and perform all work required for the above stated project, and to fulfill all other obligations as set forth in the aforesaid contract documents. ARTICLE III CONTRACTOR agrees to receive and accept the prices set forth in the Bid as hill compensation for furnishing all materials, performing all work, and fulfilling all obligations hereunder. Said compensation shall cover all expenses, losses, damages, and consequences arising out of the nature of the work during its progress or prior to its acceptance including those for well and faithfully completing the work and the whole thereof in the manner and time specified in the aforesaid contract documents; and also including those arising from actions of the elements, unforeseen difficulties or obstructions encountered in the prosecution of the work, suspension or discontinuance of the work, and all other unknowns or risks for any description connected with the work. On -Call Service: Unit prices herein will apply for a 12 -month period beginning with award of the bid. The City may call upon Contractor during the 12 -month period for striping as needed at the per unit rates specified in the bid schedule. ARTICLE IV AGENCY hereby promises and agrees to employ, and does hereby employ, CONTRACTOR to provide the materials, do the work, and fulfill the obligations according to the terms and conditions herein contained and referred to, for the prices aforesaid, and hereby contracts to pay the same at the time, in the manner, and upon the conditions set forth in the contract documents. PERSONNEL: Contractor shall provide at all times sufficient personnel and flag men with the skills and experience necessary to perform the various activities for the full performance of this work. All personnel provided for the performance of this Agreement shall be employees of the Contractor and Contractor shall assume payment of all wages, taxes and all other employee costs, unless otherwise provided. On -site personnel shall wear identifiable company uniforms including shirts, jackets, and caps, as necessary. Frequent inspections of the site shall be made by an appropriate Supervisor of the Contractor to assure adherence to schedules and policies by the crews performing the work. Area Supervisors shall be available to attend job walks with the City Manager or representative as necessary. Contractor shall provide and designate one -person as the designated City contact. ARTICLE V CONTRACTOR acknowledges that this contract is subject to the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing the Section 1720) of the California Labor Code relating to public works and public agencies and agrees to be bound by all the provisions thereof as though set forth in full herein. CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1775 concerning penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The Contract shall, as a penalty to the AGENCY, forfeit not more than fifty dollars ($50) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each .worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations for the work or craft in which the work is employed for any public work done under the contract by CONTRACTOR or by any subcontractor. CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1777.5 concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects, and further agrees that CONTRACTOR is responsible for compliance with Section 1777.5 by all of its subcontractors. CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. The CON TRACTOR shall, as a penalty to the AGENCY, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the execution of the contract by the CONTRACTOR or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than 8 hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the California Labor Code. In accordance with California Labor Code Section 1860 and 3700, every Contractor will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861, CONTRACTOR, by signing this contract certifies as follows: "1 am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that' code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract." 20/6-20/7 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings ARTICLE VI With respect to performance of work under this contract, CONTRACTOR shall maintain and shall require all of its subcontractors to maintain insurance as required in the Standard Specifications of the Project Specifications. ARTICLE VII CONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY: The City of Rolling Hills and its officers, agents and employees ("Indemnitees") shall not be answerable or accountable in any manner for any loss or damage that may happen to the work or any part thereof, or for any of the materials or other things used or employed in performing the work; or for injury or damage to any person or persons, either workers or employees of CONTRACTOR, of its subcontractors or the public, or for damage to adjoining or other property from any cause whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the performance of the work. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for any damage or injury to any person or property resulting from defects or obstructions or from any cause whatsoever. CONTRACTOR will indemnify Indemnities against and will hold and save Indemnitees harmless from any and all actions, claims, damages to persons or property, penalties, obligations or liabilities that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm, entity, corporation, political subdivision, or other organization arising out of or in connection with the work, operation, or activities of CONTRACTOR, its agents, employees, subcontractors or invitees provided for herein, whether or not there is concurrent passive negligence on the part of City. In connection therewith: a. CONTRACTOR will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any such claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, expert fees and costs incurred in connection therewith. b. CONTRACTOR will promptly pay any judgment rendered against CONTRACTOR or Indemnitees covering such claims, damages, penalties, obligations and liabilities arising out of or in connection with such work, operations or activities of CONTRACTOR hereunder, and CONTRACTOR agrees to save and hold the Indemnitees harmless therefrom. c. In the event Indemnitees are made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against CONTRACTOR for damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the work, operation or activities hereunder, CONTRACTOR agrees to pay to Indemnitees and any all costs and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in such action or proceeding together with reasonable attorneys' fees. Contractor's obligations under this section apply regardless of whether or not such claim, charge, damage, demand, action, proceeding, loss, stop notice, cost, expense, judgment, civil fine or penalty, or liability was caused in part or contributed to by an Indemnitee. However, without affecting the rights of City under any provision of this agreement, Contractor shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless City for liability attributable to the active negligence of City, provided such active negligence is determined by agreement between the parties or by the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. In instances where City is shown to have been actively negligent and where City active negligence 2016-2017 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings accounts for only a percentage of the liability involved, the obligation of Contractor will be for that entire portion or percentage of liability not attributable to the active negligence of City. So much of the money due to CONTRACTOR under and by virtue of the contract as shall be considered necessary by City may be retained by City until disposition has been made of such actions or claims for damages as aforesaid. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California. This indemnity provision shall survive the termination of the Agreement and is in addition to any other rights or remedies which Indemnitees may have under the law. This indemnity is effective without reference to the existence or applicability of any insurance coverage which may have been required under. this Agreement or any additional insured endorsements which may extend to Indemnitees. CONTRACTOR, on behalf of itself and all parties claiming under or through it, hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Indemnitees, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to activities or operations performed by or on behalf of the CONTRACTOR regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent passive negligence by the Indemnitees. ARTICLE VIII This contract is not assignable nor the performance of either party's duties delegable without the prior written consent of the other party. Any attempted or purported assignment or delegation of any of the rights of obligations of either party without the prior written consent of the other shall be void and of not force and effect. ARTICLE IX In any action brought to declare the rights granted herein or to enforce any of the terms of this contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees in an amount determined by the court. ARTICLE X CONTRACT is and shall at all times remain as to the AGENCY, a wholly independent Contractor. Neither the AGENCY nor any of its agents shall have control of the conduct of CONTRACTOR or any of the Contractor's employees, except as herein set forth. CONTRACTOR shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of AGENCY. ARTICLE XI The CONTRACTOR is responsible for paying all retail, sales and use, transportation, export, import, special, or other taxes and duties applicable to, and assessable against any work, materials, equipment, services, processes and operations incidental to or involved in this contract. The CONTRACTOR is responsible for ascertaining and arranging to pay them. The prices established in this contract shall 2016-2017 Agreement- Replacement of - 4 Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings 8 include compensation for any taxes the CONTRACTOR is required to pay by laws and regulations in effect of the bid opening date. ARTICLE XII All notices and communications shall be sent to the parties at the following address: CITY: City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 ARTICLE XIII This contract supersedes any and all other agreements either oral or written, between the parties and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the parties pertaining to the work of improvements described herein. Each party to this contract acknowledges that no representations,. inducements, promises, or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that any other agreement, statements or promise not contained in this contract shall not be valid or binding. Any modification of this contract will be effective only if signed by the party to be charged. ARTICLE XIV Insurance coverages shall be provided by CONTRACTOR as follows: CONTRACTOR shall, at his expense, obtain and keep in force during the term of this Agreement, all policies specified below. Self Insured Retention / Deductibles. All policies required by this Agreement shall allow City, as additional insured, to satisfy the self -insured retention ("SIR") and/or deductible of the policy in lieu of the CONTRACTOR (as the named insured) should CONTRACTOR fail to pay the SIR or deductible requirements. The amount of the SIR or deductible shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney and the Finance Director. CONTRACTOR understands and agrees that satisfaction of this requirement is an express condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement. Failure by CONTRACTOR as primary insured to pay its SIR or deductible constitutes a material breach of this Agreement. Should City pay the SIR or deductible on CONTRACTOR's behalf upon the CONTRACTOR's failure or refusal to do so in order to secure defense and indemnification as an additional insured under the policy, City may include such amounts as damages in any action against CONTRACTOR for breach of this Agreement in addition to any other damages incurred by City due to the breach. Contractor shall maintain and deliver copies of its • Comprehensive General Liability Insurance • Products/Completed Operations Hazard • Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. • Contractual General Liability • Workers' Compensation Insurance covering its employees for injuries arising out of and in the course of their employment 2016-20/7 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings The liability insurance coverage values are hereby established to be: Insurance Coverage Requirements Limit Requirement Comprehensive General Liability Products/Completed Operations Hazard Comprehensive Automobile Liability Contractual General Liability Worker's Compensation Insurance $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $1,000,000 The City, it officers, employees and agents, shall be named as additional insured on all such policies. Each policy of insurance shall contain a clause prohibiting cancellation, modification or lapse without (30) days prior written notice having been given to the City. All insurance policies shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney and certificates evidencing such policies shall be provided to the City concurrently with the filing of all required bonds. The General Aggregate Limits must apply "per project". A combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amount of $3,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits. The General Aggregate Limits must apply "per project". In addition, Contractor shall take and assume all responsibility for the work as stated herein and/or shown on the plans and specifications. The Contractor shall bear all losses and damages directly or indirectly resulting to him, to the Agency, its officers, employees, and agents, or to others on account of the performance or character of the work, unforeseen difficulties, accidents or any other causes whatsoever. If Contractor, for any reason, fails to maintain insurance coverage, which is required pursuant to this Agreement, the same shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement. City, at its sole option, may forthwith terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from the Contractor resulting from said breach. Alternatively, City may purchase such required insurance coverage, and without further notice to Contractor, City may deduct from sums due to Contractor any premium costs advanced by City for such insurance. Contractor will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees incurred in connection herewith; Contractor will promptly pay any judgment rendered against City, its officers, agents or employees for any such claims, penalties, obligations or liabilities; and, In the event City, its officers, agents or employees are made a part to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Contractor for such damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the sole negligence or wrongful acts of Contractor hereunder, Contractor agrees to pay City, its officers, agents, or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by City, its officers, agents of employees in such action or proceeding, including by not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees. 2016-2017 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings ARTICLE XV CONTRACTOR affirms that the signatures, titles and seals set forth hereinafter in execution of this Contract Agreement represent all individuals, firm members, partners, joint ventures,•and/or corporate officers having a principal interest herein. No act by the Agency, or its representatives in processing or accepting any plans, in releasing any bond, in inspecting or accepting any work, or of any other nature, shall in any respect relieve the Contractor or anyone else from any legal responsibility, obligation or liability he might otherwise have. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants herein contained and have caused this Contract Agreement to be executed in triplicate by setting hereunto their names, titles, hands, and seals this day of November, 2016. CONTRACTOR: (Title) Contractor's License No. Subscribed and sworn to this day of November, 2016. NOTARY PUBLIC AGENCY: ATTESTED: (SEAL) Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager Date Heidi Luce, City Clerk Date 20/6-20/7 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings (EXECUTE IN TRIPLICATE) 9 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that , as CONTRACTOR and , a SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Rolling Hills as AGENCY, in the penal sum of Dollars and Cents ($ ), which is one hundred (100%) percent of the total contract amount for the above stated project, for the payment of which sum, CONTRACTOR and SURETY agree to be bound, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION ARE SUCH that, whereas CONTRACTOR has been awarded and is about to enter into the annexed Contract Agreement with AGENCY for the above stated project, if CONTRACTOR faithfully performs and fulfills all obligations under the contract documents in the manner and time specified therein, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect in favor of AGENCY; provided that any alterations in the obligations or time for completion made pursuant to the terms of the contract documents shall not in any way release either CONTRACTOR or SURETY, and notice of such alterations is hereby waived by SURETY. In case suit is brought upon this bond the said SURETY will pay a reasonable attorney's fee to the owner in an amount to be fixed by the court. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their names, titles, hands, and seals this day of , 20 . CONTRACTOR* SURETY* * Provide CONTRACTOR/SURETY name, address and telephone number and the name, title, address and telephone number for authorized representative. Power of Attorney must be attached. Subscribed and sworn to this NOTARY PUBLIC day of , 20 . (SEAL) 2016-2017 Agreement- Replacement of - 8 - Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings (EXECUTE IN TRIPLICATE) PAYMENT BOND FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills as AGENCY has awarded to Chrisp Company, as Contractor, a contract for the above stated project; and WHEREAS, said Contractor is required to furnish a bond in connection with said contract, to secure the payment of claims of laborers, mechanics, materials persons, and other persons as provided by law; NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Contractor and' Surety, are held and firmly bound unto AGENCY in the sum of thirty thousand six hundred fifty three Dollars and 00 Cents ($30,653.00) which is one hundred (100%) percent of the total contract amount for the above stated project, for which payment well and truly be made we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH that if said CONTRACTOR, its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, assigns or subcontractors, shall fail to pay any of the persons named in Civil Code Section 3181, or amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor withhold, and paid over to the employment Development Department from the wages of employees of the Contractor and its subcontractors pursuant to Section 13020 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, with respect to such work and labor, that the surety or sureties herein will pay for the same in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, otherwise the above obligation shall be void. In case suit is brought upon this bond, the said surety will pay a reasonable attorney's fee to the plaintiffs and the AGENCY in an amount to be fixed by the court. This bond shall inure to the benefit of any of the persons named in Civil Code Section 3181 as to give a right of action to such persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond. The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of said agreement or the specifications accompanying same shall in any manner affect its obligations on this bond. The surety hereby waives notice of any such change, extension, alteration or addition and hereby waives the requirements of Section 2845 of the Civil Code as a condition precedent to any remedies AGENCY may have. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their names, titles, hands, and seals this day of , 2016. CONTRACTOR* SURETY* 2016-2017 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings * Provide CONTRACTOR/SURETY name, address and telephone number and the name, title, address and telephone number for authorized representative. Power of Attorney must be attached. Subscribed and sworn to this NOTARY PUBLIC day of , 20 (SEAL) (EXECUTE IN TRIPLICATE) 20/6-20/7 Agreement- Replacement of 10 - Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings 0 MAINTENANCE BOND FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA KNOW ALL PERSON BY THESE PRESENTS THAT WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills as AGENCY has awarded to , as Contractor, a contract for the above stated project; and WHEREAS, said Contractor is required to furnish a bond in connection with said contract guaranteeing maintenance thereof: NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Contractor and Surety, are held firmly bound unto AGENCY in the sum of Dollars and Cents ($ ), which is ten (10%) percent of the total contract amount for the above stated project to be paid to AGENCY, its successors and assigns, for which payment well and truly be made, we bind ourselves, out heirs, executors and administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION ARE SUCH THAT IS SAID contractor shall remedy without cost to AGENCY any defects which may develop during a period of one (1) year from the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion of the work performed under said contract, provided such defects are caused by defective or inferior materials or work, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect. In case suit is brought upon this bond, the said SURETY will pay a reasonable attorneys fee to the owner in an amount to be fixed by the court. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their names, titles, hands, and seal this day of , 20 . CONTRACTOR* SURETY* (EXECUTE IN TRIPLICATE) 20/6-20/7 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR FY 2016-2017 REPLACEMENT OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SCOPE OF WORK The work to be done consists of furnishing all materials, equipment, tools labor, and incidentals as required by the plans, specifications, and contract documents. The general items of work include painting and repainting of traffic striping and pavement markings, replacement of missing markers, the installation of new reflective pavement markers/markers, and the removal of obsolete and/or unnecessary striping and pavement markings. Work shall include the cleaning of soil and debris from areas to be striped prior to actual striping. Rolling Hills is a forested area and at no time shall any employees of contractor smoke inside or outside of vehicles while in the City of Rolling Hills. LOCATION OF WORK The general locations and limits of the work are as follows: See page No. 9 for a list of street and anticipated work being proposed. The work being proposed is the restriping of certain streets, however Hackamore Road will require relocation of stop bar and stop legend. Coordinate with City staff when ready to paint. MATERIALS AND STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, GENERAL STANDARDS Fire Hydrant markings shall be BLUE Reflective Pavement Markers (RPM's) at each Fire Hydrant, in center of closest driving lane. Materials. Paint for traffic striping shall be rapid dry. Paint for crosswalks, stop bars, arrows other pavement legends and curb markings shall be ready -mixed rapid dry type. One coat of paint is sufficient. Must not be completely absorbed by the pavement and must be visible. Edgeline Striping Paint Material: Antiskid (edgeline striping to consist of 65% mixture of sand and 35% mixture of glass beads). Paint a 4" white edgeline stripe along the streets. Any cost increase greater than 10% must be approved by the City Manager. SIGNING, STRIPING, AND PAVEMENT MARKERS All equipment, materials, and components for striping, and the installation thereof, shall conform to the Caltrans Standard Plans, dated 2015 and Standard Specifications, Section 84, "Traffic Stripes and Pavement Markings," and Section 85, "Pavement Markers," dated 2015 except as noted in the Special Provisions and on the Plans. These Plans and Specifications are hereinafter referred to as State Standard Plans and State Standard Specifications. Copies of these documents are available from Caltrans, District 7 office at 100 South Main Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 or from Caltrans, 6002 Folsom Boulevard, Sacramento, California 95819, (916) 445-3520. All materials required for the completion of 2016-2017 Agreement- Replacement of - 12 - Trafc Striping and Pavement Markings work as shown on the Plans, shall be provided by the Contractor. TIME FOR COMPLETION The Contractor shall complete all work in every detail within fifteen (15) working days after the date in the Notice to Proceed, exclusive of maintenance periods, except or otherwise agreed upon. CONSTRUCTION, SCHEDULE AND COMMENCEMENT OF WORK At least one week prior to the start of work, the Contractor shall furnish to the City Manager a schedule of work showing the Contractor's planned sequence of operations. The Schedule shall show the manner of traffic control planned for the complete project, such as complete road closure, partial closures, flagmen, and detouring details. The list showing lane closures shall be prepared for each day. Such schedule shall be subject to the review and approval of City Manager. No work shall be done until the City Manager and Contractor have agreed to the schedule to be followed by the Contractor. Prior to issuing the Notice to Proceed, the City Manager will schedule and conduct a preconstruction meeting with the Contractor to review the proposed construction schedule and delivery dates and clarify inspection procedures. ORDER OF WORK Unless directed otherwise by the City Manager, the order of the various work activities shall be completed at the discretion of the Contractor. PROSECUTION OF WORK The Contractor shall submit weekly progress reports to the City Manager. The report shall include updated construction schedule. Any deviations from the original schedule shall be explained. EXTENSION OF TIME Requests for an extension of time must be delivered to the City Manager within five consecutive calendar days following the date of the occurrence which caused the delay. The request must be submitted in writing and must state the cause of the delay, the date of the occurrence causing the delay, and the amount of additional time requested. This shall be included as part of the construction schedule required above. Requests for extensions of time shall be supported by all evidence reasonably available or known to the Contractor which would support the extension of time requested. Requests for extensions of time which are not received within the time specified above shall result in the forfeiture of the Contractor's right to receive any extension of time requested. If the Contractor is requesting an extension of time because of weather, he shall supply daily written reports to the City Manager describing such weather, and the work which could not be performed that day because of such weather or conditions resulting therefrom and which he otherwise would have performed. 20/6-20/7 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings - 13 - WORKING DAY The Contractor's activities shall be confined to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Deviation from these hours will not be permitted without the prior consent of the City Manager except in emergencies involving immediate hazard to persons or property. In the event of either a requested or emergency deviation, inspection service fees will be charged against the Contractor. The service fees will be calculated at overtime rates including benefits, overhead, and travel time. The service fees will be deducted from any amounts due the Contractor. FORFEITURE DUE TO DELAY The Contractor shall complete all or any designated portion of the work called for under the contract within the time set forth in the Section entitled Time for Completion. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, Contractor agrees to forfeit and pay Agency the amount of Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($250.00) per day for each and every day of unauthorized delay beyond the completion date, which shall be deducted from any monies due the Contractor. Failure of the Contractor to perform any covenant or condition contained in the contract documents within the timer period specified shall constitute a material breach of this contract entitling the Agency to terminate the contract unless the Contractor applies for, and receives, an extension of time in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section entitled Extension of Time. Failure of the Agency to insist upon the performance of any covenant or conditions within the time period specified in the contract documents shall not constitute a waiver of the Contractor's duty to complete performance within the designated periods unless the waiver is in writing. The Agency's agreement to waive a specific time provision or to extend the time for performance shall not constitute a waiver of any other time provisions contained in the contract documents. Failure of the Contractor to complete performance promptly within the additional time authorized in the waiver or of time agreement shall constitute a material breach of this contract entitling the Agency to terminate this agreement. The Contractor shall not be deemed in breach of this contract and no forfeiture due to delay shall be made because of any delays in the completion of the work due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor provided the Contractor requests an extension of time in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section entitled Extension �f Time. Unforeseeable causes of delay beyond the control of Contractor shall include acts of God, acts of a public enemy, acts of the government, acts of the Agency, or acts of another contractor in the performance of a contract with the Agency, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes, and weather, or delays of subcontractors due to such causes, or delays caused by failure of the owner of a utility to provide for removal or relocation of existing utility facilities. Delays caused by actions or neglect of Contractor or his agents, servants, employees, officers, subcontractors, directors, or of any party contracting to perform part or all of the work or to supply any equipment or materials shall not be excusable delays. Excusable delays (those beyond the Contractor's control) shall not entitle the Contractor to any additional compensation. The sole remedy of the Contractor shall be to seek an extension of time. 2016-20/7 Agreement- Replacement of - 14 - Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings TRAFFIC AND ACCESS The Contractor will be required to maintain at least one lane of traffic in each direction through the project area at all times in a manner satisfactory to the City Manager. It is the Contractor's responsibility to provide cones, barricades, lights and any other measures necessary for regulation of traffic. STREET CLOSURE, DETOURS, BARRICADES All traffic control barricades, signs and devices used by the Contractor shall, at a minimum, conform to the "Manual of Warning Lights and Devices," adopted by and in current use by the State of California, Department of Transportation. Channelization devices shall be spaced no greater than 25 feet apart. The Contractor shall take additional precautions as he may find necessary under the circumstances. Should Contractor fail to provide adequate traffic control or safety barricades, and in the event a responsible individual cannot be located or refuses to perform, the Agency will at its option place needed devices or engage a private firm to place and maintain said barricades, which will be charged to Contractor directly. STREET CLOSURES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. PARTIAL AND FINAL PAYMENT The closure date for period progress payments will be the twenty-fifth day of each month. Authorization to pay is commonly received on the second Monday of the following month. The full ten (10) percent retention will be deducted from all payments. The final retention will be authorized for payment thirty-five days after the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion. The Contractor may substitute securities for any monies withheld by the Agency to ensure performance under the contract as provided in Public Contract Code Section 22300. PERMITS Pursuant to State Bill 854, the following new requirements apply to all public works projects: A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded. The website for contractor registration with the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) is https://efling.dir.ca.gov/PWCR; the annual non-refundable fee, valid July 1 through June 30 (state fiscal year), is $300. Contractors who are awarded a public works project must submit electronic payroll records to the DIR's Compliance Monitoring Unit (CMU) in addition to providing wet -ink original copies to the City or its designated labor compliance enforcement officer. 20/6-20/7 Agreement- Replacement of - 15 - Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings 0 NOTIFICATION The Contractor shall notify Willdan Engineering and the owners of all utilities and substructures not less than 40 hours prior to starting construction. The following list of names and telephone numbers is intended for the convenience of the Contractor and is not guaranteed to be complete or correct: WILLDAN ENGINEERING Attention: Ms. Vanessa Munoz CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Attention: City Manager ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Attention: Kristen Raig, Manager SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY Attention: Ms. Faviola Ochoa SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY Attention: Ms. Connie Turner VERIZON Attention: Mr. Mike Murray COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Attention: Mr. Jim Leach CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY Attention: Mr. Henry Wind LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Attention: Mr. Chris Oberle (562) 368-4848 (310) 377-1521 (310) 541-6222 (310) 781-8480 (310) 783-9341 (562) 435-9594 (949) 546-2406 (310) 257-1400 (310) 534-3760 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT Attention: No Name Given (818) 458-3129 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (800) 422-4133 EMERGENCY INFORMATION The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the Contractor and subcontractors, or their representatives, shall be filed with the City Manager and the County Sheriffs Department prior to beginning work. 20/6-20/7 Agreement- Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings - 16 - STREET MAP CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Map is available on the City's web site at http:/ /rolling-hillsorg/DocumentView.aspx?DID=5 20/6.10/7 Agreement- Replacement of - 17 - Trafc Striping and Pavement Markings ear ai 1611419 qeek INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 ' FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 8-C Mtg. Date: 11/14%16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER Iv' _/ SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ANIMAL PEST MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. FOR SUPPLEMENTAL COYOTE CONTROL SERVICES. DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2016 ATTACHMENT: Agreement BACKGROUND Historically, the City of Rolling Hills maintains an annual agreement with the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner/Weights & Measures Dept. (ACWM) for coyote control services. Since the beginning of the calendar year, the City has received a significant number of calls concerning coyote activity within the City limits. There also been a major uptick of coyote activity on the peninsula and entire South Bay. Although the City utilizes the Los Angeles County ACWM for coyote control, the agency's responsiveness is limited because it has only one staff member that eradicates coyotes for one third of the entire County. Thus, Rolling Hills has to wait its turn in the cue regardless of the urgency of its coyote control problem. When the City encountered a similar surge of coyote activity two years ago, staff found a third party vendor, Animal Pest Management, who was then recommended to be the City's supplemental coyote control provider. Staff placed an agenda item on the subject for a City Council meeting where they entered into a contractual agreement. However, due to a lack of coyote control success and responsiveness to the City's needs fromthe trapper, the City let the contract lapse. With the recent explosive growth in aggressive O coyote incidents reported by resident and at the direction of the City Council, staff again looked to expand its coyote control options beyond the County. DISCUSSION With the increase of aggressive coyote incidents within the City and the lack of responsiveness from the Los Angeles County ACWM, these conditions has led staff to find alternative coyote control options. After reviewing its options, staff has opted to recommend the State licensed coyote control vendor, Animal Pest Management Services, Inc. (APMS) who is available as a supplement to County's services. Although the City's prior experience with APMS was disappointing, staff personally has had a good experience utilizing this firm for coyote control in another City and have found them to be professional, effective and discreet. The City Manager recently personally spoke to the President of APMS and was assured that the previous issues with the trapper will be rectified. APMS is the only company that staff can find that also utilize firearms to control coyotes. This has been a very effective method in Rolling Hills when trapping has been ineffective. The company works on a 10 -day work schedule at a cost of $3,500 for trapping and $1,000 the first night and $500 for subsequent nights for shooting. APMS will need only up to eight traps to cover the entire three square miles of the City limits. The firm told the City officials that they usually control 1-5 coyotes per 10 -day cycle. They also indicated that if shooting were utilized, they would be in the City two hours each night. FISCAL IMPACT The City has budgeted $15,000 for coyote control services for FY 2014/15. Staff plans to utilize Animal Pest Management, Inc. for services up to $7,000 until June 30, 2017. Staff will also evaluate their effectiveness after its first attempt to trap/shoot to determine if the City will utilize the contractor again in the future for coyote control services. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the agreement as presented and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. RRC:hl 16/17 CoyoteControlAgreement-stn.docx TRAPPING SRRVICE AGREEMENT 90606316 Urban Wildlife Professionals tt4, NAME: COT OF ROLLING HILLS ATTN: RAY CRUZ Phone 800344.6567 Fax 909.590.1435 DATE: 10/27/16 STREET: 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD CITY: ROLLING HILLS STATE: CA ZIP. 90274 HEREBY AUTHORIZES SERVICE AT. CUT)' OF ROLLING HILLS STREET: VARIOUS LOCATION'S WITHIN THECITY CRY: ROLLING HILLS ZIP: PHONE 310-377.1521 FAX: EMAIL RCRUZZICITTOFRMNET Notice: The customer acknowledges and understands that no guarantee on dm number of target animals to be trapped (if any) is given. The customer funhcr agrees that if any of the imps or mmcrials used on the job site are lost stolen or damaged. the customer is responsible for reimbursing Animal Pest Management Saviees. Inc at the replacement cost indicated (Nis charge is ova and beyond the total cos of the job). DESCRIPTION OF WORK TRAPPING PERIOD: 10 BUSINESS DAYS TRAPS / MATERIALS TO BE USED (AMOUNT AND NUMBER): SNARES TARGET ANIMALS/PESTS: COYOTE REPLACEMENT COST: SN/A 'THE ANIMAL PEST MANAGEMENT TRAPPER. JIMMIE RIZZO WILL. CONTACT RAY CRUZ WITH A STATUS REPORT EVERY WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY DURING THE TRAPPING PERIOD* **TRAPPING TO COMMENCE UPON RECEIPT OF SIGNED CONTRACT. COSTS INITIAL SET UP FEE 52500.00 • This minimum charge covers the set-up. use of maps and/or materials for thc duration of the cupping period and the trapping and rcmovai of the target animals. ADDmONAL CHARGES: S V�6/ for every trip to remove a target animal that is trapped. SN/A for every trip to Itmovc a non -taiga animal trapped that mum be removed or released. PAYMENT TERMS The initial set-up fee of .500.00 is due at the beginning of the trapping program Additional chugs (if any) arc due as they occur. CUSTOMER AGREES TO PAY WHEN BILLED FOR SERVICES DUE. A SERVICE CHARGE OF 1.514 PER MONTH EQUIVALENT TO AN ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATEOF 18% WILL BE APPLIED TO PAST DUE ACCOUNT. Animal Pea Management Service& Inc. agrees to provide trapping services m thc described premises according to thc tens and conditions set forth under description of work. This agreement covers only the premises and target animals specified under description of wort The agreement does not guarantee against present or Nturc pest damage to the property. building or contents of the described premises, or provide compensation therefore Prot Prim Moro ALP ) C.VFTS% DATE��'Z1�`� DATE • IMLP MAN CaMOT CM INC CUSTOMER (SIGNA7VRE1 PRESIDENT / PRINCIPAL URBAN WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST: DAN FOX AREA 7 SW pITA—$L SIZ:`I .'v�T,v ISRI-`„HrrRPTO\E CaPv Carpame OM= 13655 Redwood Coon Cb'an CA 91710-5516 San Diego Canny 3525 Del Ma Hrigms. 0760. Sat Diego. CA 92130.2122 Orange County 23170 Del Lap Drive. Laguna Hills. CA 92653.1306 Riverside Gaiety PMB 446.31855 Dec Pram Nye Cathedral City. CA 92234-3100 For Over 30 Years. He/Ring To Make Our World Greener. www.animalpe tcom al Raga, d=ie¢ 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: 11/14/16 TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY COUNCIL PERSONNEL COMMITTEE Councilmember Leah Mirsch Councilmember Jeff Pieper SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING AND TRAFFIC COMMISSION. DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: Letters of Interest (alphabetical order) RECOMMENDATION The City Council Personnel Committee recommends that the City Council appoint Jana Cooley to serve a four-year term on the Planning Commission and reappoint Charlie Raine to serve a four-year term on the Traffic Commission. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Planning Commission The term of Planning Commissioner Michael Gray will expire in January 2017. As such, in September 2016, upon direction from the City Council, the City began advertising for letters of interest from residents desiring to serve on the Planning Commission. The notice of the opportunity was included in the City newsletter, on the City's web site and posted at City Hall for a month. As a result of the recruitment process, two letters of interest were received from Jana Cooley (9 Chuckwagon Road) and Stephanie Goodman (64 Saddleback Road). The incumbent did not submit a letter of interest in being reappointed. On November 2nd, the City Council Personnel Committee conducted interviews with the two candidates. The Personnel Committee was fortunate to have received applications from two 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 Planning Commission. Both applicants demonstrated a commitment to the community, a desire for preserving the community's character, and an interest in "giving back" to the City. After careful consideration, the Committee recommends Jana Cooley for the appointment to four-year term expiring in January 2021. Traffic Commission: In May 2016, the City Council appointed 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 expires January 1, 2017. As such, in September 2016, upon direction from the City Council, the City began advertising for letters of interest from residents desiring to serve on the Traffic Commission. The notice of the opportunities was included in the City newsletter, on the City's web site and posted at City Hall for a month. At the conclusion of the recruitment process, only the incumbent, Charlie Raine submitted a letter of interest in being appointed to the Planning Commission. At its _ meeting on November 2nd, the Personnel Committee discussed the appointment and recommends that Charlie Raine be re -appointed to the Traffic Commission to a four- year term expiring in January 2021. NOTIFICATION The applicants for the Planning Commission and Traffic Commission have been advised that the City Council will be considering these appointments at its meeting of November 14, 2016.' CONCLUSION The City Council Personnel Committee recommends that the City Council consider its nomination of Jana Cooley for appointment to the Planning Commission and Charlie Raine for re -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. RC:h1 Comm issionAppoin tmen t_PC_TC-report.docx RECEIVED October 19, 2016 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, OCT 19 2016 City of Rolling Hills By I would like to take this opportunity to express my interest in applying for the upcoming vacancy on the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. Steve and I purchased our property in May 2010, and 1 spent the next two years working with our architect and general contractor on planning, permitting and implementation of a major remodel of the residence until we moved into our home in March of 2012. In 2013 we began the planning phase for our barn, a new construction project which is nearing completion in the coming months. Though I am not an architect or contractor by trade, I have worked through both projects with the professional staff and gained a greater understanding of the challenges of construction in this community. 1 am a retired court reporter, having spent 30 years working both in criminal court and civil litigation. Prior to our move to Rolling Hills 1 worked for LA County Supervisor Michael Antonovich as a children's policy deputy. I have been a member of Assistance League Los Angeles for 28 years and was on the board of directors until our move. Since our move to Rolling Hills I have spent my free time helping care for my grandchildren and have enjoyed walking the trails with our three dogs and riding at the Portuguese Bend Riding Club. I am an active member of the Women's Community Club of Rolling Hills. Steve and I are also members of Caballeros. As a member of the Planning Commission my goal would be to maintain the beautiful and unique rural and equestrian environment specified in the General Plan, while at the same time recognizing the individual characteristics of each property. Sincerely, Jana Cooley 9 Chuckwagon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310 377-3809 janascooley@yahoo.com Sublect Planning Commission Opening Dare: iaesday, Ocmher 18, 201611:13 PM From: Stephanie Goadman csgaody@gmall.omm> 10:'hIuce®dtyofrKner chluoe®tltyofrh.neb Thank you for explaining the requirements/details of the position open on the planning commission. I an interested in filling that position and please accept thisemailas my confirmation letter of interest. An requested, here ie a brief overview: My husband Scott Goodman and I live at 64 Saddleback Road We purchased the home in April 2013 and moved in February of 2014 From 10/04-11/11 1 vas President of RGR Development Corporation In my professional capacity, I managed 8 large industrial properties In Arizona and California I have experience in zoning, city planning, and construction related to industrial property Please feel free to call me with any questions. I can be reached at 310-780-1741. Thank you, Stephanie Goodman RECEIVED OCT 19 2016 City of Rolling Hills By Thursday, October 6.201611.•15 AM Subject: TMR& Cantndsslon Date: Thursday, October 6, 201611:03 AM From: Charlie Ralnecchadie.ralne10@gmall.mma To: "hluce@dtyofrh.net" <hluce®dtyebh.neb Dear City Council members, If you are willing, I would be interested in continuing on.as a member of the Traffic Commission. Regards, Charlie Raine 4 Pinto Road 310.377.4932 RECEIVED, OCT 062016 City of Rolling Hills By Agenda Item No: 10-A Mtg. Date: 11/14/16 Subject: Meeting with Cal Water to discuss draft conservation framework -11/17/16 at 9:30 a.m. Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:01 PM From: Gilbride, Angie <agilbride@calwater.com> To: Gilbride, Angie agilbride@calwater.com Cc: Cordone, Susan scordone@calwater.com, Jenkins, Ken kjenkins@calwater.com, Skarb, Justin jskarb@calwater.com Conversation: Meeting with Cal Water to discuss draft conservation framework -11/17/16 at 9:30 a.m. Good morning, In January, the State Agencies (EO Agencies) responsible for implementing Executive Order B-37-16 (Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life) will release their final report including the framework for implementing the Executive Order. In anticipation of this, the EO Agencies are scheduled to release a draft of this framework on November 14, 2016. Public comments on the draft framework are due by November 23, 2016. Cal Water will be submitting its response to the EO Agencies and given the impact the proposed framework will have on our customers, your constituents, we would like to hear feedback from you on the draft framework. For your information, I have attached the following items: - Executive Order B-37-16 - Summary of -the framework for establishing water targets that was provided by the EO Agencies on September 8. Note that the current recommendation by the EO Agencies for the CII component is the implementation of performance measures. Most recent update presentation provided by the EO Agencies on October 20, including their current recommendations. In addition to the items attached, you may find additional information at www.water.ca.aov/wateruseefficiencv/conservation. We will be hosting a meeting at our office (2632 W. 237th Street, Torrance, CA 90505) on Thursday, November 17 at 9:30 a.m. to discuss this topic and hear your feedback. Please let me know at your earliest convenience if you are able to attend and how many people will attend from your group. Due to space constraints, we'd appreciate if you could bring no more than 2 folks to the meeting. Thank you, Angie Gilbride Reg. Com. Affairs Specialist CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 310-257-1437 oay L aaaa Quality. Service. Value. calwater,cnm This e-mail and any of its attachments may contain California Water Service Group proprietary information and is confidential. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail and then deleting it from your system. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Executive Department state of (California EXECUTIVE ORDER B-37-16 MAKING WATER CONSERVATION A CALIFORNIA WAY OF LIFE WHEREAS California has suffered through a severe multi -year drought that has threatened the water supplies of communities and residents, devastated agricultural production in many areas, and harmed fish, animals and their environmental habitats; and WHEREAS Californians responded to the drought by conserving water at unprecedented levels, reducing water use in communities by 23.9% between June 2015 and March 2016 and saving enough water during this period to provide 6.5 million Californians with water for one year; and WHEREAS severe drought conditions persist in many areas of the state despite recent winter precipitation, with limited drinking water supplies in some communities, diminished water for agricultural production and environmental habitat, and severely - depleted groundwater basins; and WHEREAS drought conditions may persist in some parts of the state into 2017 and beyond, as warmer winter temperatures driven by climate change reduce water supply held in mountain snowpack and result in drier soil conditions; and WHEREAS these ongoing drought conditions and our changing climate require California to move beyond temporary emergency drought measures and adopt permanent changes to use water more wisely and to prepare for more frequent and persistent periods of limited water supply; and WHEREAS increasing long-term water conservation among Califomians, improving water use efficiency within the state's communities and agricultural production, and strengthening local and regional drought planning are critical to California's resilience to drought and climate change; and WHEREAS these activities are prioritized in the California Water Action Plan, which calls for concrete, measurable actions that "Make Conservation a Califomia Way of Life" and "Manage and Prepare for Dry Periods" in order to improve use of water in our state. NOW, THEREFORE, I, EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Govemor of the State of California, in accordance with the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the State of Califomia, in particular California Govemment Code sections 8567 and 8571, do hereby issue this Executive Order, effective immediately. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The orders and provisions contained in my January 17, 2014 Emergency Proclamation, my April 25, 2014 Emergency Proclamation, Executive Orders B-26-14, B-28-14, B-29-15, and B-36-15 remain in full force and in effect except as modified herein. State agencies shall update temporary emergency water restrictions and transition to permanent, long-term improvements in water use by taking the following actions. USE WATER MORE WISELY 1. The State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) shall, as soon as practicable, adjust emergency water conservation regulations through the end of January 2017 in recognition of the differing water supply conditions across the state. To prepare for the possibility of another dry winter, the Water Board shall also develop, by January 2017, a proposal to achieve a mandatory reduction in potable urban water usage that builds off of the mandatory 25% reduction called for in Executive Order B-29-15 and lessons learned through 2016. • 2. The Department of Water Resources (Department) shall work with the Water Board to develop new water use targets as part of a permanent framework for urban water agencies. These new water use targets shall build upon the existing state law requirements that the state achieve a 20% reduction in urban water usage by 2020. (Senate Bill No. 7 (7th Extraordinary Session, 2009-2010).) These water use targets shall be customized to the unique conditions of each water agency, shall generate more statewide water conservation than existing requirements, and shall be based on strengthened standards for. a. Indoor residential per capita water use; b. Outdoor irrigation, in a manner that incorporates landscape area, local climate, and new satellite imagery data; c. Commercial, industrial, and institutional water use; and d. Water lost through leaks. The Department and Water Board shall consult with urban water suppliers, local governments, environmental groups, and other partners to develop these water use targets and shall publicly issue a proposed draft framework by January 10, 2017. 3. The Department and the Water Board shall permanently require urban water suppliers to issue a monthly report on their water usage, amount of conservation achieved, and any enforcement efforts. ELIMINATE WATER WASTE 4. The Water Board shall permanently prohibit practices that waste potable water, such as: • Hosing off sidewalks, driveways and other hardscapes; • Washing automobiles with hoses not equipped with a shut-off nozzle; • Using non -recirculated water in a fountain or other decorative water feature; • Watering lawns in a manner that causes runoff, or within 48 hours after measurable precipitation; and • Irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians. 5. The Water Board and the Department shall direct actions to minimize water system leaks that waste large amounts of water. The Water Board, after funding projects to address health and safety, shall use loans from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to prioritize local projects that reduce leaks and other water system losses. 6. The Water Board and the Department shall direct urban and agricultural water suppliers to accelerate their data collection, improve water system management, and prioritize capital projects to reduce water waste. The California Public Utilities Commission shall order investor -owned water utilities to accelerate work to minimize leaks. 7. The California Energy Commission shall certify innovative water conservation and water loss detection and control technologies that also increase energy efficiency. STRENGTHEN LOCAL DROUGHT RESILIENCE 8. The Department shall strengthen requirements for urban Water Shortage Contingency Plans, which urban water agencies are required to maintain. These updated requirements shall include adequate actions to respond to droughts lasting at least five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought. While remaining customized according to local conditions, the updated requirements shall also create common statewide standards so that these plans can be quickly utilized during this and any future droughts. 9. The Department shall consult with urban water suppliers, local govemments, environmental groups, and other partners to update requirements for Water Shortage Contingency Plans. The updated draft requirements shall be publicly released by January 10, 2017. 10. For areas not covered by a Water Shortage Contingency Plan, the Department shall work with counties to facilitate improved drought planning for small water suppliers and rural communities. IMPROVE AGRICULTURAL WATER USE EFFICIENCY AND DROUGHT PLANNING 11.The Department shall work with the Califomia Department of Food and Agriculture to update existing requirements for Agricultural Water Management Plans to ensure that these plans identify and quantify measures to increase water efficiency in their service area and to adequately plan for periods of limited water supply. • 12.The Department shall permanently require the completion of Agricultural Water Management Plans by water suppliers with over 10,000 irrigated acres of land. 13. The Department, together with the California Department of Food and Agriculture, shall consult with agricultural water suppliers, local governments, agricultural producers, environmental groups, and other partners to update requirements for Agricultural Water Management Plans. The updated draft requirements shall be publicly released by January 10, 2017. The Department, Water Board and California Public Utilities Commission shall develop methods to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Executive Order, including technical and financial assistance, agency oversight, and, if necessary, enforcement action by the Water Board to address non -compliant water suppliers. This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its agencies, departments, entities, officers, employees, or any other person. I FURTHER DIRECT that as soon as hereafter possible, this order be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given of this order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this 9th day of May 2016. ALEX PAOILLA Secretary of State EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Governor of California ATTEST: Technical Workgroups on Executive Order Water Use Targets and Standards September 6`^ and September 8th Framework for Setting Water Use Targets Based on Indoor Water Use, Outdoor Water Use, Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII), and Water Loss Standards and Budgets Water Use Targets: Water use targets are calculated as the sum of budgeted volumes/GPCD established by standards set for indoor, outdoor, CII, and water loss. Each of these standard -based volumes is referred to as the "budget" component of the total water use target. Compliance will be measured on the total water use target, at the supplier scale, not on the individual "budgets." A supplier's water use target will be calculated as: Water use (volume/GPCD) based on indoor residential standard (indoor budget) + Water use (volume/GPCD) based on outdoor standard (outdoor budget) + Water use (volume/GPCD) based on CII use (CII budget) + Water use (volume/GPCD) based on system water loss (water loss budget} = Water Supplier Water Use Target 1. Indoor Residential Water Use Standard • The indoor residential water use standard is a volume of water used by each person per day. The standard is in units of gallons per capita per day (GPCD). • The indoor residential standard will be used to calculate the indoor residential budget of a supplier's water use target, as a function of the total service area population. o Example: Indoor residential budget = Service area population x Indoor standard x days/year o The initial standard is proposed as 55 GPCD beginning in 2021. o The standard will be revised downward to reflect increased usage of efficient fixtures and appliances in 2025 and 2030. o State will reevaluate standard every five years, beginning in 2025. 2. Outdoor Water Use Standard • The outdoor water use standard is a fraction of reference evapotranspiration (ETo), based on the age and irrigated/irrigable area of the parcels within a suppliers service area. • Two options are being considered for the outdoor water use budget: 1. Include all residential and dedicated irrigation account landscape area 2. Include all landscapes within the supplier's service area including landscape served by CII accounts. (This approach would require a separate budget for indoor CII water use.) • Using the landscape area option selected by the state above, the outdoor water use budget is • calculated as the sum of the individual budgets for all parcels within that landscape area, using an Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor (ETAF) as follows: 1. Landscape area for parcels developed pre 2010 x 0.8 ETo 2. Landscape area for parcels developed between 2010 and 2015 x 0.7 ETo 3. Landscape area for parcels developed post 2015 x 0.55 ETo (0.45 for Commercial landscape) Technical Workgroups on Executive Order Water Use Targets and Standards September 6th and September 8th 4. Special landscapes (parks, fields) area x 1.0 ETo • The outdoor standard will be revised lower based on the results of DWR's review of existing budgets and a study of landscape irrigation use in a representative statewide sample of suppliers. Revised standards will be available from the state in 2018. • State will reevaluate every 5 years, beginning in 2025. 3. Cll Water Use Standard • The State is considering three approaches for the CII sector. 1. Calculate the water budget based on total 01 water use 2. Using a water use estimate for CII landscape (see bullet 2, option 2 in the outdoor water use standard), estimate CII indoor water use. (Total CII - CII landscape use= CII indoor water use) 3. Exclude CII water use from a volumetric water budget and instead require the implementation of performance measures which could include the following: • Classification of CII Water Use • Dedicated meters for landscapes over a certain area • Water audits and/or management plans for CII water users over a specified volume threshold. • For approaches 1 and 2, two options are being considered for setting water budget standards: 1. A Provisional Target for either all CII (approach 1) or CII indoor (approach 2) • Example: a percentage reduction from a 2013 baseline 2. Develop a methodology by which a supplier could self -assess potential CII reductions within their service area and establish a CII standard unique to their service area. • State will reevaluate standard every five years, beginning in'2025. 4. Water Loss Standard • The standard for water system loss will be established through the SB 555 process, and will be expressed in terms of a volume per capita or, volume per connection, accounting for relevant factors such as infrastructure age and condition . • The water system loss standard will be set by 2019, to be achieved by 2025. • State will reevaluate standard every five years, beginning in 2025. 10/19/2016 eid(a L Webinar Control Panel - Providing Comments Tdcp60m Acc..s code:I= i dodo put l 1 ar�N. Ymm. a.mu.{f�j� 1 0 fee atramt.n _1 exm,anmz WEBINAR ORIENTATION It you hove technical ddfk Wk, contact Sarah OMVlfcdo: sclIr1Mab@ccPctwadu 1 10/19/2016 ► Review Draft Framework from Project Teams: Strengthen Local Drought Resilience Eliminate Water Waste ►Use Water More Wisely ► Discuss considerations for January 10, 2017 Report Strengthening Local Drought Resilience ► (EO#8) The Department shall strengthen requirements for urban Water Shortage Contingency Plans, which urban water agencies ore required to maintain. These updated requirements shall include adequate actions to respond to droughts lasting at least five years, os well as more frequent and severe periods of drought. While remaining customized according to local conditions, the updated requirements shall also create common statewide standards so that these plans con be quickly utilized during this and any future droughts. 2 10/19/2016 Goal / Deliverables ► To develop standard WSCP requirements to assure water supplier drought resilience and forestall the need for State mandated actions ► To recognize the need for supplier -specific flexibility for responding to actual or potential shortages ► To assure transparency and accountability to both customers and state agencies 1. Plan: Develop supplier -specific WSCP with defined elements ► Assess: Use defined process to annually assess conditions and respond with supplier -appropriate actions ► Respond: Implement supplier appropriate actions already defined in WSCP (based upon assessment results) ► Report: ► Submit annual assessment to Stale agencies P. Submit WSCP every 5 -years with UWMP ► Submit monthly status when certain stages activated 10/19/2016 ► The State needs to define the "problem" being fixed ► State -mandated "one -size -fits -all" percentage reduction goals do not work due to wide variety in supplier -specific circumstances ► Future supply conditions should reflect potential effects of: climate change. future regulatory constraints, hydrology variability, etc. ► Statewide standard "stages" must allow for supplier -specific local actions ► Voluntary demand reduction octivities should be differentiated from "mandatory" reductions actions ► Triggers that drive locally -relevant responses should be clear ► Recognize that supply portfolio management and temporary supply augmentation may be part of a supplier's WSCP responses ► An economist should be involved in WSCP development ► The State should utilize existing supplier reporting and analyses when developing WSCP requirements ► Clearly differentiate that the long-term demand management from temporary WSCP response actions ► If the State may mandate conservation actions, it needs to clearly define predictable assessment processes and triggers so suppliers can plan accordingly 4 10/19/2016 ► Regional or statewide mandated demand reduction seems unnecessary if suppliers are successfully implementing their WSCPs ► The State agencies should facilitate regional communications and coordination, and should coordinate amongst themselves with data and analysis ► The State needs to clarify how it may define a "region" ► Separate short term vs. long term planning Urban water suppliers su WSCP that: 1. Defines Annual Assessment Schedule and Procedures 2. Defines Annual Assessment Methodology o. Annual Water Budget Forecast (WBF) b. Annual 5 -year Drought Risk Assessment (5-DRA) 3. Defines Evaluation Criteria - a set of Evaluation Criteria used to conduct the WBF and the 5-DRA 4. Defines Shortage Response Actions (SRAs) to mitigate actual or potential shortage a. Supply management and augmentation b. Voluntary and mandatory demand reduction 5. Defines Shortage Thresholds to enable definitive grouping of defined SRAs 5 10/19/2016 6. Defines Staged Mandatory Demand Reduction Actions as a subset of SRAs focused only on demand reduction 7. Establishes a Communications Plan describing approach, potential budget needs, and probably actions to quickly implement SRAs 8. Details Customer Compliance, Enforcement mechanisms and exemption process 9. Demonstrates Implementation Authorities to assure consistent and timely implementation of the WSCP to maintain desired water supply reliability 9. Defines a Financial Plan for Drought Conditions to accommodate and manage financial affects when SRAs are triggered to. Defines Monitoring and Reporting Requirements and Procedure a. Internally (e.g. to elected board/council) a. Externally to customers and neighboring suppliers or counties c. To State ogencies IL Establishes a Re-evaluation and Improvement Process to monitor and systematically evaluate the WSCP's functionality to manage risk 6 10/19/2016 ► Monitor regional and statewide conditions ► Review WSCPs and data ► Provide increased Technical and Financial Assistance for preparing and implementing WSCPs and related response actions ► Develop Reporting, Compliance, and Enforcement protocols to ensure suppliers are adequately prepared for more severe and frequent drought conditions State's reporting, compliance and enforcement protocols ► Objective ► Document compliance with wSCP requirements J. Establish a data record that can be useful in analysis, oversight and drought -risk evaluations ► Provide transparency and accountability ► Timing I. supplier would submit required information to the the State by fdole?t each year ► Reporting would utilize existing State reporting requirements (data. formats, platforms) as appropriate to minimize redundancy and supplier resources 7 10/19/2016 ► Potenlial Data ► Prior year's production volume ► Current year's projected customer demand (prior to any reduction gool), and projected demand for next 5 yeors ► Current year's supply. and projected available supply for next 5 years (potentially for multiple supply scenarios) ► Selected responses (if any), accompanied by estimated supply augmentation and/or demand reduction (voluntary or mandatory) ► Access/weblinks to materials presented to supplier's elected body detailing Annual Assessment data. analysis, results and recommendations (e.g. staff report) I. Monthly submittals in declared drought emergency RCE Protocols (cont.) ► Potential Compliance it. Submittal of complete and adequate WSCP to DWR ► Submittal of annual assessment and stress test data to DWR and monthly status to SWRCB, if WSCP activated ► Potential Enforcement P. Non -submittal of compliant WSCP or required reports ► Non -implementation of supplier's own WSCP, if activated 8 10/19/2016 Annual and Five Year Dry Period Assessments ► Proposed variants ► 1. Annual self assessment (WBF) a. submit with UWMP or if trigger invokes WSCP b. five year stress test submitted with UWMP P. 2. Annual self assessment (WBF) in current year plus five year stress test submitted to State annually ► 3. Annual self assessment submitted to State a. submit to Slate a five year stress test with UWMP and when WSCP is invoked Annual and Five Year Dray Period Assessments ecommendation ► Water suppliers shall conduct an Annual Water Budget Forecast (supplies and demands) covering the period May through April, and report the budget forecast to the Department of Water Resources each April. Water suppliers shall also conduct a 5 -Year Dry Period Assessment each year, and report the assessment in their 5 -year Urban Water Management Plan, as well as in years when the supplier invokes or increases a stage/level of their Water Shortage Contingency Plan. 9 10/19/2016 10 10/19/2016 Chapter 4, Eliminate Water Waste - Report Outline ► 4.1 Emergency Water Conservation Regulation for 2017 ► 4.2 Permanent Prohibition in Wasteful Practices • 4.3 Reduce Water Supplier Leaks and Water Losses • 4.4 Certification of Innovative Technologies for Water Conservation and Energy Efficiency • Stakeholder meetings on regulations development ► July 22. August 19. September 12 SB 555 Validated Water Loss Reporting • Stakeholder members ► Water agencies (public and private). environmental, association representatives • Preporing to take the draft regulations public 11 10/19/2016 Financial Assistance for Water, Loss Control ► State Water Board will offer financial assistance for leak detection and repair lo woter systems that had emergency shortages. ► I -Bank CLEEN state revolving loon fund available to oil government agency and non-profit water suppliers ► CEC is currently funding o pilot project of three innovative leak detection and reduction technologies with Colifornia-Americon Water Company ► Acoustic monitoring • Satellite imagery ► Pressure reduction Certifying Water Conservation and Loss Detection and-ontrol Technologies ▪ Energy Commission held o Informational Proceeding Public Workshop on October 1 10 • Unkto sides hll ps://ellling.energy.ca.gov/kkts/Dockellog.aspxddocketnumbet=16- 011-01 u Participation tram Energy Commission. State Wale: Board. Deportment of Water Resources and stakeholders • Comments are due by 5:W p.m. October 28°`. 2016 ▪ to submit electronically: - Go to hitpy/energy.ca.gov/applances/2016-011-0I / - COck on' Submit eCommenr ► io send a hard copy. California Energy Commission Dockets Office. MS -4 Re: Docket No. 16-011-01 1516 Ninth Street Sacramento. CA 95814.5512 12 10/19/2016 EMERGENCY REGULATIONS WATER USE TARGETS AND STANDARDS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Implementation: Use Wa Wisely ► Modified emergency drought regulations (EO #1) ► Board will develop proposal to achieve mandatory reduction to build off 25% (EO #1) ► Board and DWR to make monthly reporting permanent (EO #3) 13 10/19/2016 Implementation: Use Water 27 More Wisely ► State agencies to establish a long term framework for new water use targets based on water budgets calculated from standards for 4 sectors (EO #2) ► Indoor residential ► Outdoor irrigation ► Commercial, Industrial, Institutional (CII) ► Distribution System Loss Implementation: Efficiency Standards ► Indoor Standard: ► Provisional standard of 55 GPCD ► Revise downward in 2018, based on additional studies, to be achieved by 2025. ► Outdoor Standard: ► Provisional standards based on Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: ► 0.8 reference Evapotranspiration (Et) (pre -2010) ► 0.7 reference Et (2010-2015) ► 0.55 (residential) or 0.45 (commercial) post 2015 ► 1.0 for special landscapes ► Revise downward in 2018 based on analysis of existing data and pilot project with 30 agencies 14 10/19/2016 Implementation: Efficienc Standards ► Commercial, Induitrial, 8, Institutional (CII) ► Proposed approach: Establish performance measures I. All dedicated irrigation accounts will be on a budget using outdoor standards I. Require classification (NAICS) by (2021), develop benchmarks. ► Require all mixed meter accounts to split off landscape greater than a size threshold to dedicated irrigation accounts (or equivalent technology) by 2021. • Audits and water management plans for reporting efficiency in CII water use. Audits and plans for subset of CII customers, based on volume, percentage, or number. ► Water Loss ► SB 555 Standards ► State Water Board rulemaking to commence in 2019 with standards set in 2020 ► Will include real and apparent losses Targets calculated by adding the volume or GPCD from sector budgets, but not CII Draft Framework: Water Use Target Calculation Illustrative Target Calculation with Sample Numbers: Sector Budget (vol.l Budget (GPCD) Indoor Residential 4,570,744 55 Outdoor Landscape 3,729,166 44 Water Loss 530.560 7 TARGET 10,482,849 (CCF) 128 (GPCD 15 10/19/2016 ► Progress reports beginning in 2019 to describe actions suppliers will take to meet 2025 requirements. Implementation: Use Wager More Wisely ► Compliance in 2025 reporting period, as documented in 2026 compliance report and 2025 UWMP (submitted in July 2026) ► State agencies are developing methods to support compliance from 2021 through 2025. wungOmw alm .wain eusweeoe.fekdoln fterssre Cover Image for Illustrative purposes orW. 16 10/19/2016 Chapter 1. Introduction • Purpose of this Report ▪ Development Process • Organization Chapter 2. Water Conservation in California ▪ History of Woter Conservation • Recent Events and Actions ICWAP. Drought) Chapter 3. evoking Conservotion a Way of Life • Executive Order B -37-I6 • Framework for Implementation (Intro for Chapters 4851 • Organization of Actions and Recommendations I. Reifled Programs and ActMlies Report Outline (cont'd) 11. Chapter 4. Directives that Will be Implemented Within Existing Authorities raw • Emergency water conservation Regulation for 2017 (E0 1) g4:/ to Permanent Prohibition in Wasteful Practices (E04) ® O ets • Reduce Water Supplier Leaks and Water Losses (E0 5: E0 6) ® • Certification of Innovative Technologies for Water Conservation and Energy Efficiency (E0 7) The following will be reported for each Item: • Need for change • Directive • Implementation 17 10/19/2016 Chapter 5. Recommendations that Require Additional Authority for Implementation New Water use Targets based on strengthened Standards (E0 2&3) Strengthen Urban Water Shortage Contingency Plan (E08&9: EC) 67 Improve Drought Planning for Small Water Suppliers and Rural Communities (EO 10: EO 6) Update Agricultural Water Management Plan Requirements (EO I I. 12& 13: E0 6) The fdlowing wil be reported for eoch item: ' • Need for Change • Directive • Recommendations • Reporting. Compliance and Enforcement • Relationship to Other E0 recommendations • Other Recommended Actions Chapter 6. Framework for Implementation ow Summary Schedule 18 10/19/2016 Aggressive Schedule (updated October 19. 2016) • Pubic Draft: November 14, 2016 • UAG/AAG Joint Webinar 8 Public workshop: November 18, 2016 • Pubic Comments Due: November 23, 2016 (midnight) to. Final: January 10, 2017 (mandated date) WOW Summer -Fat 2016 Develop App'oach 8 pail Reconvnmgptbnr January 10, 2017 •flml Report 0 0 0 November 2016 •Publc daft (Nov. III Pubic Warkihcp(Nov. 18) •Pubic carnnenh Due (Nov. 23) Next Stages •Inykment New Reaukemenh 11 Appicable • leghIRINe Change' U Needed 19 10/19/2016 20 CLoSE-b SE sSi ors/ CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION Agenda Item No: 12-A Mtg. Date: 11/14/16 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP A LAW PARTNERSHIP MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ROLLING HILLS CC: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER FROM: MICHAEL JENKINS, CITY ATTORNEY NATALIE C. KARPELES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2016 RE: CLOSED SESSION RE: FORMAL COMPLAINT WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AGAINST THE CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY - ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. This memorandum is in preparation for the closed session on Monday, November 14, 2016. BACKGROUND On September 12, 2016, the City Council directed that the City Attorney to file an informal complaint with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) against the California Water Company ("Cal Water"); this informal complaint was electronically filed with the CPUC on September 15, 2016. Specifically, this complaint alleged that Cal Water's implementation of Schedule 14.1 as to residents of the City who purchased their homes after January 1, 2013, arbitrarily calculates an individual's monthly water budget by averaging water usage among all of its customers within the Palos Verdes Peninsula (regardless of lot size, home size, and land use); rather than relying on a more accurate and appropriate methodology (such as aerial/GIS imagery - which Cal Water has employed during its appeals process) to provide an individualized water budget for its customers. Lastly, the informal complaint alleged that Cal Water's appeal form is insufficient in that it does not impart to the applicant the ability to appeal for reasons such as the purchase of a home in the City after 2013. JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP NOVEMBER 9, 2016 PAGE 2 CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY - CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY - ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. In response to its formal complaint, the City received a letter from the CPUC on October 24, 2016, recommending that the City file a formal complaint. DISCUSSION A. The Formal Complaint Process. Through the formal complaint procedure, the CPUC can order Cal Water to take corrective action, namely, requiring that Cal Water adjust its rate -setting methodology in order to fairly allocate water budgets to "new" City residents. In order to facilitate a determination of its claims, the City may elect to file its formal complaint in one of two ways: via the expedited complaint procedure, or the regular complaint procedure. Regardless of which procedure the City has selected, the City will have the burden to present its case and prove Cal Water's alleged violations. 1. Expedited Complaint Procedure. First, this procedure may only be utilized if the disputed amount in the City's case is less than $5,000. Secondly, in order to facilitate the speed within which these complaints are heard, the hearing would be held within 30 days after Cal Water has filed its answer to the City's complaint. Under the expedited complaint procedure, no attorneys or court reporters may be present; this means that if the determination is appealed by either party and rehearing is granted, the whole case must be reheard under the regular complaint procedure. 2. Regular Complaint Procedure. Under the regular complaint procedure, the City may have an attorney present to represent it; additionally, a court reporter will be present to prepare a transcript of the hearing. Therefore, if the determination is JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP NOVEMBER 9, 2016 PAGE 3 CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY - CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY - ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. appealed by either party and rehearing is granted, the CPUC may review the transcript and decide what further proceedings are necessary. The one downside to the regular complaint procedure is the uncertainty as to when the City's complaint will be heard. Once the formal complaint has been accepted for filing with the CPUC, it will be assigned a case number and served on Cal Water. Cal Water will then have 30 days to file its answer (or 20 days, should the City elect the expedited complaint procedure). Once Cal Water has filed its answer, an Administrative Law Judge (AL]) will be assigned to hear the complaint. The ALJ may wish to schedule a prehearing conference (either in person or by telephone), to determine the parties, the issues and the hearing schedule. At the conclusion of the hearing, the ALJ will write a draft decision for the five - member CPUC. This decision will be considered at a publicly noticed meeting of the CPUC, during which the Commission will either accept, reject, or modify the ALJ's draft decision. B. Formal Complaint Considerations. 1. Formal complaints filed with the CPUC become a public record and may be recorded on the CPUC's website. 2. As the City's formal complaint would concern the reasonableness of Cal Water's rates, the complaint must be signed by either the Mayor or a majority of the Council; or 25 actual consumers/purchasers of Cal Water's service 3. Naming the Complainant: a. City as the Complainant. Any complaint prepared by the City Attorney's office will be made on behalf of the City, not on behalf of individual residents. As City Attorney, we cannot represent individual property owners in the City as their lawyers, for any JENKINS & HOGIN, IJLP NOVEMBER 9, 2016 PAGE 4 CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY - CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY - ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. purpose. That creates an inherent conflict of interest; our sole loyalty must be to the City as a municipal corporation. b. Residents as Complainants. The City may proceed with filing the complaint on behalf of the residents. In order to do so, the City Council will need to place an item on the agenda to authorize engagement of outside legal counsel (due to the conflict issues indicated above). Under this consideration, the question may be asked as to whether the City should be incurring the cost of a complaint on behalf of a select group of residents (i.e., those who purchased their homes after January 1, 2013) when the principal benefit of filing the proposed complaint flows to the individual property owners, and not to the City as a legal entity. J. The gift of public funds doctrine allows the City to expend public funds when the principal benefit of the expenditure is experienced by the public as a whole; under the doctrine, as long as the benefit is to the community as a whole, it is irrelevant that there may be "incidental" private benefits. However, where the benefit is principally accruing to private individuals and not the community, the municipal expenditure would be an unconstitutional gift of public funds. ii. Thus far, we have presumed that the City overall has benefitted from our efforts, insofar as the State regulations appeared to discriminate unfairly against an entire class of properties that are unique due to their size and equestrian/agricultural orientation. iii. The closer we get to representing the interests of a smaller subset of specific property owners who have not, as have their neighbors, fended for themselves, the more our efforts appear to constitute a gift of public funds. 4. A significant number of residents have successfully managed to file appeals on their own and have informed the City that they no longer wish to challenge Cal Water's methodology JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP NOVEMBER 9, 2016 PAGE 5 CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY - CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. 5. Subject to Executive Order B-37-16, Cal Water has drafted a new framework for establishing water targets, which will be distributed on November 14, 2016 (with public comments due by November 23, 2016); furthermore, Cal Water has reached out to the City and has agreed to hold a meeting on November 17, 2016 to discuss the City's unique concerns Let me know if you have any questions. CLOSED SESSION Agenda Item No: 12-B Mtg. Date: 11/14/16 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS City Manager Performance Evaluation Process The City Council annually will review the performance of the City Manager according to the following procedure: 1. The City Council Personnel Committee will review any changes to the performance evaluation process with the City Manager, then do the same with the entire City Council in the initial closed session meeting of the City Manager's Performance Evaluation. 2. The attached Performance Evaluation form, will then be circulated to each Councilmember to complete. The City Manager concurrently will do a self -evaluation utilizing the same form. 3. The City Council Personnel Committee will calculate the numerical elements of the evaluations into a single evaluation representing the views of the body and will include each Councilmembers unedited written comments without the authors identification in order for the City Manager to be provided a good understanding of the City Council's assessment of his/her performance. 4. The City Manager will meet in closed session with the Council to review the evaluation, and to review plans for future personal and professional development and establish goals and objectives for the next evaluation period. CITY OF ROLLING HILLS City Manager Performance Evaluation Standards The following factors are designed to evaluate the performance of the City Manager. In evaluating his performance, it is important that you base you rating on an objective scale. - With that in mind, the various factors should be rated based upon your concept of how well he has met the criteria below: Rating 5. Outstanding. This factor of the City Manager's performance is consistently superior to the standards required of the position. Rating 4. Exceeds Acceptable Standard This factor of the City Manager's performance is above the level of a satisfactory employee, but has not yet achieved a consistent level of superior or outstanding performance. Rating 3. Satisfactory, Acceptable, Competent This factor of the ;City Manager's performance consistently - meets the standards of the position. Rating 2. Below Acceptable Standard This factor of the City Manager's performance is frequently below the minimum standards of the position. Serious effort is needed to improve performance. Rating 1. Unsatisfactory This factor of the City Manager's performance is inadequate and definitely inferior to the standards of performance required for this position. Performance at this level cannot be allowed to continue. Rating NR. No Rating This rating is utilized when the rater has no knowledge or experience with regard to the City Manager's capabilities and/or quality of performance within this area of evaluation. CITY OF ROLLING HILLS City Manager Performance Evaluation City Manager: Evaluation Period: City Council Member: PERFORMANCE FACTORS 1. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COUNCIL Category Rating Rating 5 Outstanding • Rating 4 Exceeds Acceptable Standard Rating 3 Satisfactory, Acceptable, Competent Rating 2 Below Acceptable Standard Rating 1 Unsatisfactory Rating NR No Rating a) Provides the Council with a written agenda, appropriate information and supporting materials in a well - organized and understandable format prior to each meeting so as to provide for appropriate consideration of alternatives and effective decision -making on items requiring Council action. b) Provides appropriate information to the Council on items and issues in the community that may not necessarily come before Council at a formal meeting. c) Responds in a timely fashion to requests for information from Members of the Council. d) Informs the Council of City needs, finances, operations and issues, including external events that may impact the City. e) Remains impartial, providing equal treatment and information to each Council Member. 1) Effectively carries out Council direction without distortion or misrepresentation. g) Provides open and honest communication to Council in a clear, concise, accurate and timely manner via appropriate communication media. h) Makes effort to be accessible via email, phone and/or in person. i) Welcomes input and responds positively to suggestions, guidance and/or feedback from Council members. j) Fosters a team approach among and with Council Members. Overall Category Rating (This will be calculated separately) City Council Comments: City Manager Comments: 1 2. COMMUNITY RELATIONS Category Rating Rating 5 Outstanding Rating 4 Exceeds Acceptable Standard Rating 3 Satisfactory, Acceptable, Competent Rating 2 Below Acceptable Standard Rating 1 Unsatisfactory Rating NR No Rating _ a) Communicates clearly and concisely with the public through reports, letters, meetings, website, articles, etc. to enhance community understanding of Council policies, goals and objectives, City projects and matters of interest. b) Publicly supports Council position statements and effectively represents Council policy to staff, media and the community. c) Solicits and gives attention to concerns, problems and opinions of members of the public, handles citizen concerns well and promotes community involvement in the City as opportunities allow. d) Has respect and support of the community and is available to residents and business owners. e) Acts as a positive example of the public administration profession for staff and the community through personal integrity, honesty and dedication to service. 0 Represents the City well in presentations to community groups and outside agencies. g) Develops and effectively maintains cooperative relationships with other governmental agencies and regional organizations. h) Applies and enforces City regulations/policies with consistency, tact and diplomacy. Overall Cateeory Rating (This will be calculated separately) City Council Comments: City Manager Comments: 2 3. CITY ADMINISTRATION Category Rating Rating 5 Outstanding . Rating 4 Exceeds Acceptable Standard Rating 3 Satisfactory, Acceptable, Competent Rating 2 Below Acceptable Standard Rating 1 Unsatisfactory Rating NR No Rating a) Possesses necessary job knowledge, technical skills and judgement to effectively oversee operations of the organization, including sufficient understanding of the contract city model, budgeting/public finance, land use issues, infrastructure management, grant administration, personnel and community/governmental relations. b) Understands and furthers the City purpose and mission through innovative problem -solving and creative strategies. c) Able to identify and deal effectively with issues that may have been unforeseen, out of the City's control or of an urgent/emergency nature. d) Has command of critical issues, ensures regulatory compliance and keeps current in profession through attendance at local professional organization meetings, training, conferences and seminars. e) Articulates City policies, rules and regulations to staff to ensure consistent application with the public. 0 Establishes, maintains and enhances high standards of service excellence personally and in staff's and contractor's provision of service to the public. g) Recruits and selects highly qualified and competent employees and develops staff through training, coaching, mentoring and work assignments, providing clear instructions and delegation of responsibility where appropriate. h) Establishes and maintains support of employees, offers recognition for outstanding performance and shows appreciation for their contributions to the organization. i) Effectively oversees staff performance and addresses substandard performance quickly with appropriate corrective/disciplinary action. Overall Category Rating (This will be calculated separately) City Council Comments: City Manager Comments: 3 4. PERSONAL TRAITS Category Rating Rating 5 Outstanding Rating 4 Exceeds Acceptable Standard Rating 3 Satisfactory, Acceptable, Competent Rating 2 Below Acceptable Standard Rating 1 Unsatisfactory Rating NR No Rating a) Is honest, accountable, trustworthy, loyal, responsible, ethical, dedicated, fair, and consistent yet adaptable. b) Has the ability to simplify and process complex issues, is capable of analyzing all sides of an issue and understands the difference between critical details and unimportant facts. c) Stays focused under pressure and meets commitments. d) Has the courage to make firm recommendations on difficult issues, while being able to maintain flexibility in decision -making or carrying out policy as new information becomes available and/or priorities change. e) Takes direction well and uses constructive criticism to improve performance. f) Is able to quickly understand and process conflicting goals, identify common ground and propose creative solutions on issues before the Council. g) Demonstrates interest and enthusiasm about the Council's vision for the community and the organization. Overall Category Rating (This will be calculated separately) City Council Comments: City Manager Comments: 4 5. GOALS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS Did the City Manager meet the goals set by the Council for the evaluation period? (List goals below) • • • • • • City Council Comments: City Manager Comments: 6. ESTABLISH FUTURE GOALS FOR NEXT EVALUATION PERIOD List the top five goals and objectives for the City Manager to achieve during the upcoming evaluation period in order of importance: 1. 2. 3. 5. Other Goals: 5 SIGNED THIS DAY OF 2016 MAYOR CITY MANAGER