Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Agenda 04-10-2017
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2017 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: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Terry Shea, Finance Director. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Malcolm Sharp, 74 Eastfield Drive (PVPUSD School Board Member) Mitzi Cress, Principal, Peninsula High School. Ann Lampe, Rancho Palos Verdes Resident, PVIS PTSA President. Linda Reid, PVPUSD Board Member. Steve and Lori Wheeler, 38 Portuguese Bend Road. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road. Tai Chung, 11 Roadrunner Road. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME None. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of February 27, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as presented. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried without objection. COMMISSION ITEMS None. Recognizing that there were several members of the public present to address the matter, Mayor Pro Tem Black suggested taking New Business item 8B regarding enacting a Social Host Ordinance out of order. Hearing no objection, Mayor Dieringer so ordered. NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION REGARDING ENACTING A SOCIAL HOST ORDINANCE. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Attorney Jenkins stated that at its last meeting after hearing public comment on the subject, the City Council directed staff to provide additional information and agendize a discussion regarding the possibility of the City adopting a Social Host Ordinance. He stated that a Social Host Ordinance is designed to prevent underage drinking by -1- creating civil liability for those responsible for underage drinking, largely applied in private residences where minors are present and drinking alcohol even if the parents are not home or aware of the event. City Attorney Jenkins informed the City Council that in order for a Social Host Ordinance to be applied in the City of Rolling Hills, the City would also need to adopt a Civil Penalties Ordinance, which the City currently does not have in its Municipal Code. He reviewed the process for enforcing the ordinance which involves issuing a civil citation with an associated fine where in the first instance, it does not go to the court system if appealed, but rather it would go before a hearing officer; and if further appealed would then go to the Superior Court. He further explained the difference between civil penalties and criminal prosecution stating that the proponents of Social Host Ordinances believe the burden of proof may be difficult to meet in these types of situations and as such, they encourage these ordinances to provide a civil penalty. In response to Councilmember Pieper, City Attorney Jenkins stated that under the Social Host Ordinance he wrote in Manhattan Beach, two citations were issued shortly after the ordinance was adopted. He further reviewed the circumstances and outcome of those two citations. In further response to Councilmember Pieper he stated that it is difficult to assess whether or not having such an ordinance provides a deterrent effect. Discussion ensued concerning the process for issuing citations, fines and the appeal process. In response to Councilmember Wilson, City Attorney Jenkins stated that the option to enforcement under a Social Host Ordinance would be to prosecute as a criminal offense, but the burden of proof is much higher. Mayor Dieringer called for public comment. Malcolm Sharp, 74 Eastfield Drive (PVPUSD School Board Member) addressed the City Council in support of the City adopting a Social Host Ordinance. He stated that the Board of Education supports cities adopting a Social Host Ordinance. Mitzi Cress, Principal, Peninsula High School addressed the City Council in support of the City adopting a Social Host Ordinance. Ann Lampe, Rancho Palos Verdes Resident, PVIS PTSA President Council addressed the City Council in support of the City adopting a Social Host Ordinance. Linda Reid, PVPUSD Board Member addressed the City Council in support of the City adopting a Social Host Ordinance. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Black regarding the cost associated with enforcement and appeal of a citation, City Attorney Jenkins stated that the cost varies based on the number of citations issued but a hearing officer typically costs around $150/hour with cost for an individual case being somewhere between $750-$1,500 unless it is appealed to the Superior Court. Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council direct staff to prepare a Social Host Ordinance for consideration at a future City Council meeting. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. Mayor Dieringer requested that staff provide data or statistics on how often citations issued under a Civil Host Ordinance end up going to Superior Court on appeal. Councilmember Pieper expressed concern that the penalty is too low. City Attorney Jenkins stated that the penalty can be discussed further when the ordinance is before the City Council. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she recognizes the problems associated with underage drinking and applauds the efforts being put forth to address the issues surrounding underage drinking, but she does not see where having a Social Host Ordinance will achieve the objective or act as a deterrent to underage drinking. Following further discussion, the motion to direct staff to prepare a Social Host Ordinance for consideration at a future City Council meeting carried with Councilmember Mirsch opposed. Minutes City Council Meeting 03-13-17 -2- PUBLIC HEARINGS A HEARING REGARDING A NUISANCE ABATEMENT AT 38 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 118-RH), AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DECLARING THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE ABATEMENT THEREOF. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that before the City Council is a public hearing under the City's nuisance abatement procedures pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Chapter 8.24. She stated that City staff has been working with the property owners on this issue since July 2016 and after several correspondence, meetings and an office conference, the nuisance has not been abated. She stated that after hearing the testimony, it will be the City Council's responsibility to determine whether or not a nuisance exists and if it is determined that a nuisance does exist to adopt a resolution declaring such and setting forth the conditions for abatement of the nuisance and the remedy if the nuisance is not abated. She stated that a draft resolution is included with the staff report for the City Council's consideration. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the conditions creating the nuisance stating that in July 2016, City staff was informed that some dirt and rocks were dumped on the property both on the pad and slopes where the property slopes down into a natural drainage course. She stated that include with the staff report are photographs, correspondence and communications between City staff and the property owner regarding the matter in an effort to address this issue. She stated that the property owners have indicated to staff they would like to keep the dirt and come before the Planning Commission for a modification to a previously approved project where the dirt would be used for that project, but to date that request for modification has not been submitted. She stated that the property owner has been given several opportunities to abate the nuisance but it has not yet been abated. She stated that the applicant has stated that they are unaware of how the dirt got on their property but in the course of staff's investigation, staff was told verbally that during an unrelated Southern California Edison project that was being done in the City, their contractor Doty Bros. deposited the dirt on the property. Planning Director Schwartz stated that two abatement notices were issued to the property owner but there has been no abatement of the nuisance. She stated that staff asked the property owner to remove the dirt from the slope and ensure that all of the dirt is placed in a pile and covered up. She further stated that on March 2, 2017 the property owner informed staff that a contractor had been hired to do the work, but as of March 10, 2017, the work had not been completed. In response to Mayor Dieringer regarding the source of the dirt, Planning Director Schwarz stated that staff was advised that the dirt was deposited on the property from an earlier Southern California Edison project. Councilmember Wilson expressed concern that not knowing the source of the dirt could be problematic and expressed further concern that the dirt may be contaminated. Discussion ensued concerning the location of the dirt as compared to the location of the previously approved development project including the cabana and other amenities. Lori Wheeler, 38 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the City Council stating that they were out of town when this situation was reported to them and they were not aware that the dirt was dumped on their property but they offered to keep the dirt so that they didn't have to haul it out of the City. She further stated that they are working with Bolton Engineering to revise the previously approved project and may be able to compact and use the dirt. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Black, Mrs. Wheeler stated that they were not aware of the name of the contractor that deposited the dirt on their property so they were not able to contact them to remove the dirt. In response to Mayor Dieringer regarding the September 22, 2016 letter from the City Attorney's office specifically mentioning the contractor's name, Mr. Wheeler stated that they did not want to get into a legal issue with the contractor so they decided to keep the dirt and put a chain across the access to that area to prevent future instances like this from occurring. Mr. Wheeler further stated that they are working with Bolton Engineering to prepare revised plans to present to the Planning Commission, but other financial obligations and personal matters have prevented them from getting the plans finalized. Mr. Wheeler requested an extension of time to allow them to address the matter. Discussion ensued concerning the ways to accomplish the abatement and the time needed to do so. City Attorney Jenkins stated that the applicant has had ample opportunity to request the appropriate Minutes City Council Meeting 03-13-17 -3- entitlements but has not yet done so and if they are now asking for more time to submit for the entitlements, it will be several more months before anything happens and in the meantime, the dirt is sitting in the canyon. He stated that the City has requested several times that the dirt be moved but the property owner has taken no action. Discussion ensued concerning options for abating the nuisance and the timeline for doing do. Mayor Dieringer suggested including a deadline by which the property owner must apply to the Planning Commission for the requested entitlements. Following discussion, the City Council concurred that a nuisance exists on the property and suggested the following modification to Section 4 of the Resolution to require that property owners remove all of the dirt and rocks that was dumped and is being stored on the pool pad, along the slopes of and in the canyon of the subject property within 30 days but no later than April 12, 2017. The pile(s) shall then be covered up. Within 75 days of the date of adoption of the Resolution the property owners shall submit to the Planning Department the necessary documents, applications and fees to be placed on the Planning Commission's agenda for a request to modify the previous approval, including a Variance request to keep the dirt for said modification. In the event that the property owners fail to complete the measures specified above by the above -described deadlines, then within 90 days of the Resolution, the property owners shall remove all of the dirt and rocks that was dumped and is being stored on the pool pad, along the slopes of and in the canyon of Subject Property and haul it out of the City. If the property owners file the application for needed entitlements in a timely fashion, a decision by the Planning Commission or City Council shall be granted within 180 days of the Resolution. If the entitlements are not granted, then within 210 days of the Resolution the property owners shall remove all of the dirt and rocks that was dumped and is being stored on the pool pad, along the slopes of, and in the canyon of the Subject Property and haul it out of the City. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1205, as amended above, declaring the condition of the property at 38 Portuguese Bend Road to be a nuisance and ordering the abatement thereof. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried with Mayor Pro Tem Black opposed. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS (continued) CONSIDERATION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 MID -YEAR BUDGET REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Finance Director Shea presented the mid -year budget review stating that review shows the City has a positive budget variance of $22,583. The revenues are down $32,666, expenditures are down $55,249 and net transfers in (out) are equal. The proposed increase in revenues of $25,000 and the decrease in proposed expenditures of $12,000 will leave a budgeted deficit of $253,710 for fiscal year 2016-17. He further reviewed the proposed budget adjustments. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council receive and file the FY 16-17 mid year budget review and approve the budget adjustments as presented. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. REPORT, DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY'S VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reported on the background and status of the Planning Commission's consideration of amendments to the City's View Preservation Ordinance. She noted that a correspondence was received and placed on the dais from Mr. Karpf urging the City Council to direct the Planning Commission to continue its consideration of amending the Ordinance. She stated that the Planning Commission has made good progress in attempting the move forward with the recommendations from the ad hoc committee and staff is seeking direction on how the City Council wishes the Planning Commission to proceed. Discussion ensued concerning the options for moving forward given the fact that an initiative measure amending the City's View Minutes City Council Meeting 03-13-17 -4- Preservation ordinance was submitted and placed on the ballot for the City's March 2019 election. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council to urge the City Council to direct the Planning Commission to continue its consideration of amending the City's View Preservation Ordinance as originally directed. Discussion ensued concerning whether or not the proponents of an initiative can withdraw the measure once it has been placed on the ballot. City Attorney Jenkins opined that language in the Elections Code concerning this matter is internally inconsistent and poorly written; and does not accurately reflect the legislative intent. Further discussion ensued concerning how to best move forward with amending the Ordinance and repealing Measure B. Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road expressed concern that if Measure B is repealed, the rules will revert back to before Measure B. She urged the City Council to adopt a fair ordinance to take into account the rights of both tree owners and view seekers. Tai Chung, 11Roadrunner Road addressed the City Council to ask the status of a view impairment complaint he submitted previously. The City Council suggested that Mr. Chung follow up with staff regarding the status. Following discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council direct the Planning Commission to continue its consideration of amending the City's View Preservation Ordinance as originally directed. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried with Mayor Pro Tem Black opposed. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF CREATING CITY E-MAIL ADDRESSES FOR CITY COUNCILMEMBERS AND COMMISSIONERS. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Clerk Luce stated that the California Supreme Court recently issued an opinion holding that communications (texts, emails, etc.) pertaining to public business on private/personal devices and private servers are public records subject to inspection and disclosure. She stated that in order for the City to more accurately and- appropriately respond to public records request, the City Council may wish to discuss and consider directing staff to create a City e-mail address for each Councilmember and Commissioner. Following discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council direct staff to proceed with creating individual City e-mail addresses for City Councilmembers and Commissioners. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION CONCERNING PROPOSED CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATION FROM SENATOR SCOTT WIENER: SB 35 — THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY ACT. Mayor Dieringer stated that this information on pending legislation that could take away local control is provided for the City Council's information TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT UPDATE FROM CITY COUNCIL LIAISON TO ROLLING HILLS TENNIS CLUB. (ORAL REPORT) Councilmember Pieper reported on the status of the tennis court improvement project and inquired about the City's policy on naming public facilities. It was noted that the City does not currently have a naming facility and brief discussion ensued concerning naming policies. No action was taken. MATTERS FROM STAFF None. CLOSED SESSION None. Minutes City Council Meeting 03-13-17 -5- ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Dieringer adjourned the meeting at 9:57 p.m. in memory of long time residents Paul Mitchell and William Zappas. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, March 27, 2017 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, clififit. 11 Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, (e4i4S9C--ir.-- Bea Dieringer Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 03-13-17 at kW-- hta_ rz-99Arts-- V -6- AGENDA te'st Ra &WO qier4 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 REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2017 7:00 P.M. Next Resolution No 1205 Next Ordinance No. 351 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding the items on the consent calendar or items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of February 27, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 5. COMMISSION ITEMS NONE. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. A HEARING REGARDING A NUISANCE ABATEMENT AT 38 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 118-RH), AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DECLARING THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE ABATEMENT THEREOF. . OLD BUSINESS NONE. Page 1 of 2 8. NEW BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 MID -YEAR BUDGET REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS. B. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION REGARDING ENACTING A SOCIAL HOST ORDINANCE. C. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF CREATING CITY E-MAIL ADDRESSES FOR CITY COUNCILMEMBERS AND COMMISSIONERS. D. REPORT, DISCUSSION, AND DIRECTION REGARDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY'S VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. 9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS A. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION CONCERNING PROPOSED CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATION FROM SENATOR SCOTT WIENER: SB 35 — THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY ACT. B. TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT UPDATE FROM CITY COUNCIL LIAISON TO ROLLING HILLS TENNIS CLUB. (ORAL REPORT) 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF NONE. 11. CLOSED SESSION NONE. 12. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Monday, March 27, 2017 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 03/13/17 Page 2 of 2 DRAFT Agenda Item No. 4-A Meeting Date: 03/13/17 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2017 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Dieringer at 7:01 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. Linda Reid, PVPUSD Board Member. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME Linda Reid, PVPUSD Board Member addressed the City Council to provide information regarding social host ordinances. Ms. Reid urged the . City to adopt a Social Host Ordinance as a means to reducing underage drinking at parties at private homes. Following discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council direct staff to agendize this matter for discussion on a future City Council meeting and check with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to get a copy of their ordinance. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of February 13, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. DRAFT C. Financial Statement for the Month of January 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. D. Republic Services Recycling Tonnage Report for January 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. E. Notice of Completion for FY 2016-17 Replacement of Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings on Certain Streets in the City of Rolling Hills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. F. ORDINANCE NO. 350: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING TITLE 15 (BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION) OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2017 EDITION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE TITLE 26 (INCORPORATING THE 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE); TITLE 27 (INCORPORATING THE 2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE); TITLE 28 (INCORPORATING THE 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE); TITLE 29 (INCORPORATING THE 2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE); TITLE 30 (INCORPORATING THE 2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE; TITLE 31 (INCORPORATING THE 2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE); ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 15.24 (EXISTING BUILDING CODE) IN ORDER TO INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE THE 2017 EDITION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE TITLE 33 (INCORPORATING THE 2016 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE); AMENDING SECTION 8.08.580 (CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION WASTE) OF CHAPTER 8.08 (SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE MATERIAL COLLECTION) OF TITLE 8 (HEALTH AND SAFETY) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONFORM TO STATE LAW; AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B)(3). RECOMMENDATION: Second reading, waive full reading and adopt Ordinance. Following brief discussion concerning the Payment of Bills and an explanation from the City Attorney as to the cost associated with City Attorney services, Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as presented. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. COMMISSION ITEMS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. OLD BUSINESS None. Minutes City Council Meeting 02-27-17 DRAFT NEW BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OF AN INITIATIVE PETITION RELATED TO VIEW PRESERVATION. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Clerk Luce presented a Certificate of Sufficiency for an initiative petition related to view preservation, which seeks to replace the City's current view preservation ordinance. She stated that the City Council has three options for action on this item: adopt the Ordinance as presented, order the measure to be placed on the ballot for the City's next regular election; or direct staff to study the measure and report back to the City Council. In response to Councilmember Pieper, City Clerk Luce stated that there is a section in the California Elections Code that implies that a measure can be taken off of the ballot upon receipt of a timely request from the proponents of the initiative; but the City Attorney has expressed some concern regarding the validity of that Elections Code section. City Attorney Jenkins stated that he would need to do some research with regard to the matter. He stated that there is a relatively new Elections Code section that contemplates this matter, but he would need to look at it further to give a definitive answer. Councilmember Pieper stated that if this initiative measure cannot be taken off the ballot once it is put on, then his suggestion would be to put it on the ballot for the City's next regular election and direct the Planning Commission to rewrite the sections of the ordinance that need to be revised and then let the people decide. He expressed concern that all of the work that the ad hoc committee put into this matter is nullified by the fact that the proponents have submitted the initiative petition. Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council place the measure on the ballot for the City's next regular election scheduled for March 5, 2019. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion. Discussion ensued concerning the election date for the initiative measure and the provision for removing the measure from the ballot. In response to Mayor Dieringer, City Attorney Jenkins stated that he believes the measure could be placed on the ballot if the City were to call a Special Election between now and the City's next regular election. In response to Councilmember Pieper, City Attorney stated that the measure could be placed on the ballot for a Special Election but there is no obligation to do so — it is ultimately the City Council's decision. In response to Mayor Dieringer, City Attorney Jenkins further explained why he believes there is question as to the newly added elections code section regarding removing a measure from the ballot specifically that it give the option for removal to the proponents of the measure but does not take into account all of the individuals who signed the petition with the understanding that the matter would be placed on the ballot. He commented that he does not believe that was the legislature's intent when adopting that language, but he needs to research it further to fmd a definitive answer. Further discussion ensued concerning the options before the City Council. Mayor Pro Tem Black moved to call the question. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion which failed with Councilmembers Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Dieringer opposed. Mayor Dieringer moved that that the motion be amended to state the measure be placed on the ballot for the City's next election — whether regular or special — rather than the City's next regular election. The motion died for lack of a second. Minutes City Council Meeting 02-27-17 DRAFT Mayor Dieringer called for public comment. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Council stating that it was their understanding in submitting the initiative petition that it could be withdrawn upon submittal of a timely letter requesting withdrawal signed by the proponent of the initiative. He further commented that he believes the Planning Commission is making good progress toward amending the ordinance based on the ad hoc committees discussions and if the proponents agree with what is ultimately decided, they would withdraw the initiative measure and support a repeal of Measure B. He encouraged the City Council to continue on the current path toward amending the ordinance based on the ad hoc committee's suggestions. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Dieringer called for a roll call vote on the motion to place the measure on the ballot for the City's next regular election scheduled for March 5, 2019. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Black, Mirsch, Pieper and Wilson. NOES: Mayor Dieringer. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council direct staff to agendize a report on the status of the Planning Commission's consideration of amendments to the City's View Preservation Ordinance for discussion at the March 13, 2017 meeting of the City Council. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Following further discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council direct staff to place the Planning Commission's consideration of amendments to the City's View Preservation Ordinance on hold until April for further direction from the City Council. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. CONSIDERATION OF A NOMINATION FOR THE 52ND ANNUAL OLDER AMERICANS RECOGNITION DAY. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz stated that before the City Council is consideration of a selecting a nominee for the Los Angeles County Commission on Older Adults 52nd Annual Older Americans Recognition Day on May 31, 2017. He stated that the purpose of the event is to recognize adults over the age of 60 who do great service to their community. He stated that in consultation with the Mayor staff contacted the presidents of the community organizations to solicit nominees and received one suggested nominee, Ray Ferris. He commented that additionally, Frank Hill was nominated previously but was not selected and the City Council may wish to consider him as well. Mayor Dieringer asked if there are any additional nominees. She suggested that Maureen Hill is worthy of consideration as well. Councilmember Mirsch commented that Mrs. Hill has declined in the past. It was noted that Ray Ferris and Frank Hill are both very worthy nominees. Following discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council nominate Frank Hill for Minutes City Council Meeting 02-27-17 DRAFT recognition at the 52nd Annual Older Americans Recognition Day. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS Councilmember Pieper expressed concern regarding coyotes and asked if there is anything more the City can do. City Manager Cruz stated that the City continues to work with both the County and the private trapping firm to address coyote issues. MATTERS FROM STAFF DIRECTION ON WHETHER TO RETAIN A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL TENNIS COURTS. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz provided an update on the status of the tennis court improvement project. He commented that because of the complexity of the project and staff's limited experience and the time requirement involved in managing municipal improvement project, City and Rolling Hills Community Association staff recommend hiring a construction manager to oversee the project to help reduce the likelihood of change orders. He further reviewed the responsibilities that could be assigned to the construction manager as outlined in the staff report including: assisting in developing RFP for hiring a general contractor; supervising the work of general contractor to assure the City's and RHCA's best interest are always being maintained; analyzing the feasibility of materials, methods and other construction factors relating to cost; holding a pre -bid conference and/or explain the project to the contractors; receiving and analyzing the bids for correctness and adherence to specifications; securing the construction contract and schedule; coordinating the contractors' activities to meet the City and Association's needs; and reviewing the work in progress to verify compliance with contract specifications, schedules and invoice requests. Mayor Dieringer commented that depending on the cost for such service, it may be helpful to retain a construction manager to develop just the bid and create a list of pre -qualified contractors for the project. She further suggested that the City should have a more definitive scope of work for the project and get cost proposals to ascertain a more realistic price. Mayor Pro Tem Black expressed concern regarding the overall cost of the project in general and expressed disinterest in adding to that cost by hiring a construction manager. Discussion ensued concerning the estimated cost associated with the project; the various design and construction elements associated with the project, including the septic system; and the engineering and architectural firms that have been, or need to be retained to finalize the project. In response to Mayor Dieringer regarding developing a pre -qualified bid list, City Attorney Jenkins stated that this process is typically used for larger projects where there is a lot of money at stake but the problem is that it increases the expense of the project because the process is done twice. He commented that for a project this size, it is not clear that there will be enough interest generated in the project for the contractors to be willing to go through the process twice and may limit the contractors that will bid on the project. He further suggested that including basic qualifications in the bid solicitation documents may be a better way to go. Following discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council direct staff to further Minutes City Council Meeting 02-27-17 DRAFT investigate possible Construction Management firms to ascertain a more accurate cost and scope of work for these services and bring this matter back to the City Council for further discussion after that information is received. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS None. CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Government Code §54957 Title: City Manager CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Government Code §54957.6 City representative: Personnel Committee (Mirsch and Pieper) Unrepresented employee: City Manager CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL Government Code §54956.9(d)(4) Initiation of litigation Based on existing facts and circumstances, the City Council shall determine whether initiation of litigation is appropriate. Number of potential cases: 1 The City Council recessed into closed session at 8:26 p.m. to discuss the matters listed above under Closed Session. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION Mayor Dieringer called the meeting back to order in open session at 9:25 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION (ORAL REPORT). City Attorney Jenkins reported that no reportable action was taken. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Dieringer adjourned the meeting at 9:26 p.m. in memory of long time resident, Priscilla Foulk. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, March 13, 2017 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Minutes City Council Meeting 02-27-17 DRAFT Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, Bea Dieringer Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 02-27-17 CHECK CHECK NO. DATE 24719 03/13/2017 24720 03/13/2017 24721 03/13/2017 24722 03/13/2017 24723 03/13/2017 24724 03/13/2017 24725 03/13/2017 24726 03/13/2017 24727 03/13/2017 24728 03/13/2017 24729 03/13/2017 24730 03/13/2017 24731 03/13/2017 24732 03/13/2017 24733 03/13/2017 24734 03/13/2017 24735 03/13/2017 24736 03/13/2017 24737 03/13/2017 24738 03/13/2017 24739 03/13/2017 24740 03/13/2017 " PR LINK 03/03/2017 PR LINK 03/03/2017 City ofie ll,.g Jut, Agenda Item No: 4-B Mtg. Date: 03/13/17 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 03/13/2017 - CHECK RUN PAYEE CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO. CAROLYN DAVES CHRISP COMPANY, INC. CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES COX COMMUNICATIONS DAILY BREEZE EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC. FOUNTAINHEAD CONSULTING INC. JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP LA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT LOS ANGELES COUNTY CLERK PVS, INC. ROGERS, ANDERSON, MALODY & SCOTT, LLP ROLLING HILLS ESTATES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON UNION BANK USCM VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS WILLDAN INC. WOMEN'S COMMUNITY CLUB OF ROLLING HILLS XEROX CORPORATION PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING PR LINK - PAYROLL 5 & PR TAXES i, Raymond R Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, California certi are accurate and there is available in the General Fund a balance of 238,104.49 for the pa em of above items. Raymond ' Cruz, City er Previously Disbursed DESCRIPTION NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 WATER SERVICES 1/27/17-2/24/17 REFUND PUBLIC RECS ACT REQUEST FY 16/17 STREET STRIPPING PROJECT PROP A EXCHANGE RESOLUTION NO. 1190 ANIMAL CONTROL - KENNEL AUG 2016 PHONE/INTERNET 2/26/17-3/25/17 LEGAL ADVERTISING FEBRUARY 2017 JANITORIAL SERVICES FEBRUARY 2017 IT CONSULTING MARCH 2017 ATTORNEY SERVICES FEBRUARY 2017 TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT JANUARY 2017 VOTER RECORDS 3/13/17 MONITORING ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEM APR -JUN 17 ACCOUNTING SERVICES JANUARY 2017 PROC C AND MEASURER, RESOLUTION NO. 1191 ELECTRICITY 1/24/17-3/23/17 CITY MGRS DEPT MEETING DEFFERED COMP 03/03/17 DEFERRED COMP 03/03/17 TRAFFIC ENGINEER JANUARY 2017 2016 EASTER PARTY & SNOW PARTY. COPIER LEASE FEBRUARY 2017 PROCESSING FEE PAY PERIOD - FEBRUARY 15, 2017 THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 2017 that the above demands AMOUNT 357.33 20.00 1,493.15 75,000.00 521.23 403.22 808.92 392.00 516.00 9,718.80 791.36 54.00 192.00 6,855.00 115,770.00 735.82 344.20 998.00 364.00 1,007.50 2,024.20 37.00 49.95 19,650.81 $ 238,104.49 19,700.76 Printed on Recycled Paper TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJECT: C1ty o/leo ll�.,y Jd,lG INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 6-A Mtg. Date: 03-13-17 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR RAYMONG R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER `' A HEARING REGARDING A NUISANCE ABATEMENT AT 38 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 118-RH), AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DECLARING THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE ABATEMENT THEREOF. DATE: MARCH 13, 2017 ATTACHMENTS: RESOLUTION No. 1205 CORRESPONDENCE AND PHOTOGRAPHS PERTINENT PORTIONS OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RECOMMENDATION Open the public hearing, consider all `testimony and, upon consideration of the evidence, adopt Resolution No. 1205 declaring the condition to constitute a public nuisance and ordering the abatement thereof. INTRODUCTION Chapter 8.24 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC") explains the process for abating a public nuisance. Whenever the City Manager determines that a nuisance exists upon any property, place or area within the boundaries of the City, the City Manager may notify in writing the owner or person in possession of the property, place or area to abate the nuisance within 15 days from the date of the notice. (See RHMC Section 8.24.030.) If the nuisance is not abated or good faith efforts towards abatement have not been made within 15 days from the date of the notice, the City Council shall conduct a hearing to consider any protest of the owner, possessor or other interested person. (See RHMC Sections 8.24.040 & 8.24.050.) Upon consideration of the evidence, the City Council may declare the condition to constitute a public nuisance and order the abatement thereof. (See C Printed on Recycled Paper RHMC Section 8.24.050.) The decision of the City Council shall be final. (See RHMC Section 8.24.050.) On or about July 13, 2016, City Staff was alerted to the fact that a large amount of unpermitted dirt, rocks, and loose concrete had been deposited and was being stored along the slope of, and in the canyon adjacent to, the property located at 38 Portuguese Bend Road. As of July 14, 2016, City Staff repeatedly requested that the property owners abate this nuisance condition by removing the dirt from the slope and canyon; which they have failed to do. On February 8, 2017, the City Manager issued the property owners a second Notice to Abate Nuisance; this letter notified the property owners that the dirt, rocks, and loose concrete being stored along the slope and in the canyon was a nuisance, and that said items must be removed or good faith effort made towards removal no later than March 9, 2017. This deadline has passed and as of the date of writing of this report, the property owners have failed to make a good faith effort towards abatement of the nuisance condition; therefore, this matter is now before the Council for hearing and decision. BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION It is the duty of every person that owns or is in possession of any property, place or area within the boundaries of the City to maintain the property, place or area free from any nuisance. (See RHMC Section 8.24.020.) Section 8.32.060(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code states: "No person shall intentionally throw, deposit, place, leave, maintain or permit to be thrown, deposited, placed, left or maintained or kept, any refuse, rubbish, garbage, or any other discarded or abandoned objects, articles or accumulations, on or upon any roadway, driveway, trail, canyon, storm drain, inlet, catch basin conduit or drainage structure, or upon any private plot of land in the City, so that the same might be or become a pollutant." (Emphasis added.) Any condition in violation of Chapter 8.32 is a public nuisance. (See RHMC Section 8.32.100(A)(1)(a).) On July 13, 2016, the City was informed that a large amount of dirt, rocks, and loose concrete had been deposited and was being stored along the slope of the property and in the canyon adjacent to the property located at 38 Portuguese Bend Road (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"), owned by Mr. Steven and Mrs. Lori Wheeler (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Property Owners"). A visit to the site revealed that the loose dirt, rocks and concrete pieces being stored along the slope of the Subject Property and the canyon adjacent thereto had the potential to fall to the bottom of the canyon and become part of the natural drainage course which leads into the Pacific Ocean. Furthermore, the loose dirt, rocks and concrete pieces covered the existing vegetation along the slope and canyon, thereby facilitating potential erosion of the slopes into the canyon. On July 13, 2016, City Staff conducted an inspection at the Subject Property and informed the Property Owners via letter that the storage of these items along the slope and in the canyon was in violation of Rolling Hills Municipal Code section 8.32.060(B); this letter also requested that the Property Owners contact the City no later than July 22, 2016 to discuss their plan of action for remediation of the slope. (See July 14, 2016 letter from Ms. Wendy Starks to the Property Owners; and eight (8) photographs taken by City Staff on July 13, 2016, attached hereto.) The Property Owners informed the City that they neither authorized the import of the dirt nor do they know who placed it there. The Property Owners explained to the City that since the dirt had been placed on their property, they intended to utilize it in connection with a previously approved project.' In order facilitate the Property Owner's removal and use of the dirt, City staff requested that the Property Owners first ascertain whether such dirt may be properly used (as it is a mix of soil, concrete and other loose debris), remove the dirt from the slope and the canyon, and apply for a variance to store the imported dirt on the pool pad of the Subject Property until such time as it may be utilized: Since the City has not heard from the Property Owners, on July 25, 2016, the City informed the Property Owners once again that the storage of unpermitted dirt, rocks, and loose concrete along the slope and in the canyon was a violation of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code; this letter requested that the Property Owners contact the City no later than August 2, 2016 to explain their intent and provide a plan of action regarding the removal of the dirt. (See July 25, 2016 letter from Ms. Wendy Starks to the Property Owners, attached hereto.) On August 4, 2016, the Property Owners provided the City with an update, via email, regarding the unpermitted dirt being stored along the slope and in the canyon. According to this August email, Mr. Wheeler had contacted a contractor to discuss the possibly of utilizing the dirt. (See August 4, 2016 email from Mr. Wheeler to Ms. Schwartz regarding 38 Portuguese Bend, attached hereto.) In response, Ms. Schwartz notified Mr. Wheeler that the dirt must be removed no later than September 2, 2016. (See August 4, 2016 email from Ms. Schwartz to Mr. Wheeler regarding 38 Portuguese Bend, attached hereto.) On September 8, 2016, the City contacted the Property Owners to ascertain whether the unpermitted dirt had been removed from the slope and the canyon. (See September 8, 2016 email from Ms. Schwartz to the Property Owners regarding clearing canyon, attached hereto.) On September 13, 2016, following an unanswered phone call, the City sent another email to the Property Owners once again requesting that they provide a status update as to the unpermitted dirt along the slope and in the canyon. (See September 13, 2016 email from Ms. Schwartz to the Property Owners regarding canyon clearance, attached hereto.) On September 14, 2016, Mrs. Wheeler emailed the City regarding the unpermitted dirt on the Subject Property; according to this email the Property Owners had spoken with a contractor who would be able to use, mix -in, and compact the unpermitted dirt — however no dirt had been removed. (See September 14, 2016 email from Mrs. Wheeler to Ms. Schwartz regarding 38 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, attached hereto.) In response, the City informed the Property Owners that they were required to remove the dirt immediately, and that Planning Commission approval would be required for any additional dirt necessary for the project. (See September 14, 2016 email from Ms. Schwartz to Mrs. Wheeler regarding 38 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, attached hereto.) On February 18, 2014 the Property Owners were granted an approval for grading out an existing pool building pad and to construct retaining walls, spa and an 860 square foot solid roof covered patio. Section 15.04.150 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code explains that adherence to the City's cut -and -fill ratio is an important City policy; in general, the City does not permit either the import or export of soil without a permit, a variance or both. (See RHMC section 15.04.150(1)-(2).) Specifically, section 15.04.150(5) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits the City Manager or his designee to grant an exception to these requirements based upon certain findings: (a) that the project does not require discretionary review; (b) the import or export of soil is no greater than necessary to avoid a threat of land subsidence or other imminent danger; and (c) a professionally prepared drainage plan, as necessary. -3- Following the Property Owners' failure to remove the dirt, on September 22, 2016, the City Attorney contacted the Property Owners discuss the storage of unpermitted dirt along the slope and in the canyon; an Office Conference was held on October 11, 2016. (See September 22, 2016 letter from Ms. Natalie Karpeles to the Property Owners, attached hereto.) During the Office Conference the City Attorney and City Staff with the Property Owners and notified them that the unpermitted dirt along the slope of the Subject Property and in the canyon adjacent to the Subject Property constituted a nuisance. As a result of the discussions held during the Office Conference, the Property Owners agreed to remove the dirt from the slope and the .canyon no later than October 25, 2016. Additionally, the Property Owners agreed to apply for a variance regarding the storage of the dirt on the pool pad of the Subject Property and modification of the prior approval for the grading, walls, spa and covered patio, no later than November 9, 2016. On October 19, 2016 the City contacted the Property Owners to ascertain the status of the removal of the dirt and submittal of the applications to the Planning Commission. (See October 19, 2016 email from Ms. Schwartz to the Property Owners regarding status of removal of dirt, attached hereto.) On October 20, 2016 the Property Owners emailed the City explaining that their contractor would be coming on October 22 to look at the project and that they would update City Staff of his availability to do the job. (See October 20, 2016 email from the Property Owners regarding status of removal of dirt, attached hereto.) By October 31,2016 the City had not heard from the Property Owners and once again emailed them to inquire about the status of the project. (See October 31, 2016 email from Ms. Schwartz to the Property Owners regarding status of removal of dirt, attached hereto.) On November 3, 2016, the Property Owners contacted City Staff and explained that they had hired a contractor to remove the unpermitted dirt; according to the November 2016 email, the contractor was to start removal of the dirt by December 3, 2016. (See November. 3, 2016 email from the Property Owners regarding status of removal of dirt, attached hereto.) By January 2017 the dirt had not been removed, nor had an application for a variance been submitted to the City. Therefore, on January 3, 2017, Julia Stewart, Assistant Planner, contacted the Property Owners via email to introduce herself and to inquire about the status of removal of the dirt. Since no response was received, on January 18, 2017, the City Manager sent the Property Owners a Notice to Abate Nuisance, pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 8.24.030. (See January 18, 2017 Notice to Abate Nuisance letter from Mr. Raymond Cruz to the Property Owners, attached hereto.) This letter once again explained that the storage of dirt along the slope and in the canyon is a nuisance condition which must be abated; the Property Owners had until February 2, 2017 to remove the unpermitted dirt. On January 23, 2017 the Property Owners contacted the City responding to Ms. Stewart's January 3, 2017 email and City Manager's Notice to Abate Nuisance letter explaining that they will not be able to remove the dirt by February 2, 2017 due to inclement weather. (See January 23, 2017 email from the Property Owners regarding status of removal of dirt, attached hereto.) On February 26, the City Manager responded to the Property Owners and emphasized that they have until February 2, 2017 to abate the issue or a hearing before the City Council would be scheduled. (See January 26, 2017 email from the City Manger to the Property Owners regarding Notice of Abatement, attached hereto.) On February 2, 2017, the Property Owners contacted the City and requested a meeting with City Staff. During this meeting the Property Owners explained that due to family circumstances and other hardships they were unable to attend to this matter; the Property Owners requested that City Staff provide them with guidance as to which areas of the slopes and how much of the dirt/rocks needed to be removed. On February 7, 2017, City Staff visited the Subject Property, took pictures and provided direction as to the removal of the unpermitted dirt; the Property Owners requested an extension to abate the violation. On February 8, 2017, a second Notice to Abate Nuisance was mailed to the Property Owners. (See February 8, 2017 Notice to Abate Nuisance letter from Mr. Raymond Cruz to the Property Owners, attached hereto.) This second Notice to Abate provided the Property Owners with an additional month to complete the work (i.e., by March 9, 2017). Lastly, this Notice to Abate informed the Property Owners that if the work was not satisfactorily completed, or a good faith effort not shown, by March 9, 2017, a hearing would be held before the City Council on March 13, 2017 regarding the abatement of the unpermitted dirt along the slope of the Subject Property and in the canyon adjacent to the Subject Property. On February 28, 2017 City Staff contacted the Property Owners by phone to inquire about the status of removal of the dirt. The Property Owners stated that they have not hired anyone yet but are looking for a contractor; they once again requested that staff provide them guidance as to which areas of the slopes and how much of the dirt/rocks needed to be removed. Staff emailed the Property Owners the pictures taken on the February 7, 2017 visit to the property and delineated the areas that need to be removed. (See February 28, 2017 email and pictures from Ms. Schwartz to the Property Owners, attached hereto). While Mrs. Wheeler emailed City Staff on March 2, 2017 explaining that they had hired a contractor and that the dirt will be removed within a few days, as of the writing of this staff report, the unpermitted dirt remains along the slope and in the canyon in violation of the City's Municipal Code and the Property Owners have not applied for a variance to store the dirt on the pool pad of the Subject Property. On March 7, 2017 City Staff emailed the Property Owners to inquire about the status of the contractor and removal of the dirt. The Property Owners called the City and stated that the work will be well under way by Friday, March 10, 2017. Staff will inspect the site on Friday, March 10, 2017 and will report the status to the City Council at its March 13, 2017 meeting. NOTIFICATION Copies of this report have been sent to the property owners, Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department and adjacent neighbors. CONCLUSION Should the City Council find that the condition of the property continues to constitute a public nuisance within the meaning of the Municipal Code, the attached Resolution contains an order to abate the violation, and states that should the property owner fail to perform the mitigation measures, the City will either, with the property owner's consent or under the authority of a new abatement warrant, engage services of a contractor to remediate the site at the property owners' expense. RESOLUTION NO. 1205 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DECLARING THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 38 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE ABATEMENT THEREOF. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND DECLARE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. A. It is the duty of every person that owns or is in possession of any property, place or area within the boundaries of the City to maintain the property, place or area free from any nuisance. (Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 8.24.020.) Section 8.32.060(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code states: "No person shall intentionally throw, deposit, place, leave, maintain or permit to be thrown, deposited, placed, left or maintained or kept, any refuse, rubbish, garbage, or any other discarded or abandoned objects, articles or accumulations, on or upon any roadway, driveway, trail, canyon, storm drain, inlet, catch basin conduit or drainage structure, or upon any private plot of land in the City, so that the same might be or become a pollutant." (Emphasis added.) Any condition in violation of Chapter 8.32 is a public nuisance. (Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 8.32.100(A)(1)(a).) B. On or about July 13, 2016, City Staff was alerted to the fact that a large amount of. unpermitted dirt, rocks, and loose concrete had been deposited and was being stored along the slope of, and in the canyon adjacent to, certain real property in the City of Rolling Hills commonly known as 38 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 118-RH) (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). A visit to the site revealed that the loose dirt, rocks and concrete pieces being stored along the slope of the Subject Property and the canyon adjacent thereto had the potential to fall to the bottom of the canyon and become part of the natural drainage course which leads into the Pacific Ocean. Furthermore, the loose dirt, rocks and concrete pieces covered the existing vegetation along the slope and canyon, thereby facilitating potential erosion of the slopes into the canyon. On July 14, 2016, City Staff notified the owners of the Subject Property, Mr. and Mrs. Steven Wheeler ("Property Owners"), that the storage of dirt along the slope of the Subject Property and the canyon adjacent thereto was a violation of Rolling Hills Municipal Code section 8.32.060(B) and requested that they abate this nuisance condition. Despite continued attempts to gain the Property Owners' compliance, the dirt, rocks, and loose concrete remain along the slope of the Subject Property and in the canyon adjacent thereto. C. On January 18, 2017, the City Manager issued the Property Owners a Notice to Abate Nuisance (pursuant to Section 8.24.030 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code); this Notice informed the Property Owners that the dirt, rocks, and loose concrete being stored along the slope and in the canyon was a nuisance, and that said items must be removed no later than February 2, 2017. The Property owners failed to meet the February 2, 2017 deadline. D. On February 8, 2017 the City Manager issued the Property Owners a second Notice to Abate Nuisance (pursuant to Section 8.24.030 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code); this Notice informed the Property Owners that the dirt, rocks, and loose concrete being stored along the slope and in the canyon was a nuisance, and that said items must be removed no later than March 9, 2017. This deadline has passed and the Property Owners have failed to make a good faith effort towards abatement of the nuisance condition on the Subject Property. Resolution No. 1205 -1- n Section 2. Pursuant to Sections 8.24.040 and 8.24.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the City Council conducted a hearing on March 13, 2017, to consider any protest of the Property Owner, possessor or other interested person regarding the condition of the Subject Property, and the canyon adjacent thereto. Section 3. Upon consideration of the staff report, related documents and the evidence presented at the time of the hearing, the City Council determines that the property at 38 Portuguese Bend Road constitutes a condition that is injurious to the public health, safety and welfare by violating Section 8.32.060(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code such that it is a public nuisance pursuant to Chapter 8.24 and Section 8.21.100(A)(1)(a) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Section 4. In accordance with the foregoing, and because it is the duty of property owners to maintain their properties free of nuisances, the City Council orders that the property owner remove all of the dirt and rocks that was dumped and is being stored along the slopes of, and in the canyon adjacent to, the Subject Property no later than April 12, 2017. In the event that the property owner fails to complete the _ corrective measures by the above -described deadline, then the City may, after April 12, 2017, perform the corrective measures at the Property Owners' expense as authorized in Section 8.24.060 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Section 5. If the nuisance is not abated as specified herein, then the City Manager is directed to cause the nuisance to be abated by the City, and also is directed to notify the property owner in writing by certified mail and regular mail of the cost of removal of the nuisance and that payment in full for removal of the nuisance is due to the City within 10 days of the date of mailing of the notice. If the total cost of abating the nuisance is not paid to the City within 10 days after the date of the notice, the City Clerk shall record, in the Office of the County Recorder, a statement of the total balance due to the City, which shall constitute a lien upon the property. Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a copy of this resolution by certified and regular mail to the owners of the property located at 38 Portuguese Bend Road. Section 7. This resolution shall take effect immediately on March 13, 2017. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13 DAY OF MARCH, 2017. BEA DIERINGER, MAYOR ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1205 -2 )g - STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) The foregoing Resolution No. 1205 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DECLARING THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 38 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE ABATEMENT THEREOF. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 13, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1205 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK city °pm., ,All, INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 July 14, 2016 Mr. and Mrs. Steven Wheeler 38 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 On July 13, 2016, the City was informed that illegal dumping of soil, rocks, and loose concrete into the adjacent canyon was taking place at the west side of your property. Planning Director Schwartz spoke with you and was granted permission for City staff to visit your property. On July 14, 2016 Planning Director Schwartz and myself visited your property and noted piles of dirt and construction debris pushed to the edge of the canyon, and into the canyon. Section 15.04.190 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code states, "It is unlawful for any person to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, demolish, equip, use, occupy, or maintain any building or structure or perform any grading in the City of Rolling Hills, or cause the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of the Building Code." Please note that per Section 8.32.060B. (Prohibited Activities) of Chapter 8.32 - Storm Water Management and Pollution Control, "Littering. No person shall intentionally throw, deposit, place, leave, maintain, keep or permit to be thrown, deposited, left or maintained or kept, any refuse, rubbish, garbage, or any other discarded or abandoned objects, articles or accumulations, on or upon any roadway, driveway, trail, canyon, storm drain, inlet, catch basin conduit or drainage structure, or upon any private plot of land in the City, so that the same might be or become a pollutant..." As cement/loose dirt debris was pushed into the canyon, Los Angeles County Building Inspectors issued a Stop Work Order on your property. We could not determine where the dirt and debris originated and for what purpose. Please contact this office within the next seven days (by Friday, July 22, 2016) to discuss the nature of the work and how the canyon can be remediated and restored to its natural form. Should you have any questions regarding your project, please feel free to call me at City Hall at (310) 377-1521. Sincerely, /I Wendy Starks, A - Associate Planner Jul AS, l 1r, %fA�y h nd btut sWC-Art 1 Y$- . Co Printed on Recycled Paper Rolling Hills, CA Code of Ordinances 7/14/16, 10:29 At 1,5.04.190 - Violations and penalties. A. It is unlawful for any person to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure or perform any grading in the City of. Rolling Hills, or cause the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of the Building Code. B. Penalty. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this code or any permit issued thereunder shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this code is committed, continued or permitted, and upon conviction of any such violation such person shall be punishable by a fine of, not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period of not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment (Ord. 277-U § 1(part), 1999). (Ord. No. 337-U, § 9, 2-10-2014) about:blank Page 1 of 1 Rolling Hills, CA Code of Ordinances 7/14/16, 11:26 A 8.32.060 - Prohibited activities. A. Illicit Discharges. It is prohibited to discharge pollutants into natural drainage courses. B. Littering. No person shall intentionally throw, deposit, place, leave, maintain, keep or permit to be thrown, deposited, placed, left or maintained or kept, any refuse, rubbish, garbage, or any other discarded or abandoned objects, articles or accumulations, on or upon any roadway, driveway, trail, canyon, storm drain, inlet, catch basin conduit or drainage structure, or upon any private plot of land in the City, so that the same might be or become a pollutant. No person shall throw or deposit litter in any fountain, pond, stream or other body of water within the City. This subsection shall not apply to refuse, rubbish or garbage deposited in containers, bags or other appropriate receptacles which are placed in designated locations for regular solid waste pick up and disposal. C. Disposal of Landscape Debris. It is prohibited to intentionally dispose of leaves, dirt, or other landscape debris into the MS4 or into natural drainage courses. D. No person shall intentionally dispose of manure or any animal waste into the MS4 or into natural drainage course. E. Non -Storm Water Discharges. All non -storm water discharges into the municipal storm sewer system are prohibited unless those flows are: in compliance with a separate NPDES Permit; pursuant to a discharge exemption by the Regional Board, the regional board's executive officer, or the State Water Resources Control Board; associated with emergency firefighting activities (i.e., flows necessary for the protection of life or property); natural flows as defined in the Municipal NPDES Permit; conditionally exempt non -storm water discharges as defined in accordance with the Municipal NPDES Permit; or authorized as a temporary non -storm water discharge by USEPA pursuant to sections 104(a) or 104(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Prohibited discharges include, but are not limited to: 1. The discharge of runoff from mobile auto washing, steam cleaning, mobile carpet cleaning, and other such mobile commercial and industrial operations (excluding non-commercial car washing by residents and non-profit organizations); 2. Discharges from areas where repair of machinery and equipment, including motor vehicles, which are visibly leaking oil, fluid or antifreeze, is undertaken; 3. Discharges of runoff from areas where materials containing grease, oil, or other hazardous substances (e.g., motor vehicle parts) are stored, and discharges from uncovered receptacles containing hazardous materials; 4. The discharge of chlorinated/brominated swimming pool water and filter backwash; about:blank Page 1 of Rolling Hills, CA Code of Ordinances 7/14/16, 11:26 A 5. Discharges of runoff from the washing of toxic materials from paved or unpaved areas; 6. Discharges from the washing out of concrete or cement laden wash water from concrete trucks, pumps, tools, and equipment; 7. Discharges of any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, banned by the USEPA or the California Department of Pesticide Regulation; 8. Discharge of any food or food processing wastes; 9. Discharge of any fuel and chemical wastes, animal wastes, garbage, batteries, and other materials that have potential adverse impacts on water quality; and 10. The disposal of hazardous wastes into trash containers that causes a direct or indirect discharge to the municipal storm water system. F. Discharges in Violation of the Municipal NPDES Permit. Any discharge that would result in or contribute to a violation of the Municipal NPDES Permit, either separately or in combination with other discharges, is prohibited. Liability for any such discharge shall be the responsibility of the person(s) causing or responsible for the discharge, and such person(s) shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City from all losses, liabilities, claims or causes of actions in any administrative or judicial action relating to such discharge. (Ord. No. 334, § 3(Exh. A), 6-24-2013) about:blank Page 2 of 2 By City of Rolling Hills By JUN 20 City of Rolling Hills By (-:,2=2.) si City o/ /eo//inp Jo; INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 July 25, 2016 Mr. and Mrs. Steven Wheeler 38 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler: On July 13, 2016, the City was informed that illegal dumping of soil, rocks, and loose concrete from your property into the adjacent canyon had taken place. We have confirmation that the Doty Bros., a subcontractor for Edison Co. provided you with the dirt/debris. The dirt/debris that was pushed into the canyon must be removed from the canyon. We will require an explanation of what your intentions are for the dirt. Per your Resolutions of Approval for your proposed development in Zoning Cases 843 and 863, dirt is to be balanced on site and no dirt is to be imported. If you plan to keep the dirt, a Variance and a request and approval for a modification of your previously approved plan, by the Planning Commission is required. If you choose not to keep the dirt and to export it whatever contractor you use will need a Construction and Demolition Permit. Please contact Ewa or Heidi at the City of Rolling Hills 310-377-1521 if you require information about the process. Just a reminder - as cement/loose dirt debris was pushed into the canyon, Los Angeles County Building Inspectors issued a Stop Work Order on your property. Please contact this office within the next seven days (by Tuesday, August 2, 2016) to provide us with a plan for how the dirt/debris will be removed from the canyon and how the canyon can be remediated, and restored to its natural form, and your plans for the dirt. Should you have any questions regarding your project, please feel free to call me at City Hall at (310) 377-1521. Sincerely, Wendy Starks, nner P - Associa a Printed on Recycled Paper August 1, 2016 Wendy Starks - Associate planner City of Rolling Hills Rolling Hills, Ca 90274 Dear Wendy, This letter is in response to your letter dated July 25, 2016 regarding the illegal dumping that occurred while we were on vacation in kauai. We still have no knowledge of who came onto our property and dumped dirt and debris onto our property. The gals who were staying at our home and caring for our dogs did not contact us with any concerns or questions. We asked them if they heard anything, and they both said no, as they work during the day. With that being said, we have installed a steel chainlink closing off the road down to our lower pad to prevent anymore illegal trespassing onto our property, with No Trespassing signs, etc, posted on the chain as well. At this time, and due to our financial situation, we feel the easiest and most cost effective solution is to go with your recommendation of filing for a variance and approval for a modification of our previous plan by the Planning Commission. If you could provide us with some help as what needs to be filed, and how to construct the request, we would really appreciate it. Also, we want you to be aware that we will be out of the country for a few weeks starting August 8, as we have some family matters to attend to in Croatia. Thank you so much for your time. VNI, v.t.it .1,14,,.. E 1.. Sincerely, Steve and Lori Wheeler AUG 0 2 2016 Guy or honing hills :;y Thursday, August 4, 201. 3:48:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Re: 38 Portuguese Bend_As-Built Plan Status Date: Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 3:40:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Yolanta Schwartz To: Steven Wheeler CC: Iwheelerdesign@aol.com, Wendy Starks Thank you for the update. Also check with Rebecca about the expiration of the plan check for the other projects, and if your intention is to proceed, you may want to get an extension. Once your contractor takes a look at the dirt will you give him permission to start clearing the canyon and slope without you being here?. Please have the canyon and slope cleared by September 2, 2016. Make sure the contractor does not disturb or denude the native plants/vegetations in the canyon, (other than what was damaged by the dirt already). However, he can remove any dead vegetation. Yolanta Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310 377-1521 F: 310-377-7288 This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e- mail. From: Steve Wheeler <scigen@earthlink.net> Date: Thursday, August 4, 2016 3:23 PM To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> Cc: Lori Wheeler <lwheelerdesignPaol.com> Subject: FW: 38 Portuguese Bend_As-Built Plan Status Here is the update on the as -built stairs and walls. I contacted a contractor about working with the dirt that was dumped on to our property. He will take a look at the job next week. Sincerely, Steven Wheeler Scigen Inc. Gardena CA USA Phone 310-544-4479 The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Page 1 of 2 From: Tavisha Nicholson[mailto:tnicho►sonCa�boitonengineerinq.com] Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 1:23 PM To: Steve Wheeler Cc: Dan Bolton Subject: 38 Portuguese Bend_As-Built Plan Status Hi Steve, I received your voicemail this morning and wanted to let you know the status of the as -built stair plan. We received plan check comments from the County last week and I would anticipate starting to work on those towards the end of next week. The County is requiring that we will need to get an addendum report prepared by Todd Houseal (Coast Geotechnical) that provides recommendations for seismic loads on retaining walls above 6' in height; I will coordinate with Todd on this item. It looks like there are also some additional items such as handrail design and notes to be placed on the plan. When I receive the addendum report from Todd I can then re -run the calculations for the stair walls and check to see if the existing design meets the code required values. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Tavisha Nicholson, P.E. I Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave. Suite 210 Lomita, CA 90717 P: (310)325-5580 F: (310)325-5581 Page 2 of 2 Thursday, September 8, 20 ;:01:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: °cleaning canyon Date: Thursday, September 8, 2016 2:58:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> To: Lori Wheeler <Iwheelerdesign@aol.com>, Steve Wheeler <scigen@earthlink.net> Good afternoon, Lori and Steve Per our conversation in early August and an email dated August 4, the canyon and the canyon slopes where dirt was deposited were to be cleared by September 2, 2016. I would like to confirm that the work has been done. I will come by next Tuesday in the morning, around 9 am. Meanwhile, please let me know the status of the other work that needs to be legalized (stairs, walls, water feature) and permit pulled for. Thank you Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310 377-1521 F: 310-377-7288 This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e- mail. Page 1 of 1 Tuesday, September 13, 201 :01:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Canyon clearance Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:17:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> To: Lori Wheeler <Iwheelerdesign@aol.com>, Steve Wheeler <scigen@earthlink.net> Good morning, Please contact me right away regarding the progress of clearing out the canyon and obtaining permits for the unpermitted stairs/water fall etc. I left messages on all of your phones and was hoping to visit the site today. Thank you Yolanta. Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310 377-1521 F: 310-377-7288 This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e- mail. Page 1 of 1 Wednesday, September 14, 20_ ..:12:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Re: 38 portuguese bend road Rolling Hils Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 3:11:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> To: Lori Wheeler <Iwheelerdesign@aol.com> Lori, thank you for the response and I'm sorry you had so many issues and illnesses to take care of. As we discussed, you need to remove the dirt from the canyon and the sides right away and haul it away. If in the future you need additional dirt, you will need to go back to the Planning Commission for approval to import dirt. Yolanta Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310 377-1521 F: 310-377-7288 This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e- mail. From: Lori Wheeler <Iwheelerdesign@ aoLcom> Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 2:37 PM To: Yolanta Schwartz <ysC@cityofrh.net> Subject: Fwd: 38 portuguese bend road Rolling Hils Hi Yolanta, I am very sorry for the delayed response to your emails. I became very sick after we returned from Croatia, and it threw me for a loop! Steve was off on a business trip, and then as I started to feel better, my mom became very ill as well and has been in and out of the hospital and ER, and diagnosed with Emphysema and COPD. So I haven't been home much, and can not use my phone in the hospital. So it's been a little crazy around here. Steve sent off an email to Tavisha today. Please see her response concerning the permits for the stairs. There isn't much more we can do besides hurry up and wait for them to finish up? Also, we did hear back from our contractor, and he has confirmed that the soil dumped on our property can be used, mixed in, and compacted. Unfortunately at this time we are not in a position to start the compaction project. So how would you like for us to proceed? Nothing has been removed, and or compacted at this point. Thank you, Lori Wheeler Always be humble and kind. Begin forwarded message: From: "Tavisha Nicholson" <tnicho!son@boltonengineering.com> Subject: RE: 38 portuguese bend road Rolling Hils Date: September 14, 2016 at 1:27:31 PM PDT Page 1 of 2 To: "'Steven Wheeler" <scigen@earthlink.net> Cc: <Iwheelerdesign@aol.com> Hi Steve, I received the updated soils report from Todd and am just working to finish up a couple jobs that were in front of yours. I anticipate starting the corrections in the next week or so. Regards, Tavisha Nicholson, P.E. 1 Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave. Suite 210 Lomita, CA 90717 P: (310)325-5580 F: (310)325-5581 From: Steven Wheeler [mailto:scigen@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 1:25 PM To: 'Tavisha Nicholson'<tnicholson@boltonengineering.com> Cc: Iwheelerdesign@aol.com Subject: 38 portuguese bend road Rolling Hils Importance: High Hi Tavisha, Do you have an update on the as -built permits for the staircase and waterfall area. Yolanta is asking. Sincerely, Steven Wheeler Scigen Inc. Gardena CA USA Phone 310-544-4479 The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Page 2 oft JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP A LAW PARTNERSHIP MICHAEL jENKINS CHRISTI HOGIN GREGG KErn.Es JOHN C. Corn LAUREN LANGER TREVOR RUSIN NATALIE C. KARPELES PATRICK DONEGAN MANHATTAN ToWERs 1230 ROSECRANS AVENUE, SUITE 110 MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90266 (310) 643-8448 • FAx(310) 643-8441 W W W.LOCALGOVLAW.COM September 22, 2016 <,q t/ [cc e- m WRITER'S EMAIL ADDRESS: NKARPELES C LOCALGOV LAW.00M FINAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION & OFFICE CONFERENCE Mr. and Mrs. Steven Wheeler 38 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Reference: FINAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION F' OFFICE CONFERENCE 38 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Wheeler: As you may be aware, our office represents the City of Rolling Hills ("City") as its City Attorney. It is our responsibility to enforce the Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC") I. It has come to the City's attention that on or about October 2015 you requested that Doty Brothers Construction Company deliver dirt to your property located at 38 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 ("Property"). At no time has a variance been requested or obtained by you for this delivery/import of dirt; nor has the City Manager excused you from the requirement that you obtain a variance, pursuant to RHMC section 15.04.150(5). On or about July 14, 2016, you were notified that the impermissibly imported dirte and discarded bits of concrete and other construction debris' deposited on your property and into the canyon adjacent to your Property constitute violations of the RHMC. Despite multiple opportunities to comply, your September 14, 2016 email to Ms. Yolanta I For your convenience, pertinent sections of the RHMC are enclosed herewith. 2 See RHMC section 15.04.150 3 See RHMC section 8.32.060(B) jENICINS & HOGIN, LLP September 22, 2016 Page 2 Schwartz confirms that these conditions remain on your Property in violation of the RHMC. Please be advised that such conditions constitute a nuisance and may subject your Property to abatement.4 The purpose of this letter is to notify you that an office conference has been scheduled to address these violations. DATE OF OFFICE CONFERENCE: October 11, 2016 TIME:. 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Rolling Hills City Hall 2 Portuguese Bend Road The purpose of the Office Conference is to provide you with an opportunity to explain why you have not fully corrected the violations set forth in this Final Notice of Violation. You should bring with you all documents and materials and any experts or witnesses you wish to present to explain why you have not corrected the violations. If you are represented by an attorney, that attorney should attend the meeting. At the Office Conference, we can discuss the application of the Municipal Code, seek to resolve any questions that you may have, and agree on a course of action. Please contact my office to confirm this date or to reschedule if this date is not convenient. The City's goal is to work cooperatively with you to eliminate existing code violations on your property. Please note that if you fail to respond to this Notice of Office Conference, the City will pursue other code enforcement legal remedies. I/I 4 See RHMC section 8.32.100(A)(1)(a) & Chapter 8.24 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP September 22, 2016 Page 3. If you have any information to demonstrate that you are in compliance with the RHMC, please contact Ms. Yolanta Schwartz at (310) 377-1521. trul ours, atalie C. Karpeles Assistant City Attorney City of Rolling Hills cc: Ray Cruz, City Manager Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP September 22, 2016 Page 4 Pertinent Sections of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code: 8.32.060 — Prohibited Activities B. Littering. No person shall intentionally throw, deposit, place, leave, maintain, keep or permit to be thrown, deposited, placed, left or maintained or kept, any refuse, rubbish, garbage, or any other discarded, or abandoned objects, articles or accumulations, on or upon any roadway, driveway, trail, canyon, storm drain, inlet, catch basin conduit or drainage structure, or upon any private plot of land in the City, so that the same might be or become a pollutant. No person shall throw or deposit litter in any fountain, pond, stream or other body of water within the City. This subsection shall not apply to refuse, rubbish or garbage deposited in containers, bags or other appropriate receptacles which are placed in designated locations for regular solid waste pick up and disposal. 8.32.100 — Enforcement A. Violations Deemed a Public Nuisance. 1. Any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of: (a) Any of the provisions of this chapter; 15.04.150$ = Section J106.4 added Section J 106 is amended to add subsection J 106.4 to read: J106.4 BALANCED CUT AND FILL RATIO "...A project, which does not include excavation, may deviate from balanced cut and fill only under unusual circumstances related to the size, shape, topography or other physical conditions of the property that qualify it for a variance pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.38.050. 1. No import of soil shall be permitted to any lot in the City, except where a variance pursuant to Chapter 17.38 has been approved... 5 Section 15.04.010 of Chapter 15.04 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code adopts Title 26 of the Los Angeles County Building Code; pursuant to Section 15.04.150. jENKINS & HOGIN, LLP September 22, 2016 Page 5 5. The City Manager or his or her designee may grant an exception to the requirements of parts I and 2 of this paragraph to allow for the import or export of soil not to exceed 500 cubic yards for remedial repair of an area of the lot adjacent to structures, fences, corrals and riding rings that has eroded, and of hillside or trail if he or she finds, based upon written reports and other information submitted, that all of the following conditions are present: (a) The project does not require discretionary review (a cut that is three feet or less, or a fill that is three feet or less or where the activity covers 2,000 square feet or less of surface area). (b)The import or export of soil is no greater than necessary to avoid a threat of land subsidence or other imminent danger. (c) A professionally prepared drainage plan for permanent repair shall be required if the erosion is re -occurring and if/when the amount of dirt requested, when added to the amount of dirt used in previous years, exceeds a total of 500 cubic yards. 71 Friday, October21, 2016 5:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Re: Status of removal of dirt Date: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:05:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Lori Wheeler <Iwheelerdesign@aol.com> To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> CC: Steve Wheeler <scigen@earthlink.net> Hi Yolanta, The contractor is coming up this Saturday to look at everything. We will update you as soon as he lets us know his availability and time frame. Thank you so much, Lori Wheeler On Oct 19, 2016, at 5:38 PM, Yolanta Schwartz <vsPcityofrh.net> wrote: Hi, Lori and Steve. Thank you for speaking to Ray, City Manager, on Friday regarding your attempt to call your contractor about the removal of the dirt/rocks from the slopes and canyon. Have you contacted him yet and what is his recommendation and time line for removal.1 and/or the building inspector could meet him at the property, if needed. Please expedite this matter, as we need to report to the Assistant City Attorney. Thank you Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310 377-1521 F: 310-377-7288 This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Page 1 of 1 Friday, November 4, 201 .:17:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Re: Status of the dirt?? Date: Thursday, November 3, 2016 10:52:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Lori Wheeler <Iwheelerdesign@aol.com> To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> CC: Steve Wheeler <scigen@earthlink.net> Hi Yolanta, So sorry for not replying sooner. My uncle had a stroke while visiting in Croatia. They just flew him back to Cali, and he has been in and out of the hospital this past week with complications, so we haven't been home much. As to the dirt situation, our contractor had put us on his schedule, and he will start in one month. We will give you a few days notice of the actual day he plans to start. Thank you for your patience. Thanks, Lori & Steve Wheeler On Oct 31, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Yolanta Schwartz <ysPcitvofrh.net> wrote: Hi Lori and Steve What is the status of the removal of the dirt from the canyon and sides? Thanks Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310 377-1521 F: 310-377-7288 This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Page 1 of 1 (qty ©1 Pub INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 Mr. and Mrs. Steven Wheeler 38 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 January 18, 2017 Re: Notice to Abate Nuisance 38 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. and Ms. Wheeler: On September 22, 2016, you were notified via letter that your property located at 38 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 ("Properly") is being maintained in violation of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC") due to the fact that you have caused, permitted and maintained the import of dirt (and discarded bits of concrete and other construction debris2) on your property and into the canyon adjacent to your property. At no time has a variance been requested or obtained by you for this delivery/import of dirt; nor has the City Manager excused you from the requirement that you obtain a variance, pursuant to RHMC section 15.04.150(5). This letter serves as a Notice to Abate pursuant to Section 8.24.030 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. In order to address these violations and provide you with an opportunity to explain why these violations have not been fully corrected, an Office conference was held on October 11, 2016. During said office conference, Ms. Schwartz, Ms. Karpeles and I brought to your attention the conditions on your Property which needed to be remedied in order to achieve compliance. You, Ms. Schwartz, Ms. Karpeles and I discussed these violations, and any issues related to non- compliance, at length and were able to reach a consensus. As a result of the discussions held during the October Office Conference, you had agreed to remove the dirt in the canyon two weeks from the date of the Office Conference, i.e., by October 25, 2016. On November 3, 2016, you emailed the City stating that you had hired a contractor and that the dirt would be moved in one month. However, a recent inspection of your property has revealed that not only have these conditions remained, but the City is unaware of any reasonable efforts made on your part to correct these issues. You now have until February 2, 2017 to remove all of 1 See RHMC section 15.04.150 2 See RHMC section 8.32.060(B) IS)PrintedonRecydedPoper the dirt, rocks, and loose concrete illegally dumped on your property and into the canyon adjacent to your Property. If the conditions described in this Notice are not abated by February 2, 2097, or if you have failed to make a good faith effort toward abatement (to the satisfaction of the City Manager) by February 2, 2097, a hearing shall be held before the City Council on February 27, 2097, at 7:00 pm in Council Chambers located in City Hall: 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274. The City's goal is to work cooperatively with you to eliminate any existing code violations. Please note that if you fail to respond to this Notice to Abate Nuisance, the City will pursue other code enforcement legal remedies. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely, /5 Raymond R. Cruz City Manager cc Natalie C. Karpeles, Assistant City Attorney Wednesday, March 8, 2017 9:32:45 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: FW: Notice of Abatement for 38 Portuguese Bend Road Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 9:30:39 AM Pacific Standard Time From: Julia Stewart <jstewart@cityofrh.net> To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> Julia Stewart, Assistant Planner City of Rolling Hills, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310-377-1521 Fax: 310-377-7288 www.Rolling-Hills.org This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e- mail. From: Lori Wheeler <IwheelerdesignPaol.com> Date: Monday, January 23, 2017 at 12:10 PM To: Julia Stewart <jstewartPcityofrh.net> Cc: "scigen(Wearthlink.net" <scigen(a)earthlink.net>, "Natalie C. Karpeles" <NKarpeles(a localgovlaw.com>, Ray Cruz <rcruz(cacityofrh.net>, Yolanta Schwartz <ysPcityofrh.net> Subject: Re: Notice of Abatement for 38 Portuguese Bend Road Hello Julia, I am very confused by this email and attachment. I do not understand why you would send this to us? Who do you work for? Steve and I have been working with Yolanda, and we received our final permit on the stairs and walls like she had asked. We also informed Yolanda that we are working with Bolton Engr. on drawing up new plans for the Cabana which will include the dirt that is there now. We plan on just keeping that dirt, and we do not wish to remove it, which was one of the options provided to us by the city. Also, there is no way we can safely remove any dirt before Feb. 2 after this terrible rain storm, which is not even over yet! If you would like to set up a meeting with Mr. Cruz and Yolanda, we would be happy to fill them in on the progress. Best regards, Lori and Steve Wheeler On Jan 18, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Julia Stewart <jstewart(Wcityofrh.net> wrote: Please see attached sent on behalf of Ray Cruz. Page 1 Julia Stewart, Assistant Planner City of Rolling Hills, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310-377-1521 Fax: 310-377-7288 www.Rolling-Hihls.org This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. <01-18-17_38PortugueseBendRoad_Nuisance.pdf> Page 2 Subject: Re: Notice of Abatement for 38 Portuguese Bend Road Date: Thursday, January 26, 2017 4:35 PM From: Raymond R. Cruz <rcruz@cityofrh.net> To: Lori Wheeler <Iwheelerdesign@aol.com> Cc: Mike Jenkins <MJenkins@localgovlaw.com>, "Natalie C. Karpeles" <NKarpeles@localgovlaw.com>, Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net>, Julia Stewart <jstewart@cityofrh.net>, "hluce@cityofrh.net" <hluce@cityofrh.net> Lori, thank you for your email to Julia; as you may recall, Julia is the new Assistant Planner for the City of Rolling Hills. Additionally, Julia had emailed you on January 3, 2017 to introduce herself and to inquire about the status of the dirt in the canyon. In response to your January 23, 2017 email regarding the Notice of Abatement for 38 Portuguese Bend Road, please be advised that following the October office conference and a subsequent request for an extension, you had agreed to remove the dirt from the canyon and to store the dirt you wanted to use on your private property no later than December 3, 2016. While the City understands that you wish to keep and use the dirt currently being stored in the canyon for use in your future cabana project, you were specifically informed that the dirt could not remain in the canyon until your covered patio project is decided upon by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. To date, you have not moved the dirt onto your private property, as discussed. The City recognizes that you are working with Bolton Engineering to submit revised plans for the covered patio and the pool pad; however, regardless of these issues, you were required to remove the dirt from the sides of the canyon and the canyon itself by December 3, 2016. Pursuant to the Notice of Abatement Letter that i sent you, the City now requires that you remove the dirt from the canyon and sides of the canyon no later than February 2, 2017. As stated in the Notice of Abatement Letter, failure to comply with the City's request will result in a hearing before the City Council. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Ray Raymond R. Cruz City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310 377-1521 F: 310-377-7288 This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. City ope llin9 .u�u INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 Mr. and Mrs. Steven Wheeler 38 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 February 8, 2017 Re: Notice toAbateNuisance 38 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. and Ms. Wheeler: On September 22, 2016, you were notified via letter that your property located at 38 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 ("Property") is being maintained in violation of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC") due to the fact that you have caused, permitted and maintained the import of dirt' (and discarded bits of concrete and other construction debris2) into the canyon adjacent to your property. At no time has a variance been requested or obtained by you for this delivery/import of dirt; nor has the City Manager excused you from the requirement that you obtain a variance, pursuant to RHMC section 15.04.150(5). In order to address these violations and provide you with an opportunity to explain why these violations have not been fully corrected, an Office conference was held on October 11, 2016. During said office conference, Ms. Schwartz, Ms. Karpeles and I brought to your attention the conditions on your Property which needed to be remedied in order to achieve compliance. You, Ms. Schwartz, Ms. Karpeles and I discussed these violations, and any issues related to non- compliance, at length and were able to reach a consensus. As a result of the discussions held during the October Office Conference, you had agreed t o remove the dirt in the canyon two weeks from the date of the Office Conference, i.e., by October 25, 2016. On December 4, 2016, you emailed the City stating that you had hired a contractor and that the dirt would be moved in one month. However, a recent inspection of your property has revealed that not only have these conditions remained, but the City is unaware of any reasonable efforts made on your part to correct these issues. 1 See RHMC section 15.04.150 2 See RHMC section 8.32.060(B) f.) Printed on Recycled Paper On February 2, 2017, you requested an office meeting, which was held in the afternoon on that day, to provide you with an opportunity to explain why these violations have not been corrected. In addition, per your request, staff visited the property on February 7, 2017 to help you determine which areas of the slopes need to be cleared of the dirt. You now have until thirty days from the date of this letter, but not later than March 9, 2017 to remove the dirt, rocks, and loose concrete illegally dumped in the canyon and slopes adjacent to your Property. If the conditions described in this Notice are not abated by March 9, 2017, or if you have failed to make a good faith effort toward abatement (to the satisfaction of the City Manager) by March 9, 2017, a hearing shall be held before the City Council on March 13, 2017, at 7:00 pm in Council Chambers located in City Hall: 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274. The City's goal is to work cooperatively with you to eliminate any existing code violations. Please note that if you fail to respond to this Notice to Abate Nuisance, the City will pursue other code enforcement legal remedies. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely, (krjX' Ray Cruz City Manager cc Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Natalie C. Karpeles, Assistant City Attorney Tuesday, February28, 2017 3:23:36 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Pictures of slopes and request for remediation Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:02:33 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> To: Lori Wheeler <Iwheelerdesign@aol.com>, Steve Wheeler <scigen@earthlink.net> CC: Ray Cruz <rcruz@cityofrh.net> Lori and Steve, I'm sending you pictures, in 3 separate batches, of the slopes and areas that need remediation by removing the dirt/rocks that was dumped there. The first 3 pictures were taken after we first received the complaint. The rest of the pictures were taken on Febr 7, 2017 when the City Manager, Ray Cruz, actually walked the area of the slopes and below. It is very difficult to depict on the pictures exactly where and what needs to be removed. As you can see in the latter pictures, over time vegetation has grown on some of the dirt that was placed on the slopes. Basically, we're requesting that all the dirt and rocks that was dumped onto the slopes and that eroded/moved even further down the slope during the recent rains be removed. For now it could be stored on the pad above the slopes and covered up for erosion and sediment control. I outlined on the pictures the areas that are obvious from the pictures that dumping occurred. The depth of the removal cannot be depicted on the pictures, but should include all the dirt and rocks that were placed there. You need to remove the new material to the depth where the original slopes and dirt is reached. That may have to be determined in the field by your contractor. Please be reminded that, as stated in the letter dated February 8, 2017, we have scheduled a hearing before the City Council at their March 13, 2017 meeting. Should you, prior to the meeting, remediate the situation or show a good faith effort to the satisfaction of the City Manager, we would report that action to the City Council and request that the Council not consider this item at that time. Thank you Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310 377-1521 F: 310-377-7288 This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. LDS Page 1 of 2 On 2/28/17 12:59 PM, "scanner754Pcitvofrh.net" <scanner754(wcitvofrh.net> wrote: Page 2 of 2 '�' J� 1 JL I Tuesday, February28, 2017 3:24:15 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: More pictures Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:03:54 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Yolanta Schwartz rys@cityofrh.net> To:. Lori Wheeler <Iwheelerdesign@aol.com>, Steve Wheeler <scigen@earthlink.net> Please read the message in the first email. Thank you Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310 377-1521 F: 310-377-7288 This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an Intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. On 2/28/17 1:00 PM, "scanner754t?a cityofrh.net" <scanner754)citvofrh.net> wrote: Page 1 of 1 Tuesday, February 28, 2017 3:24:07 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: More pictures Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:03:14 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> To: Lori Wheeler <Iwheelerdesign@aol.com>, Steve Wheeler <scigen@earthlink.net> Please read the message in the first email. Thank you Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310 377-1521 F: 310-377-7288 This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. On 2/28/17 12:59 PM, "scanner754(a citvofrh.net" <scanner7540citvofrh.net> wrote: Page 1 of 1 Wednesday, March 1, 2017 2:12:37 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Re: Pictures of slopes and request for remediation Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 11:17:51 AM Pacific Standard Time From: Lori Wheeler <Iwheelerdesign@aol.com> To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> Hi Yolanta, We have removed the tarps and we are letting things dry out, and will start in a few days. And I wanted to give you the information you had asked for regarding who the contractor is doing the work. His name is Dan Schmitz 562-760-0330 Please let me know if there is any further information you may need. Thanks, Lori Wheeler On Feb 28, 2017, at 1:02 PM, Yolanta Schwartz <ys(a)citvofrh.net> wrote: Lori and Steve, I'm sending you pictures, in 3 separate batches, of the slopes and areas that need remediation by removing the dirt/rocks that was dumped there. The first 3 pictures were taken after we first received the complaint. The rest of the pictures were taken on Febr 7, 2017 when the City Manager, Ray Cruz, actually walked the area of the slopes and below. It is very difficult to depict on the pictures exactly where and what needs to be removed. As you can see in the latter pictures, over time vegetation has grown on some of the dirt that was placed on the slopes. Basically, we're requesting that all the dirt and rocks that was dumped onto the slopes and that eroded/moved even further down the slope during the recent rains be removed. For now it could be stored on the pad above the slopes and covered up for erosion and sediment control. I outlined on the pictures the areas that are obvious from the pictures that dumping occurred. The depth of the removal cannot be depicted on the pictures, but should include all the dirt and rocks that were placed there. You need to remove the new material to the depth where the original slopes and dirt is reached. That may have to be determined in the field by your contractor. Please be reminded that, as stated in the letter dated February 8, 2017, we have scheduled a hearing before the City Council at their March 13, 2017 meeting. Should you, prior to the meeting, remediate the situation or show a good faith effort to the satisfaction of the City Manager, we would report that action to the City Council and request that the Council not consider this item at that time. Thank you Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310 377-1521 F: 310-377-7288 This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or Page 1 of 2 Wednesday, March 8, 2017 8:51:23 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: Removal of dirt Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 1:10:15 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> To: Lori Wheeler <Iwheelerdesign@aol.com> CC: Steve Wheeler <scigen@earthlink.net> Hi Lori and Steve; Pls provide an update on the progress of the removal of the dirt. Has your contractor started the removal and how far along is he? If he started, we would like to visit the property to see the progress. Thank you Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310 377-1521 F: 310-377-7288 This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e- mail. — Lob . - eervi i/11 Vu'X�C��c- e -,16--ri l „. �'t?'tcr,� �z`�`Pv-41- 6s7 f� Si Cf- /r- / Our 7 sib 014 r -v; 404?cJ (.7;ov Page 1 of 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Rolling Hills, G4 Code of Ordinances 1/18/17, 11:42 AM • Chapter 8.24 - ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES Sections: 8.24.010 - Nuisance defined. For the purposes of this chapter, a "nuisance" shall be defined as anything which is injurious to health or safety, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property or injurious to the stability of real property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any street, and affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal. Notwithstanding any provisions of this chapter, the City Council may define by ordinance any particular condition constituting a nuisance. (Ord. 190 § 1(part), 1981). 8.24.020- Duty of owner or possessor of property. Every person who owns or is in possession of any property, place or area within the boundaries of the City shall, at his or her own expense, maintain the property, place or area free from any nuisance. (Ord. 190 § 1(part), 1981). 8.24.030 - Notice to abate nuisance. Whenever the City Manager determines that a nuisance exists upon any property, place or area within the boundaries of the City, the City Manager may notify in writing the owner or person in possession of the property, place or area to abate the nuisance within fifteen days from the date of the notice. The notice shall be given by registered or certified mail addressed to the owner or person in possession of the property, place or area at his last known address. (Ord. 190 § 1(part), 1981). (Ord. No. 328, § 1, 5-14-2012) about:blank Page 1 of 4 Rolling Hills, CA Code of Ordinances 1/18/17, 11:42 AM • 8.24.040 - Notice to abate nuisance —Contents. The notice shall state that if the nuisance is not abated or good -faith efforts towards abatement not been made to the satisfaction of the City Manager within fifteen days from the date thereof, a hearing shall be held before the City Council to hear any protest of the owner, possessor or other interested person. The notice shall specify the time, date and place of the hearing, which shall be set for the regular meeting of the Council next following the expiration of the fifteen -day period. (Ord. 190 § 1(part), 1981). 8.24.050 - Hearing and decision. If the nuisance is not abated or good faith efforts towards abatement have not been made within the time set forth in Section 8.24.030, the City Council shall conduct a hearing at the time and place fixed in the notice at which evidence may be submitted by interested persons. Upon consideration of the evidence, the Council may declare the condition to constitute a public nuisance and order the abatement thereof. The decision of the City Council shall be final. The City Clerk shall notify all owners and possessors of the subject property, place or area of the decision of the Council. (Ord. 190 § 1(part), 1981). 8.24.060 - Abatement by City —Notice of charge. Upon failure, neglect or refusal by a person notified pursuant to Section 8.24.050 to abate a nuisance within thirty days after the date of notice, the City Council is authorized to cause the abatement of the nuisance and pay for the abatement. The City Council shall notify, in writing, the owner or possessor of the property, place or area upon which a nuisance has been abated by the City of the cost of abatement. Such notice shall be given in the same manner as required by Section 8.24.030. (Ord. 190 § 1(part), 1981). 8.24.070 - Lien. If the total cost of the abatement of the nuisance by the City is not paid to the City in full within ten days after the date of the notice of the cost of the abatement, the City Clerk shall record, in the office of the County Recorder, a statement of the total balance due to the City, a legal description of the property, place or area involved, and the name of the owner or possessor concerned. From the date of such about:blank Go, Page 2 of 4 Rolling Hills, CA Code of Ordinances • • 1/18/17, 11:42 AM recording, the balance due will constitute a lien on the property. The lien will continue in full force and effect until the entire amount due, together with interest at the maximum legal rate accruing from the date of the completion of the abatement, is paid in full. (Ord. 190 § 1(part), 1981). 8.24.080 - Charges to be billed on tax bill. The City may also, in accordance with the provisions of the laws of the State, cause the amount due to the City by reason of its abating a nuisance together with interest at the maximum legal rate, accruing from the date of the completion of the abatement, to be charged to the owners of the property, place or area on the next regular tax bill. All laws of the State applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of City taxes and County taxes are hereby made applicable to the collection of these charges. (Ord. 190 § 1(part), 1981). 8.24.090 - Court action. The City may bring appropriate actions, in a court of competent jurisdiction, to collect any amounts due by reason of the abatement of a nuisance by the City and to foreclose any existing liens for such amounts. Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, the City may bring the appropriate civil and . criminal actions in a court of competent jurisdiction for abatement of any nuisance existing within the City pursuant to any other provision of law. In addition to costs recoverable pursuant to Section 8,24.060, attorney's fees, expert fees, and court costs shall be awarded to the prevailing party in any action taken by the City to abate a nuisance if, and only if, the City seeks the award of attorney's fees and court costs at the initiation of such legal action or proceeding. The attorney's fees recoverable pursuant to this section shall be limited to the reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the City in the legal action or proceeding, regardless of the actual cost of any party's attorney's fees. (Ord. 190 § 1(part), 1981). (Ord. No. 328, § 2, 5-14-2012) 8.24.100 - Summary abatement. about:blank Page 3 of 4 Rolling Hills, Ca Code of Ordinances 1/18/17, 11:42 AM • Notwithstanding any provisions of this chapter, the City Council may cause a nuisance to be summarily abated if the City Council determines that the nuisance creates an emergency condition involving an immediate threat to the physical safety of the population. Prior to abating the nuisance, the City Manager shall attempt to notify the owner or possessor of the property, place, or area involved of the nuisance and request him to immediately abate the nuisance. If, in the sole discretion of the City Council, the owner or possessor of the property, place or area containing the nuisance which creates an emergency condition fails to take immediate and meaningful steps to abate the nuisance, the City may abate the nuisance and charge the cost of abating such nuisance to the owner or possessor of the property, place or area involved. The City shall notify in writing the owner or possessor of the property, place or area upon which a nuisance has been abated by the City, of the cost of said abatement. Such notification shall be given in the same manner as required by Section 8.24.030. The provisions of Sections 8.24.070. 8.24.080 and 8.24.090 shall be applicable. (Ord. 190 § 1 (part), 1981). about:blank Page 4 of 4 EXCERPT FROM RHMC CHAPTER 8.32 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND POLLUTION CONTROL 8.32.060 Prohibited activities. A. Illicit Discharges. It is prohibited to discharge pollutants into natural drainage courses. B. Littering. No person shall intentionally throw, deposit, place, leave, maintain, keep or permit to be thrown, deposited, placed, left or maintained or kept, any refuse, rubbish, garbage, or any other discarded or abandoned objects, articles or accumulations, on or upon any roadway, driveway, trail, canyon, storm drain, inlet, catch basin conduit or drainage structure, or upon any private plot of land in the City, so that the same might be or become a pollutant. No person shall throw or deposit litter in any fountain, pond, stream or other body of water within the City. This subsection shall not apply to refuse, rubbish or garbage deposited in containers, bags or other appropriate receptacles which are placed in designated locations for regular solid waste pick up and disposal. C. Disposal of Landscape Debris. It is prohibited to intentionally dispose of leaves, dirt, or other landscape debris into the MS4 or into natural drainage courses. D. No person shall intentionally dispose of manure or any animal waste into the MS4 or into natural drainage course. E. Non -Storm Water Discharges. All non -storm water discharges into the municipal storm sewer system are prohibited unless those flows are: in compliance with a separate NPDES Permit; pursuant to a discharge exemption by the Regional Board, the regional board's executive officer, or the State Water Resources Control Board; associated with emergency firefighting activities (i.e., flows necessary for the protection of life or property); natural flows as defined in the Municipal NPDES Permit; conditionally exempt non -storm water discharges as defined in accordance with the Municipal NPDES Permit; or authorized as a temporary non -storm water discharge by USEPA pursuant to sections 104(a) or 104(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Prohibited discharges include, but are not limited to: 1. The discharge of runoff from mobile auto washing, steam cleaning, mobile carpet cleaning, and other such mobile commercial and industrial operations (excluding non- commercial car washing by residents and non-profit organizations); 2. Discharges from areas where repair of machinery and equipment, including motor vehicles, which are visibly leaking oil, fluid or antifreeze, is undertaken; 3. Discharges of runoff from areas where materials containing grease, oil, or other hazardous substances (e.g., motor vehicle parts) are stored, and discharges from uncovered receptacles containing hazardous materials; 4. The discharge of chlorinated/brominated swimming pool water and filter backwash; 5. Discharges of runoff from the washing of toxic materials from paved or unpaved areas; 6. Discharges from the washing out of concrete or cement laden wash water from concrete trucks, pumps, tools, and equipment; 7. Discharges of any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, banned by the USEPA or the California Department of Pesticide Regulation; 8. Discharge of any food or food processing wastes; 9. Discharge of any fuel and chemical wastes, animal wastes, garbage, batteries, and other materials that have potential adverse impacts on water quality; and 10. The disposal of hazardous wastes into trash containers that causes a direct or indirect discharge to the municipal storm water system. F. Discharges in Violation of the Municipal NPDES Permit. Any discharge that would result in or contribute to a violation of the Municipal NPDES Permit, either separately or in combination with other discharges, is prohibited. Liability for any such discharge shall be the responsibility of the person(s) causing or responsible for the discharge, and such person(s) shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City from all losses, liabilities, claims or causes of actions in any administrative or judicial action relating to such discharge. (Ord. No. 334, § 3(E)th. A), 6-24-2013) EXCERPT FROM RHMC TITLE 15 BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION, SECTION 15.04.150 BALANCED CUT AND FILL RATIO Adherence to balanced cut and fill ratio is an important policy of the City and furthers the goals and objectives of its General Plan, except that export of soil generated from construction of basements and other excavation activities, promotes the preservation of natural terrain of the property. A project, which does not include excavation, may deviate from balanced cut and fill only under unusual circumstances related to the size, shape, topography or other physical conditions of the property that qualify it for a variance pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.38.050. 1. No import of soil shall be permitted to any lot in the City, except where a variance pursuant to Chapter 17.38 has been approved. 2. No export of soil shall be permitted from any lot in the City, except where the soil is generated from an excavation activity, as defined in Municipal Code Section 17.12.050 or where a variance pursuant to Chapter 17.38 has been approved. Export of soil must comply with City refuse diversion requirements. 3. No grading plan for which a permit is required shall be approved unless the amount of soil to be cut from the site equals the amount of soil to be filled on the site, except where the soil is generated from an excavation activity or where a variance pursuant to Chapter 17.38 has been approved. 4. The City Manager or his or her designee may grant an exception to the requirements of parts 1 and 2 of this paragraph to allow for the import or export of soil not to exceed 500 cubic yards if he or she finds, based upon written reports and other information submitted, that all of the following conditions are present: (a) The project does not require discretionary review (a cut that is three feet or less, or a fill that is three feet or less or where the activity covers 2,000 square feet or less of surface area). (b) That the need to import or export the soil could not have been foreseen prior to commencement of construction, and (c) A professionally prepared drainage plan for permanent repair shall be required if the erosion is re -occurring and if/when the amount of dirt requested, when added to the amount of dirt used in previous years, exceeds a total of 500 cubic yards. 5. The City Manager or his or her designee may grant an exception to the requirements of parts 1 and 2 of this paragraph to allow for the import or export of soil not to exceed 500 cubic yards for remedial repair of an area of the lot adjacent to structures, fences, corrals and riding rings that has eroded, and of hillside or trail if he or she finds, based upon written reports and other information submitted, that all of the following conditions are present: (a) The project does not require discretionary review (a cut that is three feet or less, or a fill that is three feet or less or where the activity covers 2,000 square feet or less of surface area). (b) The import or export of soil is no greater than necessary to avoid a threat of land subsidence or other imminent danger. (03- (c) A professionally prepared drainage plan for permanent repair shall be required if the erosion is re -occurring and if/when the amount of dirt requested, when added to the amount of dirt used in previous years, exceeds a total 'of 500 cubic yards. (Ord. 311 § 12, 2008: Ord. 299 § 3, 2006; Ord. 277-U § 1(part), 1999). (Ord. No. 337-U, § 6, 2-10-2014) TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJECT: DATE: te4 a/ Reflat, gieek 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: 03/13/17 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TERRY SHEA, FINANCE DIRECTOR RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER P1' CONSIDERATION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 MID -YEAR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS MARCH 13, 2017 ATTACHMENTS: General Fund Summary Statement of Revenues and Expenditures Mid -Year Budget Adjustment RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council "receive and file" the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 mid -year budget review and approve the recommended budget adjustments. BACKGROUND On June 13, 2016 the City Council adopted Resolutions 1184 and 1185 for adoption of the 2016-17 (FY 16/17) budget and appropriations limit. The Adopted General Fund FY 16/17 budget included $1,931,600 in revenues, $1,878,260 in expenditures, $24,000 in transfers in and $368,050 in transfers out for a budgeted deficit of $290,710. The budget deficit is tied to transfers out for the following items: Traffic Safety Fund for roadway striping of $55,450, Underground Utility Fund for future projects of $250,000 and the Community Facilities Fund for $62,600 for facility maintenance and improvements to the Tennis Facilities. DISCUSSION Mid -Year Budget Status At the mid -year point of the FY 16/17, total General Fund year-to-date revenues are $654,527 which is $32,666 less than expected with 50% of the year behind us. Expenditures are $750,921 which is $55,249 less than budgeted at mid -year. The FY 16/17 revenues compared to expenditures after transfers presents a decrease of $334,394 compared to an anticipated, budgeted shortfall of $356,977 at mid -year. As such, the City is $22,583 better than anticipated at mid -year (Attachment 1). The budgeted mid -year shortfall is a direct correlation to cash flow; most revenues are received by the City later in the year. Total revenues are up slightly more than anticipated in property tax, and interest income. Licenses and permits, are down but due to the timing of remittances received from Los Angeles County, it is hard to project that revenue for the whole year. Total expenditures in Administration and Finance are as budgeted at mid -year. Total expenditures in Planning are less than anticipated due to the timing of the Los Angeles County and Willdan invoices for services and the update of the hazard mitigation plan. However, in Planning legal fees are over the projected mid -year amounts and will have to be increased for view case activity. Mid -year Budget Adjustments Staff is proposing an increase in Motor Vehicle in -Lieu Tax -VLF revenue of $10,000. In January we received our first remittance of $98,114 which is 50% of our annual amount of $196,228, which is higher than the original budget amount by $10,000. Staff is also proposing an increase in Interest Income of $15,000 due to rising rates of return. The General Fund proposed expenditure adjustments are an increase of $10,000 in Legal Expense -Other in Planning due to the increased need for City Attorney services. Included in the Legal Expense -Other in Planning are costs associated with a complicated Committee on Trees and Views case. Staff is proposing a budget adjustment between Planning Department Salaries Full Time and Salaries Part Time for $15,400. Included in the Full Time Salaries was the Planning Assistant's salary for twelve months. However, the position was not filled all year resulting in savings. The Part Time Salaries were budgeted for three months, but due to the time needed to hire the Planning Assistant, allow time for transition training and to finalize the Hazard Mitigation Plan; the part time Planner was filled until February. Staff is proposing a decrease in the budget for Election City Council Expense of $30,000, as there was no election. They are also proposing an increase in the budget for Wild Life Management & Pest Control of $8,000 for the increased costs relating to coyote control for both the County and private vendor. CONCLUSION The FY 16/17 mid -year budget review shows the City has a positive budget variance of $22,583. The revenues are down $32,666, expenditures are down $55,249 and net transfers in (out) are equal. The proposed increase in revenues of $25,000 and the decrease in proposed expenditures of $12,000 will leave a budgeted deficit of $253,710 for fiscal year 2016-17. It is recommended the City Council approve the proposed FY 16/17 mid -year budget adjustments for the General Fund. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES MID -YEAR REVIEW FY 2016-2017 VS FY 2015-2016 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADJUSTED ADJUSTED JULY JULY FY 16/17 SIX MONTH % ANNUAL DEC. DEC. VS FY 15/16 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 16/17 FY 15/16 Favorable FY 16/17 USED FY 16/17 USED (Unfavorable) GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES SUMMARY BEGINNING FUND BALANCE S- 4,600,994 S 4,600,994 GENERAL FUND REVENUES TAXES S 414,670 S 403,113 S 11,557 S 421,150 98.46% S 966,800 42.89% OTHER AGENCIES - 768 (768) 768 0.00% 187,000 0.00% LICENSES & PERMITS 190,844 317,385 (126,541) 206,600 92.37% 601,900 31.71% USE OF PROPERTY & MONEY 39,696 36,845 2,851 37,975 104.53% 75,950 52.27% OTHER REVENUES 9,317 18,296 (8,979) 20,700 45.01% 43,700 21.32% TOTAL REVENUES TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES S 654,527 S 776,407 S (121,880) S 687,193 95.25% S 1,931,600 33.89% 01 CITY ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEE SALARIES S 148,515 S 151,058 S 2,543 S 150,000 99.01% S 314,300 47.25% EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 77,059 68,917 (8,142) 68,125 113.11% 136,250 56.56% TOTAL PERSONNEL 225,574 219,975 (5,599) 218,125 103.42% 450,550 50.07% MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 37,776 38,646 870 43,800 86.25% 85,400 44.23% CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 38,547 29,953 (8,594) 42,020 91.73% 116,800 33.00% CAPITAL OUTLAY 8,767 - (8,767) 10,000. 0.00% 10,000 87.67% 01 TOTAL CITY ADMINISTRATION S 310,664 5 288,574 S (22,090) 313,945 98.95% 662,750 46.87% 05 FINANCE MATERIALS & SUPPLIES - - - - 0.00% 160 0.00% CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 43,849 46,714 2,865 47,200 92.90% 110,400 39.72% CAPITAL OUTLAY - - - 0.00% 20,000 0.00% 05 TOTAL FINANCE 5 43,849 S 46,714 S 2,865 S 47,200 92.90% S 130,560 33.59% 15 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT EMPLOYEE SALARIES S 90,215 S 71,513 S (18,702) S 93,600 96.38% S 197,400 45.70% EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 37,092 25,974 (11,118) 39,975 92.79% 79,950 46.39% TOTAL PERSONNEL 127,307 97,487 (29,820) 133,575 95.31% 277,350 45.90% MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 2,672 948 (1,724) 3,750 71.25% 10,000 26.72% CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 146,106 118,863 (27,243) 151,000 96.76% 433,000 33.74% 15 TOTAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 5 276,085 S 217,298 S (58,787) S 288,325 95.75% S 720,350 38.33% 25 LAW ENFORCEMENT S 79,494 S 89,136 S 9,642 5 94,000 84.57% S 239,600 33.18% 65 NON -DEPARTMENT S 17,412 S 19,202 S 1,790 S 31,650 55.01% S 62,900 27.68% 75 CITY PROPERTIES S 23,417 S 19,576 5 (3,841) S 31,050 75.42% S 62,100 37.71% GENERAL FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES S 750,921 5 680,500 5 (70,421) S 806,170 93.15% S 1,878,260 39.98% NET REVENUES BEFORE TRANSFERS S (96,394) S 95,907 S (192,301) S (118,977) 5 53,340 TRANSFERS S (238,000) S (265,750) S 27,750 5 (238,000) 100.00% S (344,050) 69.18% NETREVENUE(DEFICIT) AFTER TRANSFERS S (334,394) $ (169,843) S (164,551) S (356,977) S (290,710) ENDING FUND BALANCE S 4,244,017 S 4,310,284 FY 16-17 MidYear Review Page I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES MID -YEAR REVIEW FY 2016-2017 VS FY 2015-2016 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADJUSTED ADJUSTED JULY JULY FY 16/17 SIX MONTH % ANNUAL DEC. DEC. VS FY 15/16 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 16/17 FY 15/16 Favorable FY 16/17 USED - FY 16/17 USED (Unfavorable) GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES DETAIL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 4001 TAXES 401 Property Taxes S 394,476 S 375,967 S 18,509 S 400,000 98.62% S 916,700 43.03% 405 Sales Tax 3,936 909 3,027 1,650 238.55% 3,300 119.27% 410 Real Estate Transfer Tax 16,258 26,237 (9,979) 19,500 83.37% 46,800 34.74% 4001 Total 414,670 403,113 11,557 421,150 98.46% 966,800 42.89% 4030 OTHER AGENCIES 420 Motor Vehicle in Lieu Tax -VLF 768 (768) 768 0.00% 187,000 0.00% 4050 LICENSES & PERMITS 440 Building & Other Permit Fees 173,485 284,091 (110,606) 179,200 96.81% 537,600 32.27% 450 Variance, Planning & Zoning Fees 12,083 27,775 (15,692) 22,000 54.92% 44,000 27.46% 455 Animal Control Fees 290 522 (232) 650 44.62% 1,300 22.31% 460 Franchise Fees 4,986 4,997 (11) 4,750 104.97% 19,000 26.24% 4050 Total 190,844 317,385 (126,541) 206,600 92.37% 601,900 31.71% 4060 FINES & VIOLATIONS 480 Fines & Traffic Violations 3,330 8,906 (5,576) 5,500 60.55% 13,300 25.04% 5000 USE OF PROPERTY & MONEY 600 City Hall Leasehold RHCA 30,474 30,474 30,475 100.00% 60,950 50.00% 670 Interest Earned 9,222 6,371 2,851 7,500 122.96% 15,000 61.48% 5000 Total 39,696 36,845 2,851 37,975 104.53% 75,950 52.27% 6000 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 602 Reimbursement PWM&O-RHCA 4,539 4,525 14 4,500 100.87% 9,000 50.43% 6000 Total 4,539 4,525 14 4,500 100.87% 9,000 50.43% 6500 EXCHANGE FUNDS 620 Proposition A 56,250 6700 OTHER REVENUE 650 PSAF & COPS 456 435 21 400 114.00% 800 57.00% 655 Burglar Alarm Responses 500 - 500 300 166.67% 600 83.33% 675 Miscellaneous 492 4,430 (3,938) 10,000 4.92% 20,000 2.46% 6700 Total - 1,448 4,865 (3,417) 10,700 13.53% 21,400 6.77% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES S 654,527 S 776,407 S (121,880) S 687,193 95.25% S 1,931,600 33.89% FY 16-17 MidYear Review Page 2 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES MID -YEAR REVIEW FY 2016-2017 VS FY 2015-2016 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADJUSTED ADJUSTED JULY JULY FY 16/17 SIX MONTH % ANNUAL DEC. DEC. VS FY 15/16 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 16/17 FY 15/16 Favorable FY 16/17 USED FY 16/17 USED (Unfavorable) GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 01 CITY ADMINISTRATION 7001 Employee Salaries 702 Salaries Full Time S 148,515 S 151,058 S 2,543 S 150,000 99.01% S 314,300 47.25% 7001 Total 148,515 151,058 2,543 150,000 99.01% 314,300 47.25% 7005 Employee Benefits 710 Retirement CalPERS-Employer 22,559 18,573 (3,986) 17,475 129.09% 34,950 64.55% 715 Workers Compensation Insurance 3,292 2,934 (358) 3,300 99.76% 6,600 49.88% 716 Group Insurance 28,541 27,714 (827) 21,950 130.03% 43,900 65.01% 717 Retiree Medical 10,478 8,578 (1,900) 9,000 116.42% 18,000 58.21% 718 Employer Payroll Taxes 8,119 8,102 (17) 12,550 64.69% 25,100 32.35% 719 Deferred Compensation 2,870 1,716 (1,154) 2,650 108.30% 5,300 54.15% 720 Auto Allowance _ 1,200 1,300 100 1,200 100.00% 2,400 50.00% 7005 Total 77,059 68,917 (8,142) 68,125 113.11% 136,250 56.56 7500 Materials & Supplies 740 Office Supplies & Expense 9,035 6,874 (2,161) 9,000 100.39% 18,000 50.19% 745 Equipment Leasing Costs 2,010 1,931 (79) 1,400 143.57% 2,800 71.79% 750 Dues & Subscriptions 8,922 9,269 347 9,000 99.13% 11,300 78.96% 755 Conference Expense 944 4,681 3,737 4,800 19.67% 9,150 10.32% 757 Meeting Expense 1,500 26 (1,474) 650 230.77% 1,300 115.38% 759 Training & Education - - 750 0.00% 3,500 0.00% 761 Auto Mileage 49 44 (5) 250 19.60% 500 9.80% 765 Postage 3,000 3,000 - 7,500 40.00% 13,000 23.08% 770 Telephone 1,957 2,940 983 2,900 67.48% 5,800 33.74% 775 City Council Expense 3,166 3,471 305 3,000 105.53% 6,000 52.77% 780 Minutes Clerk Meetings 2,827 2,222 (605) 2,400 117.79% 4,800 58.90% 785 Codification 550 986 436 550 100.00% 6,050 9.09% 790 Advertising 451 490 39 8DIV/0! - 0.00% 795 Other General Administrative Expense 3,365 2,712 (653) 1,600 21031% 3,200 105.16% 7500 Total 37,776 38,646 870 43,800 86.25% 85,400 44.23% 8000 Contractual Services 801 City Attorney 31,012 20,327 (10,685) 32,500 95.42% 65,000 47.71% 802 Legal Expenses - Other 57 - (57) 1,500 0.00% 3,000 1.90% 820 Website 2,765 4,135 1,370 3,000 92.17% 6,000 46.08% 850 Election Expense City Council 1,017 - (1,017) 1,020 99.71% 35,000 0.00% 890 Consulting Fees 3,696 5,491 1,795 4,000 92.40% 7,800 47.38% 8000 Total 38,547 29,953 (8,594) 42,020 91.73% 116,800 33.00% 9000 Capital Outlay 950 Capital Outlay -Equipment - - 3,000 0.00% 3,000 0.00% 955 Capital Outlay - City Ball Improvements 8,767 (8,767) 7,000 0.00% 7,000 125.24% 9000 Total 8,767 (8,767) 10,000 0.00% 10,000 87.67% 01 TOTAL CITY ADMINISTRATION 05 FINANCE S 310,664 S 288,574 S (22,090) S 313,945 98.95% S 662,750 46.87% 7500 Materials & Supplies 750 Dues & Subscriptions 0.00% 160 0.00% 776 Miscellaneous Expense - - 0.00% 0.00% 7500 Total 0.00% 160 0.00% 8000 Contractual Services 810 Annual Audit 13,680 17,000 3,320 17,000 80.47% 19,000 72.00% 890 Consulting Fees 30,169 29,714 (455) 30,200 99.90% 91,400 33.01% 8000 Total 43,849 46,714 2,865 47,200 92.90% 110,400 39.72% 9000 Capital Outlay 950 Capital Outlay - Equipment 9000 Total Capital Outlay 0.00% 0.00% 20,000 0.00% 20,000 0.00% 05 TOTAL FINANCE S 43,849 S 46,714 S 2,865 S 47,200 92.90% S 130,560 39.72% FY 16-17 MidYear Review Page 3 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES MID -YEAR REVIEW FY 2016-2017 VS FY 2015-2016 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADJUSTED ADJUSTED JULY JULY FY 16/17 SIX MONTH % ANNUAL DEC. DEC. VS FY 15/16 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 16/17 FY 15/16 Favorable FY 16/17 USED FY 16/17 USED (Unfavorable) 15 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 7001 Employee Salaries 702 Salaries Full Time 5 74,198 S 54,791 S (19,407) S 90,000 82.44% S 193,800 38.29% 703 Salaries Part Time 16,017 16,722 705 3,600 444.92% 3,600 444.92% 7001 Total 90,215 71,513 (18,702) 93,600 96.38% 197,400 45.70% 7005 Employee Benefits 710 Retirement CalPERS-Employer 10,702 6,688 (4,014) 10,775 99.32% 21,550 49.66% 715 Workers Compensation Insurance 2,046 1,031 (1,015) 2,050 99.80% 4,100 49.90% 716 Group Insurance 9,989 5,056 (4,933) 14,150 70.59% 28,300 35.30% 718 Employer Payroll Taxes 7,075 5,570 (1,505) 7,750 91.29% 15,500 45.65% 719 Deferred Compensation 6,080 6,329 249 3,450 176.23% 6,900 88.12% 720 Auto Allowance 1,200 1,300 100 1,800 66.67% 3,600 33.33% 7005 Total 37,092 25,974 (11,118) 39,975 92.79% 79,950 4639% 7500 Materials & Supplies 758 Planning Commission Meeting 776 Miscellaneous Expenses 750 Dues and subs 755 Conferences Expense 759 Training & Education 7500 Total 672 948 276 1,750 38.40% 3,500 19.20% 2,000 - (2,000) 2,000 100.00% 2,200 90.91% - - 150 0.00% 1,400 0.00% 2,750 0.00% 2,672 948 (1,724) 3,750 71.25% 10,000 26.72% 8000 Contractual Services 802 Legal Expense - Other 8,473 450 (8,023) 1,500 564.87% 3,000 282.43% 872 Property Development - Legal Expense 7,084 6,656 (428) 17,500 40.48% 35,000 20/4% 878 Build Inspection LA County/IMlldan 41,215 69,776 28,561 42,000 98.13% 221,000 18.65% 881 Storm Water Management 86,579 37,290 (49,289) 87,000 99.52% 141,500 61.19% 882 Variance & CUP Expense 2,755 2,491 (264) 3,000 91.83% 6,000 45.92% 884 Special Project Study & Consultant - 2,200 2,200 - SDIV/01 26,500 0.00% 8000 Total 146,106 118,863 (27,243) 151,000 96.76% 433,000 33.74% 15 TOTAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT S 276,085 S 217,298 S (58,787) S 288,325 95.75% S 720,350 38.33% 25 LAW ENFORCEMENT 8200 Law Enforcement 830 Law Enforcement $ 66,569 S 81,591 S 15,022 S 80,000 83.21% $ 211,600 31.46% 833 Other Law Enforcement Expenses 971 487 (484) 4,000 24/8% 8,000 12.14% 837 Wild Life Management & Pest Control 10,393 4,967 (5,426) 7,500 _ 138.57% 15,000 69.29% 838 Animal Control Expense 1,561 2,091 530 2,500 62.44% 5,000 31.22% 8200 Total 79,494 89,136 9,642 94,000 84.57% 239,600 33.18% 25 TOTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT S 79,494 S 89,136 S 9,642 S 94,000 84.57% S 239,600 33.18% 65 NON -DEPARTMENT 7500 Materials & Supplies 901 South Bay Community Organization $ 2,500 S 2,000 S (500) S 2,500 100.00% $ 4,100 60.98% 985 Contingency - 6,427 6,427 12,500 0.00% 25,000 0.00% 7500 Total 2,500 8,427 5,927 15,000 16.67% 29,100 8.59% 8000 Contractual Services 895 Insurance & Bond Expense 9,319 3,926 (5,393) 9,150 101.85% 18,300 50.92% 8000 Total 9,319 3,926 (5,393) 9,150 101.85% 18,300 50.92% 8500 Community Promotion 915 Community Recognition 5,593 5,349 (244) 6,000 93.22% 9,500 58.87% 916 Civil Defense Expense - 1,500 1,500 1,500 0.00% 1,500 0.00% 917 Emergency Preparedness - - - 0.00% 4,500 0.00% 8500 Total 5,593 6,849 1,256 7,500 74.57% 15,500 36.08% 65 TOTAL NON -DEPARTMENT S 17,412 S 19,202 S 1,790 S 31,650 55.01% S 62,900 27.68% FY 16-17 MidYear Review Page 4 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES MID -YEAR REVIEW FY 2016-2017 VS FY 2015-2016 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ADJUSTED ADJUSTED JULY JULY FY 16/17 SIX MONTH % ANNUAL DEC. DEC. VS FY 15/16 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FY 16/17 FY 15/16 Favorable FY 16/17 USED FY 16/17 USED (Unfavorable) 75 CITY PROPERTIES 8000 Contractual Services 925 Utilities S 12,780 S 10,738 S (2,042) S 11,000 116.18% S 22,000 58.09% 930 Repairs & Maintenance 5,731 6,820 1,089 7,250 79.05% 14,500 3952% 932 Area Landscaping 4,906 2,018 (2,888) 12,800 38.33% 25,600 19.16% 8000 Total 23,417 19,576 (3,841) 31,050 75.42% 62,100 37.71% 75 TOTAL CITY PROPERTIES S 23,417 S 19,576 S (3,841) S 31,050 75.42% S 62,100 37.71% 131 GENERAL FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES S 750,921 $ 680,500 S (70,421) S 806,170 93.15% $ 1,878,260 39.98% NET REVENUES BEFORE TRANSFERS $ (96,394) S 95,907 $ (192,301) S (118,977) 2.10% S 53,340 -6.09% 699 Fund Transfers (OUT) IN Traffic Safety Fund S - S (27,750) S (27,750) S NDIV/0! S (55,450) 0.00% Underground Utility Fund (250,000) (250,000) (250,000) 0.00% (250,000) 100.00% Community Facilities Fund 0.00% (62,600) 0.00% Refuse Collection Fund 12,000 12,000 12,000 100.00% 24,000 50.00% 699 Total (238,000) (265,750) 27,750 (238,000) 100.00% (344,050) 69.18% NETREVENUE(DEFICIT) AFTER TRANSFERS S (334,394) S (169,843) S (164,551) S (356,977) 102.10% S (290,710) 63.08% FUND BALANCE Total to begin Total to begin - Adjustment Total to end S 4,600,994 S 4,105,630 $ 4,266,600 S 3,935,787 FY 16-17 MidYear Review S 4,600,994 $ 4,600,994 5 4,244,017 S 4,310,284 Page 5 CITY OF ROLLING BILLS FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 BUDGET ADJUSTMENT MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS GENERAL FUND REVENUES Account!/ Account Name 01-000-420 Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Tax -VLF 01-000-670 Interest Earned Total Increase in Revenues 01-01-850 Election Expense City Council 01-15-702 Salaries Full Time 01-15-703 01-15-802 01-25-837 Salaries Part Time Legal Expense Other Wild Life Mgmt & Pest Control Total Decrease in Expenditures Pre d By: Terryh lnance Director roved By: Raymond R. Cruz, Ci Manager Reason for Adjustment To increase based on activity through February To increase based on activity through February Original General Fund Budget - Revenues Adjusted General Fund Budget - Revenues GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Decreased due to no election Decreased due to timing of hiring and new position Increased due to timing of hiring of Planning Assistant and increased activity Increased due to additional activity in view cases Increased due to additional activity for coyote control Original General Fund Budget- Expenditures Adjusted General Fund Budget - Expenditures Original General Fund Budget - Net Transfers Adjusted Fiscal Year 2016/17 Budget Deficit Budget Adjustment 2016-17 Budget FY 16/17 $ 187,000 $ 15,000 Mid -Year Adjustment Adjusted Budget FY 16/17 10,000 $ 197,000 15,000 30,000 25,000 1,931,600 $ 1,956,600 $ 35,000 $ 193,800 3,600 3,000 15,000 (30,000) $ 5,000 (15,400) 178,400 15,400 10,000 8,000 (12,000) 1,878,260 1,866,260 (344,050) $ (253,710) 19,000 13,000 23,000 3/8/2017 3:52 PM 84 al Ral&if get4 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: 03/13/17 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER l• SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION REGARDING ENACTING A SOCIAL HOST ORDINANCE. DATE: MARCH 13, 2017 ATTACHMENTS: -California State PTA Social Host Resolution -Palos Verdes Peninsula Council of PTAs Social Host Talking Points -Email from Rod Uyeda -Proposed Rancho Palos Verdes Social Host Ordinance BACKGROUND At the February 27th City Council meeting, PVPUSD School Board Member Linda Reid spoke under Public Comments urging the City Council to adopt a Social Host Ordinance. She and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Council of PTAs are encouraging all cities on the Peninsula to pass this type of ordinance to curb underage drinking at parties at private homes. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is presently considering a Social Host Ordinance and the South Bay cities of Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach in recent years passed similar ordinances. The City Council asked staff to put the item on a future agenda to discuss if it wants to consider a similar ordinance in Rolling Hills and to provide the City Council a copy of the proposed Rancho Palos Verdes ordinance to assist with the discussion. DISCUSSION These "social host" laws impose liability on adults in private settings that they own, lease or control for providing alcohol and/or allowing underage drinking among children who are not their own. The California State Parent Teacher Association (PTA) had adopted a Social Host resolution in support of enacting civil laws against property owners on whose premises underage drinking occurs in 2009. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Council of PTAs stated at the Special Meeting of the City Council on January 31, 2017 that it encourages and supports the creation of Social Host Liability legislation by its local governing cities and has gained the support of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD). The PTA believes that social host laws, public awareness and enforcement are essential in addressing the problem of underage drinking and the social hosting. Enclosed is the resolution adopted by the CA State PTA and cites statistics from the Surgeon General and provides background to how detrimental underage drinking can be, while another attachment provides talking points produced by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Council of PTAs. As of November 2016, 32 states have social host laws. Locally, Manhattan Beach passed a social host ordinance in 2007 and Hermosa Beach passed one with fines exceeding those of Manhattan Beach in 2015. In addition, over 150 cities and counties have adopted social host laws. A comprehensive 2009 study in Ventura County found that after implementation of social host ordinances, the size of underage drinking parties appear to have decreased while the ease of obtaining alcohol had decreased. Social host laws are associated with declines in heavy episodic drinking (3%), driving after drinking (4%) and alcohol -related traffic deaths (5-9%). As the City Council considers establishing a social host ordinance, these ordinances usually include utilizing an "administrative citation process" the City of Rolling Hills presently does not have. This process allows the issuance of significant fines via administrative citations with an appeals procedure. The City of Hermosa Beach utilizes a third party contractor for appeals, while the City of Rancho Palos Verdes proposes to use its existing system that utilizes in-house staff for appeals. Therefore, the passage of a Social Host Ordinance in Rolling Hills will also require the adoption of an Administrative Citation Penalty Ordinance and most likely have new costs in order to administer it correctly. The fine for violation of the RPV Social Host Ordinance is $2,500 for the first offense, $5,000 for the second and $7,500 for the third and subsequent offenses. In addition to the administrative penalties, the responding law enforcement, fire or emergency response providers may issue an order requiring the gathering to be disbanded and may cite and/or arrest any law violators under any other applicable ordinances and state statutes. NOTIFICATION PVPUSD Board Member Linda Reid, Rod Uyeda and Captain Dan Beringer. RC:h1 348 SOCIAL HOST ACCOUNTABILITY AND UNDERAGE DRINKING Adopted by Convention Delegates May 2009 WHEREAS, The minimum legal drinking age is 21 years as established by the Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act of 1984, and yet alcohol is the most abused substance for minors ages 12 to 20; and WHEREAS, Underage drinking is directly involved in the deaths of approximately 5,000 youth under the age of 21 every year nationwide, is linked to two-thirds of all sexual assaults including date rape, contributes to a 10 times higher incidence of physical assault and a 12 times higher incidence of unintentional injury; and WHEREAS, The 2007 Surgeon General's Call to Action reports alcohol use may alter adolescents' development and put them at higher risk for long-lasting, detrimental effects on the developing brain; and WHEREAS, Research identifies adults or "social hosts" as the primary source and private homes the primary site of alcohol availability, drinking games, and binge drinking for our youth; and WHEREAS, In California there is no state law addressing social hosting, and there is only a small number of cities and counties in which social host laws have been enacted; and WHEREAS, Where they exist, social host laws may act as a deterrent through the assessment of fines, community service, and/or jail time for those who practice social hosting and provide law enforcement with the ability to intervene at parties where underage drinking occurs most: in homes and on private property; now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the California State PTA, its units, councils, and districts provide factual information to students, parents, and community members regarding the detrimental effects and significant dangers of underage drinking and social hosting, defined as adults who furnish alcohol to minors under the age of 21 who are not their own, and/or knowingly allow underage drinking parties in private settings; and be it further RESOLVED, That the California State PTA, its units, councils, and districts encourage and support legislation to adopt social host laws that would prohibit adults from providing alcohol or allowing the consumption of alcohol in homes and on noncommercial property by youth under the age of 21 who are not their children; and be it further RESOLVED, That the California State PTA, its units, councils, and districts support law enforcement in upholding the minimum legal drinking age of 21, including but not limited to social host laws and ordinances; and be it further California State PTA, 2327 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95816 • 916.440.1985 349 Social Host Accountability and Underage Drinking - continued RESOLVED, That the California State PTA forward this resolution to the National PTA for consideration by the delegates at the National PTA Convention. ### BACKGROUND SUMMARY The minimum legal drinking age in all 50 states is 21, yet alcohol is involved in the deaths of more teens than all other illicit drugs combined, by a 4 -to -1 ratio. Youth who begin drinking before the age of 15 are four times more likely to become dependent on alcohol than those who wait until age 21. Research has shown that, on average, youth and adolescents first use alcohol at 13.1 years of age. The 2007 Surgeon General's Call to Action states that alcohol is the most widely used substance of abuse among America's youth, ages 12 to 20. Social hosting, a disturbing practice in society today, is defined as adults in private settings providing alcohol and/or allowing underage drinking among children who are not their own. While some believe that consumption of alcohol before the age of 21 is an inevitable "rite of passage," research demonstrates this behavior is detrimental to our youth. The consequences of underage drinking include a wide range of medical problems. Research has shown that the brain changes dramatically during adolescence, and consumption of alcohol during this stage of life can seriously inhibit its normal growth and development. In addition, underage drinking contributes significantly to participation in risky sexual behaviors and the incidence of physical and sexual assaults, suicide attempts, drowning, alcohol poisoning, and traffic accidents. An encouraging note in the Surgeon General's Call to Action is that underage alcohol use is not inevitable, and we are not powerless to stop it. The Surgeon General points out that an adolescent's decision to use alcohol is influenced by many factors, including normal maturational changes as well as various social and cultural environments that surround adolescents: their families, schools, peers, and communities. Therefore, it is the collective responsibility of all these groups to assist in the prevention and reduction of underage drinking. Found on the MADD website, Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility documents the wide-ranging and devastating consequences of youth consumption of alcohol, and urges states and localities to enact a comprehensive set of strategies to reduce underage alcohol consumption, including strengthening social host liability laws affecting persons under the age of 21. Legislators across the country are responding to the harms associated with underage drinking by enacting a range of new laws targeting property owners on whose premises underage drinking occurs. As of January 2007, 24 states have enacted social host statutes. The state of California has no social host law; however, 40 of its cities and counties have passed social host ordinances, including the social host liability ordinances passed in every Ventura County jurisdiction. The first national study of civil social host law found that social host liability laws reduce binge drinking, and drinking and driving. These ordinances do not prohibit family activities within the home involving the use of alcohol by immediate family members or religious practices that include the use of alcohol. California State PTA, 2327 L Street, acramento, CA 95816 • 916.440.1985 350 Social Host Accountability and Underage Drinking - continued According to the Surgeon General, addressing the public health problem of underage alcohol use begins with an examination of our own attitudes toward underage drinking and our recognition of the seriousness of its consequences for adolescents and their families, as well as for society as a whole. Underage alcohol use is not a benign, acceptable rite of passage, but is a serious health and safety threat to adolescent development that cannot be ignored. Education, communication, and legislation are essential in comprehensively addressing the problem of underage drinking and the practice of social hosting. By providing up-to-date and research -based information, facilitating open and honest communication, and supporting strong social host legislation, we will convey the fact that underage drinking is unacceptable and fulfill our commitment to advocate for all children. We owe them nothing less. California State PTA, 2327 L Street,Sramento, CA 95816 • 916.440.1985 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Social Host Frequently Asked Questions What is a social host ordinance? • A social host ordinance is a city -specific law that imposes liability on adults in private settings that they own, lease or control for providing alcohol and/or allowing underage drinking among children who are not their own. Is underage drinking a problem in our Palos Verdes community? • The rate of underage drinking in our communities is high. o PV Healthy Kids Survey 2015-16, 26% of 11th graders report current alcohol or drug use (past 30 days) • Social settings are the primary source of alcohol for underage youth in Palos Verdes o Healthy Kids Survey, PV 2015-16: 60% of 11th graders obtain alcohol at parties or events outside of school; 20% obtain alcohol from adults at friends' homes What would social host ordinances in our communities achieve? • The goals would be to decrease underage drinking by reducing youth access to alcohol in social settings by providing police departments with a very specific additional tool for law enforcement. • The ordinances would help raise awareness as part of a larger movement to change the social norm to discourage underage drinking and that underage drinking is not a "rite of passage." • The ordinances would have a deterrent effect to prevent parties and assist families with making healthy decisions. What other communities have social host ordinances? • As of November 2016, over 32 states and 150 cities and counties have adopted social host laws, including Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach. Do social host ordinances work? • A comprehensive 2009 study in Ventura County found that after implementation of social host ordinances, the size of underage drinking parties appears to have decreased while the ease of obtaining alcohol had decreased. Ventura County Social Host Ordinance Impact Evaluation: Phase I Findings (2009). 1/30/17 • Social host ordinances can act as a deterrent and encourage parents and youth to prevent parties where underage drinking occurs. Won't party hosts avoid calling 911 because of potential social host liability? • No. Under the AB 472 "Good Samaritan" law, anyone who reports an accidental overdose of alcohol or drugs has legal immunity and parents and adults are not subject to criminal charges or a social host ordinance citation. Can parents provide alcohol to their own children? • . It is not a violation of a social host ordinance for parents to permit their own children to consume alcohol in the privacy of their home or during a religious function. However, there are state laws designed to protect children. Isn't underage drinking illegal? • It is already a criminal misdemeanor to provide alcohol to individuals under age 21 but the law is broad and prosecution can be costly and time consuming. • Local social host ordinances assign responsibility to those who know or should have known about a drinking party occurring on their property. Isn't underage drinking already on the decline? • Underage drinking has declined over the past three decades due to many factors such as peer disapproval and declines in availability. Who supports a social host ordinance in the Palos Verdes community? • Many residents and community members support ordinances in our cities. This includes the Los Angeles County Sheriff, Palos Verdes Peninsula Council of PTAs; the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District; Greg Allen, Ph.D., LMFT; and Raunda Frank, Prevention Coordinator, BHS/NCADD (Behavioral Health Services/National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence). 1/30/17 0 Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 12:06:31 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: SOCIAL HOST ORDINANCE Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 2:25:05 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Rod Uyeda To: Heidi Luce CC: Ray Cruz Good day to you... 1 am a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. 1 am a retired law enforcement officer, having served the City of Pasadena for nearly 30 years before becoming the Chief of Police for the City of Manhattan Beach in 2006. I retired in 2011. My wife is a police lieutenant for the City of Torrance. We have two school aged children (13 and 15) who attend public schools here. We feel that all four cities on the Peninsula share a variety of issues that affect all families. i believe one of those issues was brought up to you during the non -Agenda public speaking time at your last meeting. That issue is a SOCIAL HOST ORDINANCE and I'm hopeful you will consider moving quickly and place it on your agenda for discussion. As I'm sure the speaker mentioned, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District, with the support of both the local and state PTA, recently passed a resolution supporting the enactment of a Social Host Ordinance in all of the four cities that make up the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Rancho Palos Verdes has already discussed such an ordinance and a 2nd reading of the ordinance will happen at their next meeting. Palos Verdes Estates will be placing the ordinance on their agenda at their next meeting after unanimously agreeing that it is needed on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Rolling Hills Estates has mentioned it will be discussed at the March 14th retreat and put on their agenda soon. It is hopeful that all four cities on the Peninsula will have the ordinance in place PRIOR TO GRADUATION PARTIES IN MAY AND JUNE. Principal Cress of Peninsula High School spoke in support of the ordinance at the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting as well as two school board members, Reid and Seymour. Principal Park of Palos Verdes High School spoke at the Palos Verdes Estates City Council meeting. There is strong support from Mothers' Against Drunk Driving and the Sheriff of Los Angeles County (attached letter), which is the law enforcement department that polices Rolling Hills. I'd like to share with you something I wrote on the Nextdoor application on the internet that many people on the Peninsula read: In March of 1991, 1 was a homicide detective in Pasadena when 1 was summoned to a very exclusive home above the Rose Bow! at 3am. There, 1 found 3 dead teenage girls from South Pasadena High School, murdered by 2 teenage boys after a night of drinking. The home, the high school and those girls' parents were very much like those on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. This was a needless tragedy that could have been averted. Soon, each of the City Councils on the Palos Verdes Peninsula: Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills, will be able to consider and enact a Social Host Ordinance. This ordinance is solely focused on stopping large parties where under age drinking is occurring...a problem that is growing throughout our community. Young people use social media to secretly broadcast parties where there will be underage drinking and little to no adult supervision. They also broadcast drugs and sex. By enacting a social host ordinance, it puts pressure on parents to be parents and to take steps to ensure no underage drinking will be occurring on their property, whether they are there or not. Current criminal laws do not address this issue. A social host ordinance is purely civil and in no way will infringe on a private family gathering. No one will go to jail, but a hefty fine will be administered to discourage future violations and cover police costs. Manhattan Beach was the first city in Los Angeles County to enact such an ordinance with a strong City Council. Hermosa Beach has done the same. Over 32 states and 150 cities have such ordinances in place now, recognizing the need to stop a future tragedy like the one ! mentioned above from happening again. Recently, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District showed strong leadership and passed a resolution supporting the four cities that make up the Palos Verdes Peninsula to pass such an ordinance. Having passed the ordinance when 1 worked in Manhattan Beach, I can tell you that the work is minimal, but the payoff is huge! in addition to the school District, the ordinance has the backing of the PTA, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim Page 1 of 2 McDonnell to name just a few. Now is the time to reach out to your City Council members with just a simple email or phone call stressing the need to pass a Social Host Ordinance in their city to protect our young people. Each city has a website that makes it easy to email the Council members. Thank you for supporting a simple law to further protect our young people from themselves and careless parents. When I refer to the work being minimal, all the legwork has already been done. There are countless resolutions, staff reports and ordinance themselves which to copy and revise to fit the tastes of your City. As for enforcing the law itself, it places a minor burden on the police to write a simple report and forwarding it to your City Attorney to start the fine and collection process. Most people will pay the fine immediately, but I will tell you that the mere passing of this law will stop many of these parties from even occurring, resulting in only a few cites a year that will hopefully dwindle away to none. However, as I mentioned, the payoff is huge....people being much more cautious of having such parties and parents actually holding their kids and themselves more accountable. Calls of rowdy parties will decrease and you will know that you have taken a big step at protecting our youth. Thank you for your service to our community. I am available to talk to anyone on this subject if you have any questions. Humbly yours, Rod Uyeda 310.733.8769 Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADDING CHAPTER 9.26 (SOCIAL HOST LIABILITY FOR PARTIES AT WHICH UNDERAGE DRINKING OCCURS) OF TITLE 9 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPOSE LIABILITY ON ADULTS FOR PROVIDING ALCOHOL TO UNDERAGE PERSONS AND/OR ALLOWING UNDERAGE DRINKING WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City"), pursuant to the police powers delegated to it by the California Constitution, has the authority to enact laws which promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens; and WHEREAS, the minimum legal drinking age is 21 years as established by the Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act of 1984, and yet alcohol is the most abused substance for minors ages 12 to 20; and WHEREAS, underage drinking is directly involved in the deaths of approximately 5,000 youth under the age of 21 every year nationwide, is linked to two-thirds of all sexual assaults including date rape, contributes to a 10 times higher incidence of physical assault and a 12 times higher incidence of unintentional injury; and WHEREAS, the 2007 Surgeon General's Call to Action reports alcohol use may alter adolescents' development and put them at higher risk for long-lasting, detrimental effects on the developing brain; and WHEREAS, Minors often obtain, possess, or consume alcoholic beverages at parties held at private residences or private premises that are under the control of an adult or "social host" who knows or should know of such conduct but fails to stop it; and WHEREAS, research identifies adults or "social hosts" as the primary source and private homes the primary site of alcohol availability, drinking games, and binge drinking for our youth; and WHEREAS, many municipalities have adopted social host laws which establish liability for adults or social hosts who knowingly host parties or gatherings at which minors are provided access to alcohol; and 01203.0005/354611.1 WHEREAS, where they exist, social host laws may act as a deterrent through the assessment of fines, community service, and/or jail time for those who practice social hosting and provide law enforcement with the ability to intervene at parties where underage drinking occurs most: in homes and on private property; and WHEREAS, in 2009 the California State Parent Teacher Association adopted a Social Host resolution in support of enacting civil laws against property owners on whose premises underage drinking occurs; and WHEREAS, on January 31, 2017, at a Special Meeting of the City Council, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Council of Parent Teacher Associations (PTA) expressly articulated the advocacy of creation of Social Host Liability legislation by its local governing cities; and WHEREAS, the City Council further finds and determines that persons who allow minors to obtain alcoholic beverages at parties held at private residences will be more likely to properly supervise or stop such parties on property under their control if they are held responsible for the conduct of such minors NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The facts set forth in the Recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The City Council finds that the addition of Chapter 9.26 to Title 9 establishing liability for social hosts who provide alcohol to persons under age 21 is reasonable and expected to deter the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors by holding responsible adults who know of, or should know of, the illegal conduct yet fail to stop it. Further the City Council finds that the addition of Chapter 9.26 is necessary to preserve the public peace, morals, and welfare of underage persons throughout the City. 01203.0005/354611.1 Section 3: Chapter 9.26 (Social Host Liability for Parties at which Underage Drinking Occurs) of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and Welfare) is hereby added as follows: 9.26 - Social host liability for parties at which underage drinking occurs. 9.26.010. Purpose and intent. The City Council finds and determines that minors often obtain alcoholic beverages at parties held at private premises. The City Council further finds and determines that persons who will be held responsible for abetting or tolerating such conduct will be more likely to properly supervise or stop such parties on property under their control. The purposes of this chapter are to: A. Protect the public health, safety and general welfare; B. Promote the reduction of underage drinking by imposing a civil fine on persons responsible for gatherings where alcohol is consumed by, served to or in the possession of underage persons; and C. Facilitate the enforcement of laws prohibiting the service to, consumption of or possession of alcoholic beverages by underage persons; 9.26.020. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: A. "Alcoholic beverage" means and includes alcohol, spirits, liquor, wine, beer, and every liquid or solid containing alcohol, spirits, wine, or beer, and which contains one- half (%) of one percent (1 %) or more of alcohol by volume and which is fit for beverage purposes either alone or when diluted, mixed, or combined with other substances. B. "Residence or other private property" shall mean a home, yard, apartment, condominium, hotel or motel room, or other dwelling unit, or a hall or meeting room, whether occupied on a temporary or permanent basis, whether occupied as a dwelling, party or other social function venue, and whether owned, leased, rented, or used with or without compensation. C. "Responsible person" means a person or persons with a right of possession of the residence or other private property at which a gathering is conducted. In the event that a gathering at a residence or other private property at which service to or consumption 01203.0005/354611.1 of alcohol or alcoholic beverages by underage persons occurs is hosted by a juvenile, then the parents or guardians of that juvenile will be jointly and severally liable with said juvenile or juveniles for any penalties incurred pursuant to this chapter. A responsible person includes, but is not limited to: 1. Any owner of the residence or other private property, meaning the record owner of the title to the property as of the time of gathering, regardless of where that person or entity may currently actually reside; 2. A tenant or lessee of the residence or other private property; 3. The landlord of another person responsible for the gathering, provided that the landlord has received notice of a prior gathering at the same residence or other private property; 4. The person(s) in charge of the residence or other private property; and 5. The persons) who organizes, supervises, officiates, conducts or controls the gathering or any other person(s) accepting responsibility for such a gathering. A responsible person for the gathering need not be present at such gathering resulting in the response giving rise to the imposition of civil money penalties or responses costs. Prior knowledge of the gathering is not pre -requisite to a finding that any specific individual is a responsible person as defined by this section. D. "Underage person" is any person under the age of twenty-one (21). 9.26.030. Social host liability for parties at which underage drinking occurs. It shall be a civil violation of this chapter, and a public nuisance constituting an immediate threat to public health and safety warranting summary abatement, for any responsible person to conduct or allow in a residence or other private property any party, gathering or event at which an underage person consumes or possesses alcoholic beverages, where the responsible party knows or reasonably should know that an underage person has obtained; possesses, or is consuming an alcoholic beverage. 9.26.040 Exceptions 01203.0005/354611.1 A. This chapter shall not apply to possession or consumption of an alcoholic beverage under the supervision of a parent or guardian in connection with a cultural or religious activity. B. The penalties provided by this chapter shall not apply to any responsible person who seeks medical attention for an underage person who is or appears to be under the influence of alcohol. C. The penalties provided by this chapter shall not apply when an attendee at a gathering where underage drinking occurs is the individual who reports the underage drinking. 9.26.050. Notice to responsible person. When a law enforcement, fire or other emergency response provider makes an initial response to a party, gathering or event at which underage consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages occurs, the official shall, in writing, notify any responsible person at the scene that: 1. The official has determined that a party, gathering or event at which underage consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages exists; 2. The responsible person(s) will be fined for violation of this chapter and billed for response costs pursuant to Chapter 9.24 if the condition is not abated and an additional response is required of law enforcement or emergency service providers to abate the nuisance; and 3. The responsible person(s) are entitled to request a hearing to appeal the fine and response costs. This notice shall be given to all identified responsible persons at the time of the initial response. 9.26.070. Penalties. A. The city council shall establish a schedule of administrative fines for violation of this chapter. B. In addition to the administrative fines described in this chapter, the responding law enforcement, fire or emergency response providers may issue an order requiring the 01203.0005/354611.1 gathering to be disbanded and may cite and/or arrest any law violators under any other applicable ordinances and state statutes. Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable. Section 8. Certification and Posting. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of March 2017, by the following vote to wit: Brian Campbell Mayor ATTEST: 01203.0005/354611.1 Emily Colborn City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: David J. Aleshire City Attorney 01203.0005/354611.1 atc,rai&t, qad 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: 03/13/17 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK CV THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF CREATING CITY E-MAIL ADDRESSES FOR CITY COUNCILMEMBERS AND COMMISSIONERS. DATE: MARCH 13, 2017 ATTACHMENTS: Technology Utilization Policy RECOMMENDATION Staff is seeking the City Council's direction as to whether or not it wishes to direct staff to create individual e-mail addresses for each City Councilmember and Commissioner. BACKGROUND On March 2, 2017, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in the San Jose Public Records Act case, reversing the court of appeal and holding that communications (texts, emails, etc.) pertaining to public business on private/personal devices and private servers are public records subject to inspection and disclosure. In light of this decision and given that the City currently only provides one general e-mail address for City Council communication, the City Council may wish to consider directing staff to create an e-mail address for each City Councilmember and Commissioner on the City's server so that the City more easily (and less intrusively) respond to Public Records Act requests. The alternative would be to continue to send and receive e-mail messages through private e-mail accounts, knowing that those communications are public records subject to inspection and disclosure. The opinion does not address the retention of communications on private devices and servers; the same retention rules that apply to emails on the city's server as set forth in the city's document retention policy andemail policy apply to communications on private devices and servers. The City's Technology Utilization Policy (attached) provides the framework for City's retention policy with regard to e-mail messages (see Section F). The policy states that emails are not intended to be retained unless a staff member takes some affirmative action (such as printing it out in hard copy and filing it, or putting it into a separate electronic folder) to save it. Otherwise, the emails are to be deleted and purged after 30 days. Adherence to this policy assures that the City doesn't accumulate excessive emails that would have to be searched in the case of public records requests. DISCUSSION If the City Council chooses to proceed with directing staff to create individual e-mail addresses for each City Councilmember and Commissioner, Councilmembers and Commissioners would be provided with a web mail portal through which e-mail messages could be checked and sent. Additionally for those Councilmembers/Commissioners who wish to receive their e-mail messages to a handheld device such as a cell phone or tablet, those devices can be set up to automatically receive and send messages through the City's server. In this case, the city may more easily (and less intrusively) respond to Public Records Act requests. Additionally, minor changes would need to be made to the Technology Utilization Policy to include City Councilmember/Comissioner e-mail communication. If directed to do so, staff could return with a revised policy for the City Council's consideration. FISCAL IMPACT There would be a one-time cost of $200 for IT services associated with creating the e- mail addresses for each City Councilmember/Commissioner (14 total) and there would be no additional monthly support or maintenance costs. Additionally, if a Councilmember wishes to have business cards printed with the new e-mail address, the cost for 500 business cards would be $88 per Councilmember. CONCLUSION Staff is seeking the City Council's direction as to whether or not it wishes to direct staff to create individual e-mail addresses for each City Councilmember and Commissioner. HL CityCouncil_Commissioner e-mail addresses staffreport.docx CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/PROCEDURES TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION POLICY Original Version Effective: 01/10/2011 Current Version Effective: 01/10/2011 See end of document for complete policy history. Subject Electronic Communications, Voicemail, Internet, Intranet and Network Usage Purpose To establish policy and procedures for access to and usage of the internet, electronic communications and voicemail. Application This policy shall apply to staff, consultant and public use of the City's information technology and communication systems inclusive of computers, telephones, and both hardware and software applications. Enforcement The City Manager or, if necessary, the City Attorney shall be responsible for enforcing this policy. Policy The City's information and communication systems and equipment shall be used solely for City purposes. All electronic communications are officially the property of the City, including Telephone, Intranet, Software and Network Systems. The City reserves the right to retrieve and make proper and lawful use of any and all communications transmitted through these systems. Users should have no expectation of privacy in communications sent over the network as electronic communications are not confidential. For purposes of this policy, electronic communications shall also include all messages, activity and transactions transmitted over the Internet as well as the City's calendaring, instant messaging, telephone, voicemail, and other communication systems. A. PROPER USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, TELEPHONE, VOICEMAIL, INTERNET, INTRANET AND NETWORK RESOURCES 1. Use of and communications transmitted over these systems shall involve City business activities or contain information related to the accomplishment of City business or employee relations. 2. Job related professional development, educational activities and information sharing with business and professional colleagues that are incidental to an employee's duties are generally within the scope of employment for purposes of this policy. TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION POLICY 1 01/10/2011 3. Occasional non -business use of information and communication systems and equipment is permitted as a privilege provided by the City for the convenience of its employees while at work, but shall not interfere with City operations, result in increased costs to the City or be done in a manner that violates this policy. 4. Employees should take reasonable care to prevent introduction or spread of computer viruses into or through the City's communication and information systems and equipment 5. Users are responsible for the management of their mailbox and its associated folders, subject to the provisions of Section E of this policy. B. PROHIBITED USES OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, TELEPHONE, VOICEMAIL, E-MAIL, INTERNET, INTRANET AND NETWORK RESOURCES 1. Communications that disrupt or threaten to disrupt the efficient operation of City business or administration are prohibited. Such communications include, but are not limited to, those that publicize a personal dispute otherthan according to an approved grievance or complaint procedure, those that constitute insubordination, those that may harm working relationships, those that may take employees away from their assigned tasks, those that may undermine the City's ability to provide public services through its employees, those that harm the integrity of the system or network, those that could reasonably be expected to directly or indirectly cause excessive strain on any of these resources or those that interfere with others' use of these resources. 2. Communications that violate law, violate individual rights, or that violate City policy or public policy of the State of California are prohibited. Such communications include, but are not limited to: a. Communications which are pornographic or obscene. b. Communications in conflict with the City's Sexual Harassment Policy or any other policy prohibiting discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, veteran status, marital status, sexual orientation or any other status protected by local, state or federal law. c. The use of racial, religious or ethnic slurs. d. Communications intended to harass or annoy. e. Threats to personal safety. f. The use of a false identity (the name or electronic identification of another). 3. The City's electronic communication systems, telephone, voicemail and network shall not be used to solicit or proselytize others for non job related commercial ventures or products, religious or political causes, outside organizations or other non job related solicitations. 4. The City's electronic communication systems, telephone, voicemail and network shall not be used to transmit confidential, private or proprietary information. TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION POLICY 2 01/10/2011 5. Copying of City network security, operating system security and/or configuration files is prohibited. 6. Any attempt to circumvent passwords, security, permissions, or rights on any internal or external system using the City's network, computers, or Internet access is prohibited. If changes or additions to access are needed, contact should be made to the City Manager. 7. The willful introduction of malicious code such as computer "viruses," "worms," "Trojan horses," "trap-door code," "denial -of —service attacks," or other disruptive and/or destructive programs into the City's computer systems or network is prohibited. 8. Copyrighted material may not be installed, duplicated or distributed using the City's network or computer systems without the appropriate licenses or permission from the copyright holder. 9. It is a violation of City policy for any user to use the electronic mail and computer systems for purposes of satisfying idle curiosity about the affairs of others, for obtaining access to the files or communications of others with no substantial business purpose or legal authority. 10. Deletion, examination, copying, or modification of files, emails and/or data belonging to other users without their prior consent is prohibited, except as noted in Section C. 11. Continuing a burdensome consumption of system resources, after receipt of a request to cease such activity, is prohibited. 12. Users may not install software or hardware on City information and communication systems, such as desktop or laptop computers without authorization. C. STATUS OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS 1. Communications are not confidential and are subject to review by City management, except for the content of non - business communications using systems or servers outside of the City's network and control, accessed from the City's network via the Internet using City provided web browsing software. 2. Telephone call records may be used in response to public records requests. 3. Electronic communications may be subpoenaed or requested under the Public Records Act and/or may be used as evidence in court or as part of an investigation. The City will raise objections and privileges as appropriate to the disclosure of electronic communications and to protect privacy interests of users, but cannot guarantee that these communications can be protected from disclosure. When the City is obligated or directed to disclose electronic communications, the content of electronic communications and/or documents may be disclosed within or outside of the City without employee permission or knowledge, although the City will endeavor to provide notice whenever feasible. TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION POLICY 3 01/10/2011 In view of the foregoing, users use the City's electronic communication systems for non -business purposes at their own risk. 4. The City Manager has the authority to access communications in the system at any time for any lawful City business -related reason. 5. The City has unlimited access to protect system security or the City's property rights. D. EMAIL MESSAGE DISCLAIMER 1. All email generated from City personnel utilizing City equipment, systems and/or resources must contain the following disclaimers following the author's closing/signature: This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. 2. The disclaimers must be in a clearly legible font (e.g., Veranda, Times New Roman, Arial, etc) no smaller than the font size of 7.5. E. PENALTIES FOR MISUSE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, TELEPHONE, VOICEMAIL, E-MAIL, INTERNET, INTRANET AND NETWORK RESOURCES 1. Failure on the part of any employee to comply with the provisions of this policy may subject the employee to progressive disciplinary action in accordance with the City's personnel rules. Disciplinary action may include suspension or revocation of the privilege of using or accessing the system, if doing so would not otherwise materially impair the employee's ability to perform his or her job. 2. Failure on the part of any appointed official to comply with the provisions of this policy will constitute grounds for the City Council to deny the official access to the system and/or for removal. 3. Failure on the part of any non -employee, contractor or consultant to comply with the provisions of this policy will constitute grounds for termination of their relationship with the City. F. RECORDS MANAGEMENT 1. Electronic communications which are intended to be retained in the ordinary course of the City's business are recognized as official records in need of protection/retention in accordance with the California Public Records Act. Because the system is not designed for long-term storage, electronic TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION POLICY 4 01/10/2011 communications which are intended to be retained as an official record should be printed out and the hard copy filed in the appropriate subject file or are to be stored in an appropriate electronic folder on the City server, not within the email system. 2. The City will maintain hard copies of all electronic communications determined by staff to be official records in accordance with the City's retention schedule. These hard copies may be subject to public disclosure, even if they are drafts or informal notes, unless the need to retain their confidentiality outweighs the need for disclosure (Government Code Section 6254(a)), or unless protected by another exemption from disclosure. 3. Electronic communications which are not intended to be retained and which serve no useful purpose to the City should be deleted from the system. 4. It is the City's policy that emails be purged from every City computer (including but not limited to the in -box, sent and deleted folders) within 30 days. Each individual staff person is responsible for his/her assigned computer until such time that the City's E-mail system is configured to purge messages automatically. Once purged, these emails are not subject to recovery for any purpose. G. E-MAIL ETIQUETTE This Section is intended to serve as guidelines and failure to adhere to the below guidelines will not be subject the user to disciplinary action. 1. Through communications both internally and externally, it is critical that you maintain a professional image for both yourself and the City. 2. Be certain that your message is addressed to the proper person. Be sure you check the list of persons being E -mailed when you choose a REPLY ALL function. E-mail should not be used for broadcast purposes unless the message is of interest to all users. 3. Capitalize words only to emphasize an important point or to distinguish a title or heading. Capitalizing whole sentences or paragraphs is generally interpreted as shouting. 4. Be professional and careful of what you say about others. E-mail is easily forwarded and blind copied. Be cautious when using sarcasm and humor. Without face to face communication, humor may be viewed as criticism. By the same token, also carefully read what others write. The perceived tone may easily be misinterpreted. 6. Some messages, especially those written in "the heat of the moment," are best unsent. Think twice before sending angry or sarcastic messages or using E-mail to let off steam. 7. Employees play a vital role in protecting the City's network from computer viruses and other security threats. Please make every effort to exercise safe computing and ask for assistance whenever a problem is suspected. TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION POLICY 5 01/10/2011 H. TELEPHONE AND VOICEMAIL ETIQUETTE This Section is intended to serve as guidelines and failure to adhere to the below guidelines will not subject the user to disciplinary action 1. Users are to be courteous, respectful and attentive while on the telephone. 2. Voicemail is not to be used as a substitute to answering a City telephone during regular business hours. 3. Absent unusual circumstances, voicemail messages should be returned by end of the business day but in no event later the staff person's next working day. 4. Irate callers shall be treated with special care. Users should attempt to identify their primary complaint quickly. 5. Callers may be disconnected if the caller refuses to request to refrain from using abusive or profane language, unreasonably refuses to conclude the conversation, is unreasonably repetitive, or otherwise is not communicating in a manner that is capable of being understood. 6. Voicemail greetings shall contain the staff member's name and "City of Rolling Hills." 7. If an extended absence is expected an alternate secondary message shall be prepared. The length of the absence and the anticipated return to the office as well as the information included in the standard primary greeting shall be recorded in the alternate secondary outgoing message. I. RESPONSIBILITIES 1. The City expects all City appointed officials, employees, and consultants or other non -employees to be responsible for adhering to the City policy regarding Electronic Communications, E -Mail, Internet and Network Usage. All users will be provided a copy of this regulation, upon the granting of access to the computer network. 2. It is the responsibility of the City Manager, and any other supervisory employees to use their best efforts to take the necessary and proper steps, including disciplinary action, to maintain a working environment in accordance with this policy. 3. Any supervisory staff who observe or receive a complaint of electronic communication, E -Mail, Internet, or network misuse, as specified in this policy, whether formal or informal, oral or written, shall endeavor to resolve the problem, and then report the matter to the City Manager or, if necessary, the City Attorney. Supervisory staff shall not independently review or investigate an employee's electronic communications, but instead, shall coordinate any such review with the City Manager or, if necessary, the City Attorney. 4. The City Manager or, if necessary, the City Attorney is responsible for promptly initiating an investigation after receiving a report of an unresolved complaint or incident of any misuse as delineated in this policy. TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION POLICY 6 01/10/2011 5. It is the responsibility of E-mail users that inadvertently receive unwelcome offensive or inappropriate material to report the untoward communication to the City Manager or, if necessary, the City Attorney. The user should preserve the offensive or inappropriate communication for investigative purposes, but should not forward it to individuals not involved in a City -initiated investigation. Policy Administrative History: Adopted January 10, 2011 TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION POLICY 7 ® 01/10/2011 et Ralle:(9 geeld INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 8-D Mtg. Date: 03/13/17 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: REPORT, DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY'S EXISTING VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. DATE: MARCH 13, 2017 ATTACHMENT: CITY COUNCIL AD -HOC COMMITTEE MEMO MATRIX/DECISION TABLE UNDER REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION At the February 27, 2017 City Council meeting, Council members directed staff to place an item on the agenda to discuss the status of the amendments to the View Preservation Ordinance that are currently being considered by the Planning Commission (following the efforts of the City Council and residents' Ad Hoc Committee on views and trees); and to provide direction to the Planning Commission regarding their continued review of the ordinance. Should members of the City Council direct the Planning Commission to continue amending the City's existing view ordinance, the Planning Commission will reconvene its review at the Apri118, 2017 meeting. BACKGROUND: At the November 28, 2016, City Council meeting, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to commence discussion and public hearings relative to a Zoning Code Amendment of the View Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 17.26), taking into consideration the draft ordinance prepared by Mr. Spencer Karpf and the concepts and ideas that were collaboratively developed between the City Council Ad Hoc committee members (Mirsch and Pieper), Planning Commission Chairman (Chelf), and several residents (who were the original proponents of Measure B in 2013) (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Ad Hoc Committee"). Following much compromise and discussion, the Ad Hoc Committee prepared a memo, dated November 2016, which outlines the major areas of agreement between the committee and the residents, as well as those issues which remain unresolved. This report is attached. Following the Ad Hoc Committee report to the City Council at their November 28, 2016 meeting, the City Council felt that the Ad Hoc Committee and residents attained sufficient ground for the Planning Commission to commence evaluation and formulation of a new view ordinance. DISCUSSION At the January 17, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission began its discussion taking into consideration the language of the City's current view preservation ordinance, the issues presented by the inclusion of Measure B, as well as the language proposed by Mr. Karpf's ordinance. Staff asked the Planning Commission to review and discuss the concepts agreed upon by the Ad -Hoc Committee and of the draft Ordinance and decide whether they agree with some of them, all of them or none of them. Following those decisions, staff would bring back the language for the revised ordinance. The Planning Commission was advised that while they are not bound by the proposed language developed by Mr. Karpf, or by the concepts agreed upon by the Ad Hoc Committee, these documents serve as an invaluable starting point for the discussion and development of a workable, balanced and equitable view preservation ordinance. In preparation of the January 17, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, the City Attorney and City Staff consolidated the Ad Hoc Committee's November 2016 memo, the ordinance proposed by Mr. Karpf, the language proposed by Measure B and the language of the City's current view preservation ordinance and prepared a Matrix/Decision Table in order to help guide the Planning Commissions discussion. The last column of the matrix provided options for the Planning Commission to consider. At this meeting the Planning Commission agreed that certain definitions contained in the City's current ordinance should be improved based on the proposed language in Mr. Karpf's Draft Ordinance. Specifically, the Planning Commission directed staff on the appropriate language for the definitions for "view" and "view impairment;" directed staff to remove "view corridors" from the purview of the new ordinance; and directed staff to include within the ordinance definitions for terms related to arboriculture (such as "crowing," "crown reduction," etc.), using an industry - approved source. Following this meeting, Staff felt that by utilizing the matrix alone that Commission was concentrating more on the details and specific language of the ordinance rather than on concepts. Therefore, for the February 21, 2017 meeting, staff prepared a list of concepts for Commissioners to consider and discuss, including, but not limited to: A. How the ordinance will define "established view;" B. Whether the ordinance will define and/or consider "protected" vegetation; C. How the ordinance will define "viewing point;" D. Whether the ordinance will carve out rights, expectations, "vegetation owners" and/or "view seekers;" E. Whether, and to what extent, the City will be involved resolution process; and F. What steps the dispute resolution process will consist of. "established" or duties, etc., for in any dispute For each of these concepts staff provided a short narrative of what currently exits, what the Ad -Hoc Committee had agreed upon or disagreed to, and what had been suggested by Mr. Karpf. At this second meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the concepts of "established view" and "established vegetation." Specifically, the Planning Commission directed staff to create definitions for these terms which would provide view seekers and free owners with certain rights and responsibilities, as well as explain that a property owner is only entitled to the view/vegetation that existed when they purchased the property, or at any specific point in time since that date. (While the definition of "established view" in Mr. Karpf's draft ordinance includes an explanation that said view would have to be proven by a "preponderance of the evidence," the Planning Commission reserved discussion of evidentiary issues under the ordinance for another time.) CONCLUSION The next Planning Commission meeting is on March 21, 2017. However, the review of the view ordinance has not been placed on the agenda. At tonight's meeting staff is seeking Council's direction on how to proceed. The Planning Commissions next meeting, after March 21, would be on April 18, at which time the Planning Commission could resume the discussion. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 0 Rolling Hills City Council - Ad Hoc Committee On Trees and Views November, 2016 The ad hoc committee met several times in an effort to develop a balanced and equitable view resolution process. that could be crafted into an ordinance acceptable to both the City Council and the authors of Measures B and "2017". It was our hope that if such a compromise could be reached it would allow for the unchallenged repeal of Measure B, remove the necessity of running a "Measure 2017", and avoid the divisiveness associated with those processes. The committee was able — with much compromise from both sides — to reach agreement on several major issues and concepts. The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of those major areas of agreement and see if the Council is willing to recommend that the work of the committee be referred to the Planning Commission for review and possible revisions to our Ordinance Chapter 17.26. Major Areas of Agreement Please note that throughout this document the terms "tree(s)" and 'vegetation" will be interchangeable, as will 'hie, "hers" and "their(s)".. Principles 1. Both trees (vegetation) and views and their benefits are valuable assets to individual property owners and to the city as a whole. 2. The objective of a proposed ordinance(s) is to establish a balanced and falr process to resolve situations when conflicts between view seekers and vegetation owners cannot be resolved by the individual parties. Concepts 1. Establishment of Rights for view seekers and vegetation owners, as well as the establishment of responsibilities for view seekers and vegetation owners to protect those rights. A) A view seeker is only entitled to the view that existed on the earliest of the original purchase date (defined pretty much as definitions developed in 2016 - arms length transaction, etc) or some later date on which he can establish the existence of the view. That view could include a view that existed by virtue of the vegetation owner's normal maintenance or by agreement between property owners — but not on the loss of vegetation due to destruction (ie fire, disease) B) A vegetation owner only has a right to his established vegetation as it existed on his original purchase date or any date subsequent for which he can establish the existence of established vegetation that did not impair a current property owner's view. C) A View seeker has the responsibility to protect their view by addressing view impairment issues with the vegetation owner in a timely manner and taking the appropriate steps specified in the ordinance to resolve. Failure to meet the duty to protect the view may result in diminishing their right(s) to the view. D) A vegetation owner has a duty to ensure that his vegetation does not grow into the view(s) of his neighbor(s). Owners are required to perform maintenance to their vegetation to maintain it in a healthy condition for both safety reasons and to ensure their vegetation does not grow into the views of their neighbors. 2. Establish the power of the city, through the planning commission , to address the issue of impairments to neighbor(s)'s view(s) by their vegetation as a condition of approval for new construction or additions over 1,000 sq ft. 3. Definitions and establishment of specific view restoration actions, in order of preference, starting with the least severe (le lacing) and more severe (topping & removal) at the bottom. When considering the restoral action, if it is determined that a professional opinion is required to aid the CTV (or city, on appeal) those professionals will be either ISA certified master arborists or ASCA registered consulting arborists. 4. Establishment of Remedy Categories for view restoration. The categories allow for different levels of restoration depending on how much time has passed, or other circumstances, since the view was established and the view seeker's request to protect his view. This goes to item 1C, where the duty to protect the view may be diminished by delaying. Example: at Category 1 (shortest number of years between, maybe 3) the view seeker would be entitled to the highest remediation available. But if you waited until Category 3 (say category 1 plus xx years — maybe 10) or Category 4 (possibly 25 years) you would be entitled to a restoration that only allowed for some actions but prohibiting others. The number of years for each category has not been determined — for the planning commission to decide. 5. Development of a list of types of desirable and undesirable trees for planting within the city. Factors to be considered include (but not limited to) tree size, rate of growth, depth of roots, and the likelihood (or unlikelihood) that the species may grow to interfere with views of a neighboring property owner. 6. Development of an Approved Arborist List that includes licensed local ISA certified master arborists or ASCA registered consulting arborists. Major Unresolved issues 1.The role of the City in the dispute resolution process. The authors of Measure 2017 advocate that the role of CTV and City Council (upon appeal) should only be advisory; rulings from those bodies should not be binding, and the city should not allow itself to become a party in these disputes. They support the concept that these cases should be settled by means of Binding Arbitration or civil action, removing the City as a party to the dispute. Since the Civil code precludes the city from forcing mandatory binding arbitration, and based on previous decisions by the CTV, Planning Commission and City Council on this issue, we rejected that concept. We supported the current process that requires the City to act in a quasi-judicial role, hearing the facts, making findings, and upholding and enforcing our ordinances with binding rulings. in an effort to compromise on this issue we offered : At any time during the View Complaint process, if BOTH parties voluntarily agree, they may opt out of the City's View complaint process and participate In voluntary binding 2 arbitration. The city would pay for the arbitration costs (not including personal attys, etc). We recommended a cap be placed on the amount the city would pay, and that the cap amount would be based on a graduated scale, with a higher amount allowed the earlier the case opts -out of the city process. The amounts have not been decided — Planning Commission to determine. thought this offer had been acceptable to both sides, but their final Draft Ordinance submission contains some additional/differing language and provisions, creating some confusion. Therefore, for purposes of this document, the issue is being classified as "unresolved". 2. Also contained in 17.26.50 -17.26.70 are requirements for city staff to establish view data bases, procedures for notification of pending property sales, and "educational" procedures for residents and realtors. We did not agree to those requirements at this time due to a lack of staff resources, but suggested these ideas could be explored further in future discussions. Summation There are many other areas, criterion, procedures, etc not covered here — this is just an overview of major issues. Included in your packet is a Draft Ordinance and some notes prepared by Spencer Karpf that provide much more detail We did not agree to accept the Draft as written - still a few issues, mostly administrative in nature, to be resolved. But in the interest of good faith and moving forward it was agreed that if the Council supports the major concepts and our recommendation to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for hearings and review, the Draft be submitted to the Commission for informational purposes in those processes. it would be a useful tool that supports the issues and compromises the ad hoc committee was trying to achieve, and possibly avoid re -inventing the wheel — or at least parts of the wheel. But it is understood thatit is the Planning Commission's responsibility to develop policies and direct the City Attorney to craft ordinances supporting those policies. The ad hoc committee is not trying to mandate to the Commission or the Council how to find on our agreements. We are recommending that the agreements be reviewed by the Commission to determine if they serve our residents well by establishing workable, balanced and equitable procedures to resolve instances where rights of view seekers and vegetation owners may conflict. It is important to remember the purpose of the ad hoc committee and realize that these compromises and agreements were made — by both sides — to try to avoid 1) opposition to our Repeal Measure B effort, and 2) another ballot measure. If a final product produced by the city does not contain sufficient provisions to satisfy the authors of Measure 2017 (as agreed upon in the ad hoc meeting discussions) or if there is not an agreed -upon ordinance ready to be placed on the books should Measure B be repealed, they will most likely go forward with their organized opposition to the city's Repeal Measure B efforts, as well their petition to place "Measure 2017"on the ballot at the next possible election. Should that occur the city need not approve any proposed agreements — unless it is deemed by the Commission that any such agreement(s) remain in the best interest of the residents. Respectfully submitted by Leah Mirsch 3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Rolling Hills Planning Commission Decision Table Issue Current Ordinance Measure B Proposed Language (EXHIBIT E) Amendment/Guidelines Definitions "View" RHMC 17.12.220: "a view from a principal residence and any immediately adjoining patio or deck area at the same elevation as the residence which consists of a visually impressive scene or vista not located in the immediate vicinity of the residence, such as a scene of the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, city lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills or Los Angeles Harbor." n/a "A vision from a Viewing Point of a visually impressive scene or vista such as the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, mountains, lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos. Verdes Hills and canyons, the Los Angeles harbor and/or Long Beach harbor and similar. A view may be panoramic, which is an extensive largely unobstructed view spanning at least 120 degrees of the compass or a View Corridor comprising less than 100 and more than 20 degrees of the compass. A view may include structures or Established Vegetation in the foreground or background of the Property Owner that provides visual perspective. `View' includes both the singular and the plural." (Exhibit E. - p. 7 of author's draft ordinance). (City should not include view impairment from structures in this ordinance; as the process would have to be totally different) tt Include expanded description of view tx Include description of panoramic view rt Include view impairments caused by structures xt Include "plural views" tt Leave current language unchanged tx Other direction "View Corridor" RHMC 17.12.220: "a view n/a "A view spanning less than 100 ti Include view 1 Issue Current Ordinance Measure B Proposed Language (EXHIBIT E) Amendment/Guidelines from a designated viewing area broken into segments by vegetation." ("Designated viewing area" see "view" above) degrees of the compass but more than 20 degrees of the compass. The View may or may not contain some impairments that may be either buildings or Vegetation." (p. 7 of author's draft ordinance). impairments caused by structures tt Leave current language unchanged tt Other direction: "View Impairment" RHMC 17.12.220: "a significant interference with and obstruction of a view by landscaping, trees or any other planted vegetation." n/a "Any obstruction of an Established View by Vegetation on another property within the City of Rolling Hills that diminishes that Established View." (p. 7 of author's draft ordinance) tt Leave current language unchanged tt Other direction: Proposed Definitions) "Crown" n/a n/a See Exhibit E (p. 2 of author's draft ordinance) tt Accept proposed language tt Other direction: "Crown Lifting" n/a n/a See Exhibit E (p. 2 of author's draft ordinance) tt Accept proposed language tt Other direction: "Crown n/a n/a See Exhibit E (p. 2 of author's draft tt Accept proposed 1 As a preliminary measure, certain definitions which were included in the proposed ordinance have been excluded from this Table as either superfluous or premature. 2 Issue Current Ordinance Measure B Proposed Language (EXHIBIT E) Amendment/Guidelines Reduction" ordinance) language tt Other direction: "Damage" n/a n/a See Exhibit E (p. 3 of author's draft ordinance) tt Accept proposed language tt Other direction: "Established View" No date/timeframe specified; see Measure B "View existing from the date any current owner of a property in the City of Rolling Hills actually acquired the property." (The City interprets this provision to mean that the protectable view under the ordinance is the view possessed by the property on the date it was most recently purchased for fair market value. Hence, in determining the date on or after which the protectable view is established, the acquisition date shall be the most recent date title to the property was conveyed for fair market value (as evidenced by a deed) through an arms -length purchase and sale) "A view, as defined in this section, from a View Seeker's Real Property that existed on the date the property was most recently Purchased for fair market value through an arm's length Purchase or sale (as evidenced by a deed) or at any other specific point in time since that date. Thus, an Established View can be as of any date subsequent to a Property Owner's purchase of the property." (p. 3 of author's draft ordinance). tt Date property was "Purchased" tt Date property was "Acquired" tt Date when property owner can establish view impairment by a preponderance of the evidence tt Other direction: `Established n/a "mature" vegetation "Means vegetation, as defined in this tt Accept proposed 3 Issue Current Ordinance Measure B Proposed Language (EXHIBIT E) Amendment/Guidelines Vegetation" (undefined; interpreted to mean vegetation that has reached at least 75% of its final height) section that "existed" on a Vegetation Owner's Real Property. As of the most recent Original Purchase Date or any other specific date since the original purchase date" (p. 4 of author's draft ordinance). (Requires clarification: proposed definition would require property owner to inventory plants on their property at the time of purchase, or some subsequent date, to establish existence of vegetation) language tt Other direction: "Existed" n/a n/a See Exhibit E (p. 4 of author's draft ordinance). (same as above, Vegetation owner would have to record the height and spread of vegetation) tt Accept proposed language tt Other direction: "Heading/Head Back" n/a n/a See Exhibit E (p. 4 of author's draft ordinance). tt Accept proposed language tt Other direction: "Hedge" RHMC 17.12.080: "any plant material, trees, stump growth or shrubbery planted or growing in a dense continuous line so as to form a thicket, barrier or living fence" n/a "A fence or boundary formed by closely growing Vegetation, usually brushes or shrubs" (p. 4 of author's draft ordinance). tt Accept proposed language tt Other direction: 4 Issue Current Ordinance Measure B Proposed Language (EXHIBIT E) Amendment/Guidelines "Lacing" n/a n/a See Exhibit E (p. 4 of author's draft ordinance). tt Accept proposed language tt Other direction: "Maintenance" n/a n/a See Exhibit E (p. 5 of author's draft ordinance). tt Accept proposed language tt Other direction: "Original Purchase Date" n/a n/a See Exhibit E (p. 5 of author's draft ordinance). tt Accept proposed language tt Other direction: "Purchase/Purcha sed" n/a n/a See Exhibit E (p. 6 of author's draft ordinance). (Note that this definition is very similar to the one above, may be redundant) tt Accept proposed language tt Other direction: "Stand Thinning" n/a n/a See Exhibit E (p. 6 of author's draft ordinance). tt Accept proposed language tt tt Other direction: "Topping" n/a n/a See Exhibit E (p. 6 of author's draft ordinance) tt Accept proposed language 13 Other direction: "View Seeker" n/a n/a See Exhibit E (p. 7 of author's draft ordinance). tt Accept proposed language 5 Issue Current Ordinance Measure B Proposed Language (EXHIBIT E) Amendment/Guidelines tt Other direction: "Viewing Point" See RHMC 17.12.220: view "from a principal residence, but not including from garages or closets, and any immediately adjoining patio or deck area at the same elevation as the residence" n/a "A location within a principal residence, or Guest House, but not including garages, closets, basements, laundry rooms or other similar minor rooms, plus from any adjoining patio or deck area at the same elevation or within 10 feet of the elevation as the residence which has a "View" as defined in this section." (p. 7 of author's draft ordinance) (Requires clarification: is the 10' from an uphill embankment and from a downhill slope, or just downhill; or does it mean to include a view from 10 lineal feet of the residence on the tt tt Leave current language unchanged ri Accept proposed language a Other direction: same elevation?) Intent and Purpose RHMC 17.26.010: "The City recognizes the coontribution overal cha act raaniwds the - beauty of the City. Views of the Pacific Ocean, Catalina Island, City lights and Los Angeles Harbor are a special quality of property ownership for many ; residential lots in the City. These views have the potential to be diminished or eliminated by maturing landscaping located on n/a See Exhibit E (pp. 8-9 of author's draft ordinance). " (The ad hoc committee would like to expand the purpose and intent o the p p p f proposed ordinance to state that views and ' rt Leave current language unchanged tt Accept language tt Other direction: trees contribute to the unique character of the City and to outline the attributes of both views and trees on a property. In addition, the attached ordinance proposes to include that both, the view seeker and the vegetation owner has a right to their assets; for instance, owners of "established views" and 6 Issue Current Ordinance Measure B Proposed Language (EXHIBIT E) Amendment/Guidelines private property. The ` purpose of this chapter is to protect this important community asset by establishing procedures for the protection of views and abatement of view obstructions created by landscaping, while at the same time protecting natural vegetation from indiscriminate removal." "established trees" each have a responsibility to not to impinge on the rights of the other. The ad hoc committee members generally agree with these proposed changes, except for paragraphs 11 and 12 of section 17.26.010 of the proposed ordinance, p. 9 of author's draft ordinance) This entire section warrants further evaluation and discussion.) Desirable and Undesirable trees The language proposed by Mr. Karpf would amend the City's existing section 17.26.030 by adding the underlined language indicated in the "Proposed Language" column to the right n/a "The Committee is authorized and directed to prepare lists of types of desirable and undesirable trees for planting within the City. The list shall be based upon tree size and shape, rate of growth, depth of roots, fall rate of leaves or bark or fruit or branches, and other factors related to safety, maintenance and appearance, and the likelihood (or unlikelihood) tt Leave current language unchanged tt Accept proposed language tt Other direction: that the species may grow to interfere with Views of Property Owners. The purpose of this provision is to make information available to property owners which may serve to avoid future occasion for permits, complaints, and other proceedings authorized by this chapter." (p. 9 of author's draft ordinance). (The City currently maintains a guide of recommended and undesirable trees which was developed by staff the Fire Department and City's 7 Issue Establishment of Rights for View Seeker and Vegetation Owner Current Ordinance Measure B Attempted to preserve vegetation owner's rights by exempting "mature" trees from remediation. 8 Proposed Language (EXHIBIT E) consultant in 2008, at the time when the City was placed in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). This guide is provided to residents, when applicable. The Fire Department has updated their list of desirable and undesirable vegetation relative to Firewise landscaping and Fuel Modification Zones. Staff may update this list, taking tree height into consideration.) See Exhibit E (pp. 11-12 of author's draft ordinance). This section proposes to enumerate the rights and responsibilities of both, the view seeker and the property owner. For example: a view seeker is entitled to a "Remedy" (17.26.160 — p. 22-25 of author's draft ordinance) depending on timing of the complaint; A vegetation owner has a basic right to the vegetation at the time he purchased his property; (Note that while the proposed language defines Established Vegetation, there does not seem to be a meaningful creation of rights for a Vegetation Owner within the body of the proposed ordinance. For instance, Measure B attempted (unsuccessfully) to protect a vegetation owner's rights by creating an exception for "mature" vegetation Amendment/Guidelines Accept proposed language 33 Other direction: Issue Current Ordinance Measure B Proposed Language (EXHIBIT E) Amendment/Guidelines - no exemption or protection seems to exist for "Established Vegetation. This entire section warrants further discussion and evaluation) City's • City establishes criteria n/a From Ad Hoc Committee/Mr. Karpf: tt Leave current Involvement for determining view impairment and restorative action; • City establishes criteria for determining view impairment and restorative action; language unchanged • City lays out process for dispute resolution (i.e., voluntary resolution, mediation, CTV hearing, City Council Appeal, litigation); • City provides guidelines to the parties concerning restorative action; • The City is responsible for collecting documents submitted by the parties throughout the tt tt Accept proposed language from the ad hoc committee Accept proposed language from Mr. • City renders final decisions during various process; • City lays out process for dispute Gill stages of the process resolution (i.e., meet and confer, tt Other direction: ) • City enforces final decisions of the CTV and the City Council mediation, CTV hearing, City Council Appeal, arbitration, litigation); • City is responsible for various costs throughout the dispute resolution process (i.e., drafting meet and confer agreement, expert fees/costs at hearings, partial arbitration fees/costs) . • City is responsible for enforcing "final decisions" rendered in accordance with the ordinance 9 Issue Current Ordinance Measure B Proposed Language (EXHIBIT E) Amendment/Guidelines From Mr. Lynn Gi112: • City establishes criteria for determining view impairment and restorative action; • City provides guidelines to the parties concerning restorative action; • City lays out process for dispute resolution (i.e., initial reconciliation, mediation, binding arbitration, litigation) however City does not take an active role in holding hearings or rendering any decisions • City is not responsible for enforcing any decisions, and ordinance provides for waiver of liability Dispute Resolution Process First Step RHMC 17.26.040(A): Parties are to "make efforts" to resolve the view impairment issue filing a mediationp prior to application n/a View Seeker required to complete "meet and confer process." If this ` process rocess is unsuccessful, View Seeker ay file complaint and request may . mediation.(pp12-13 of author's draft ordinance) (Note that if the parties are successful in meeting and conferring, the City u Leave current language unchanged tt Accept proposed language t; Other direction: 2 Mr. Gill has provided numerous documents evidencing a preference that the City take a more peripheral role; he has expressed that the City should follow the process adopted by the Town of Tiburon, which has been upheld as constitutional by the court. Above is a summary of Chapter 15 (View and Sunlight Obstruction from Trees) of the Tiburon Code of Ordinances 10 Issue Current Ordinance Measure B Proposed Language (EXHIBIT E) shall bear the cost of having the City Attorney draft the agreement) Amendment/Guidelines Second Step RHMC 17.26.040(C) -(D): Mediation; if mediation fails, parties can request public hearing before CTV n/a Mediation; if mediation fails, parties can request public hearing before. CTV (pp. 12-15 of author's draft ordinance) U Leave current language unchanged tx Accept proposed language tz Other direction: Third Step RHMC 17.26.040(D) & 17.26.050(G): CTV hearing; if CTV hearing fails, parties can appeal to the City Council n/a CTV Hearing; if CTV hearing fails, parties can appeal to the City, Council (pp. 15-19 of author's draft ordinance) (Note that the City is required to maintain a list of approved arborists to assist in the CTV Hearing process) Fourth Step Hearing Procedure RHMC 17.54.070: City Council Appeal; following final decision of the City Council, the parties can file a lawsuit with the Court RHMC 17.26.040(C): At the hearing, the Committee shall consider all written n/a City Council Appeal; following decision of the City Council, parties can seek arbitration; if arbitration is unsuccessful, then the parties may file a lawsuit with the Court (pp. 19- 21 of author's draft ordinance) (Note this section requires the City to pay certain costs on appeal and to pay a specified, capped amount, of the arbitration costs) ,tt tt Leave current language unchanged ii Accept proposed language a Leave current language unchanged Accept proposed language tt Other direction: The burden of proof to show See Exhibit E (pp. 21-22 & 16, 26-27 tt Leave current that any view is impaired shall be upon the party claiming of author's draft ordinance) language unchanged 11 Issue Current Ordinance Measure B Proposed Language (EXHIBIT E) Amendment/Guidelines and oral testimony and such impairment, and the (Note that this section would propose evidence presented in standard shall be by "clear to lower the burden of proof from Lt Accept proposed connection with the and convincing evidence". "clear and convincing" to "a language application. If during the Evidence shall be weighted in preponderance of the evidence." course of the proceedings it the following order of Furthermore, evidence shall have the u Other direction: is discovered that priority: following order of priority: (1) information submitted in an a. Photographs; Information contained in City application is inaccurate or b. Expert testimony; and database; (2) photographic evidence; incomplete such that it lastly (3) deeds or other legal instruments; could be misleading, or a significant change has occurred impacting either the view or the obstruction, an applicant may be directed to amend the application or submit supplemental information. In the event the Committee c. Other evidence. (4) site plans; (5) expert testimony; (6) documents maintained by RHCA; (7) testimony of RHCA staff and lay witnesses; and (8) other evidence. Lastly, CTV to select arborist to provide expert testimony, including two others selected by the parties - and City to bear the cost for the arborists. The parties may select / requires expert advice in consideration of the matter, the cost of obtaining such evidence shall be borne by the complainant, pursuant to written agreement with the additional arborists at their own expense • City. The City shall select such expert and enter into an agreement only upon receipt of a payment for the selected service from the party. Findings RHMC 17.26.050(D): n/a See Exhibit E (pp. 16, 17 of author's tt Leave current Based on the evidence received and considered, the draft ordinance) language unchanged Committee may find any of the following: t Accept proposed 12 Issue Current Ordinance 1. That no view exists within the meaning of this chapter; 2. That a view exists within the meaning of this chapter, but that the view is not significantly impaired; or 3. That a view`, exists within the meaning of this chapter and that it is significantly impaired. 4. The Committee shall make specific written findings in support of the foregoing determinations. Measure B Proposed Language (EXHIBIT E) Amendment/Guidelines language tt Other direction: Restorative Action/Remediation and Remedies Types RHMC 17.26.050(E): CTV shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment, including, but not limited to, removal, pruning, topping, thinning or similar alteration of the vegetation. Such order is not intended to n/a 13 This section establishes certain specific view restoration actions which take into consideration the timing of the view complaint as well as the utilization of least drastic measures(such as lacing) prior to the utilization of more drastic measures (such as topping/removal) (pp. 22-26 of author's draft ordinance) also tt Leave current language unchanged tt Accept proposed language U Other direction: Issue Current Ordinance Measure B Proposed Language (EXHIBIT E) Amendment/Guidelines ) create an unobstructed view for applicants. Instead it is intended to create view corridors and a view through trees. The Committee may impose conditions as are necessary to prevent future view impairments. In no event shall restorative action be required if such action would adversely affect the environment or would unreason -ably detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the property on which the objectionable vegetation is located. If restorative action is precluded by the existence of one or more such limiting factors, the Committee shall make specific written findings to that effect. includes consideration of mitigating factors such as privacy screening, etc. (p. 25 of author's draft ordinance). The remedies proposed range from a Category 0 to a Category 7 depending on how many years, following the purchase of his property, the view seeker failed to exercise his rights to a view. RHMC 17.26.050(F): restorative action shall be subject to CEQA review Cost RHMC 17.26.060(A): The Similar to the City's current cost u Leave current complainant shall bear the requirements, however this section language cost of the initial restorative action. Within thirty days of takes into consideration the timing of the complaint (p. 27 of author's draft unchanged a final decision ordering ordinance). The owner of the tt Accept proposed restorative action, the vegetation shall bear the cost of the language 14 Issue Current Ordinance Measure B Proposed Language (EXHIBIT E) Amendment/Guidelines complainant shall obtain and present to the owner of initial action, if the complainant filed w/in 2-yrs of the impairment of the the obstructing vegetation view; otherwise the complainant is to u Other direction: three bids from licensed and qualified contractors for performance of the work, as well as cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. In order to qualify, the contractors must provide insurance, which protects and indemnifies the City and the complainant from damages attributable to negligent or wrongful performance of the work. bear the cost of the initial action. ) Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of the City. RHMC 17.26.060(C): Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation in question shall be performed at the cost and expense of the owner of the property on which the vegetation is growing. The vegetation shall be maintained in accordance with the final decision so as not to allow for future view impairments Enforcement RHMC 17.26.070: The City n/a City required to enforce "final ` ti Leave current is required to enforce decisions" under this chapter (p. 27- language decisions of the CTV and 28 of author's draft ordinance). unchanged 15 Issue _c: Notification n/a Current Ordinance CC as "final decisions" RHMC 17.26.080: Within thirty days of the final decision of the Committee, or the City Council on appeal, a document shall be recorded against the title of the property on which the offending vegetation exists and the complainant's property, on a form provided by the City, which shall run with the land and be binding upon all successors in interest. Measure B Proposed Language (EXHIBIT E) (Note, the definition of "final decision" under this section would require the City to enforce court orders, breach of contract disputes between the parties, and other 'final decisions" the City was not responsible for making) City is required to notify subsequent property owners of decisions rendered under this Chapter; despite earlier provisions which require recordation with the County Recorder (p. 28 & 9-10 of author's draft ordinance). Amendment/Guidelines tt Accept proposed language. ti Other direction: tt Leave current language unchanged tt Accept proposed language tt Other direction: n/a Any action taken by CTV or City Council in view dispute cases prior to passage of Measure B (March 13, 2013) is void and is not to be enforced 16 Ordinance would also apply, albeit limitedly, to properties purchased after January 1, 1983 (p.12 of author's draft ordinance). (The ordinance author states that the retroactivity should apply to properties purchased 10 years prior to the City's first View Ordinance taking effect. > That was in 1988; tt Leave current language unchanged ti Accept proposed. language tt Other direction: Issue Current Ordinance Measure B Proposed Language (EXHIBIT E) therefore the retroactivity would apply to properties purchased after 1978) Amendment/Guidelines 17 Agenda Item No: 9-A Mtg. Date: 03/13/17 Senator Wiener Releases Details on SB 35 - the Housing Accountability and Affordability Act SB 35 will create more accountability to meet regional housing needs goals and streamline the production of affordable housing January 23, 2017 Today, Senator Scott Wiener released a detailed description of Senate Bill 35 - the Housing Accountability and Affordability Act - which he first introduced in December. SB 35 will create a streamlined approval process for housing when cities are not meeting the housing creation goals required by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), which will expedite the construction of affordable housing. SB 35 also creates a more robust reporting requirement for housing production by requiring all cities report their annual housing production to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). "California is in a housing shortage due to decades of underproduction of housing at all income levels," said Senator Wiener. "Too often our cities aren't taking their responsibility seriously to build housing for people who live and work in our communities, and this hits our lowest income residents the hardest. SB 35 will retain local control for those cities that are producing their share of housing, but create a more streamlined path for housing creation in those cities that are blocking housing or ignoring their responsibility to build. SB 35 will result in more housing at all income levels, good -paying jobs to build that housing, and more accountability in creating the new homes our residents so badly need." A fact sheet and detailed information about how Senate Bill 35 works are attached below. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is the state -mandated process that sets the number of housing units that must be included, at all affordability levels, in each local jurisdiction's housing element. Under SB 35, if cities aren't on track to meet those goals, then approval of projects will be streamlined if they meet a set of objective criteria, including affordability, density, zoning, historic, and environmental standards, and if they pay prevailing wage for construction labor. Currently, RHNA goals are reassessed and updated every 8 years. Under SB 35, cities will submit their progress on housing production to HCD every 2 years. If the city is not on track to meet its RHNA goals at one of these progress checks, streamlining will be in effect for the entire next two-year cycle. A city is "on track" if it is 1/4 of the way to its goal by year 2 of the 8 -year cycle, 1/2 of the way to its goal by year 4, and so on. The streamlining applies only to the income levels that aren't being built for - so if a city is building sufficient market -rate units but not enough low-income units, the project must add low-income units to qualify for streamlined approval. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Rene ro Lit -,c5a-otiLQ- Senate Bill 35 — Housing For A Growing California: Housing Accountability & Affordability Act SUMMARY Senate Bill 35 ensures that all communities in California create the housing we desperately need to address our statewide housing shortage, and spur the creation of affordable housing in California by streamlining the approval process. BACKGROUND/EXISTING LAW California is in the depths of a housing shortage. Our State's housing production has not kept pace with population growth, particularly for low and middle income residents. California households in the bottom quarter of the income distribution —the poorest 25 percent of households —report spending four times more of their income (67 percent, on average) than households in the top quarter of the income distribution (16 percent, on average). Every 8 years, each California city receives a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goal from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for how many future units of housing the city must include in its zoning plan. However, HCD cannot require cities to follow through with producing the housing in their own zoning plan, and too many communities either ignore RHNA or make inadequate efforts to comply with it. HCD does not comprehensively track housing production data. PROBLEM The negative impacts of California's housing shortage threaten our state's economic growth, environmental well-being, and diversity. It is far too expensive to rent or buy a home in California, which results in displacement, evictions, and families being pushed out as they grow. Teachers, retail workers, first responders, and other middle -income professionals often have crushing commutes as they increasingly cannot afford to live near their jobs. California has a long tradition of broad local control, and in many areas, local communities are in the best position to judge what makes sense for their residents. However, when local communities refuse to create enough housing —instead punting housing creation to other communities —then the State needs to ensure that all communities are equitably contributing to regional housing needs. Local control must be about how a community meets its housing goals, not whether it meets those goals. Too many communities either ignore their housing goals or set up processes designed to impede housing creation. Allowing local communities to ignore their responsibility to create housing has led to a housing disaster —triggering huge economic, environmental, and social problems. SOLUTION Under SB 35, as amended, cities that are on track to meet their RHNA housing production goals at all income levels will retain full local control over how they approve housing. When cities do not meet their housing obligations, approval of qualified housing projects will be streamlined until cities do meet their goals. For streamlining to apply, a project must include housing for certain income levels where there is a shortage of production, pay a prevailing wage for construction labor, and meet all objective affordability, density, zoning, historic, and environmental standards outlined in the bill. The new, streamlined approval process will require localities to approve projects only on the basis of whether the project complies with the objective SB 35 qualifying criteria and pass design review. The streamlined process applies only when unmet income -based categories are addressed. For example, if a city is meeting its market rate housing RHNA goals but not its low income housing goals, streamlining will apply only to those projects that add low income units. This bill also requires all charter cities to report their annual housing production to HCD, and will require HCD to ensure housing production data is detailed, up-to-date, and publicly accessible on the internet. Currently, general law cities must report their housing production, but charter cities and city/counties are not required by law to do so. FOR MORE INFORMATION Ann Fryman, Legislative Aide ann.fryman@sen.ca.gov; (916) 651-4011 Step 1: Could streamlining apply to projects in this city? YES: Not building enough housing NO: Building enough housing The city/county has not met its RHNA allocations in all income categories. Example: A city that is meeting its market -rate housing goals, but not its other housing goats: 'X Very Low Income (0-50% AMI) -. Streamlining applies X Low Income (51-80% AMI) — Streamlining applies X Moderate Income (80-120% AMI) Streamlining applies ✓ Market Rate Housing (120+% AMI) Streamlining does not apply Streamlining could apply to qualifying projects only in the income categories where it underproduces housing. The city/county has met its RHNA allocations in all income categories: ✓ Very Low Income (0-50% AMI) ✓ Low Income (51-80% AMI) ✓ Moderate Income (80-120% AMI) ✓ Above Moderate Income (120+% AMI) Streamlining doesnot apply to any projects Step 2: Does streamlining apply to this specific project? YES: Proposed project meets all qualifying criteria NO: Project does not meet one or more criteria ✓ Density: Project will create housing targeted to the income category where the city is not meeting its housing goals (see above), and units are a part of a multi -unit development. Accessory dwelling units qualify for streamlining, but single family home developments do not. ✓ Site: Infill site in an already developed area that does not require demolition of existing rent-controlled/deed-restricted housing or historic landmarks on the National, State, or Local register, nor is located in a coastal zone or high environmental/health risk zone. For existing, housing that is not price -controlled, demolition can be streamlined if the building has been vacant for ten or more years. V Zoning Compliance: Project must be zoning compliant in height and bulk, but must not exceed a 200' height limit. Projects >200' have far bigger impacts, need more review, and are better capitalized with existing approval processes. ✓ Construction Labor: Project must provide a prevailing wage to all construction labor, subject to a strong enforcement mechanism. V Affordability: Eligible market -rate projects are required to provide the greater number of either existing local inclusionary requirements or 10% affordable housing. All subsidized affordable units must be deed restricted for 55 years for rental units and 45 years for ownership units. If the project does not meet all criteria, it is not eligible for streamlined approval. Won't pay prevailing wage: v Density ✓ Site V Zoning Compliance X Construction Labor ✓ Affordability STREAMLINING DOES NOT APPLY Is a single family home development: X Density Site Zoning Compliance V Construction Labor Affordability STREAMLINING DOES NOT APPLY 250' tower with no affordable housing: ✓: Density V Site ✓ Zoning Compliance ✓ Construction Labor V Affordability STREAMLINING DOES NOT APPLY Step 3: If so, the project can be approved through the streamlined process. ✓ Objective process: Review and approval of project based on compliance with objective criteria above. ✓ Focused design review: Design review must not materially impact the building height or unit count. The period for design review will be time -limited and strictly focused on improving both the architectural design and urban features of the development ✓ No parking requirements: All minimum parking requirements for the project will be waived. AMENDED IN SENATE FEBRUARY 21, 2017 SENATE BILL No. 35 Introduced by Senator Wiener (Principal coauthors: Senators Allen and Atkins) December 5, 2016 An act to amend Section 65582.1 of, and to add Sections 65589.9 and 65913.4 to, the Government Code, relating to housing. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 35, as amended, Wiener. Planning and Zoning: affordable housing:. strcamlinc. streamlined approval process. Existing law requires an attached housing development to be a permitted use, not subject to a conditional use permit, on any parcel zoned for multifamily housing if at least certain percentages of the units are available at affordable housing costs to very low income, lower income, and moderate -income households for at least 30 years and if the project meets specified conditions relating to location and being subject to a discretionary decision other than a conditional use permit. This bill would require an accessory dwelling unit development or a multifamily housing development that satisfies specified planning objective standards to be subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and to not be subject to a conditional use permit. The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. Existing law provides for various incentives intended to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing. Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to determine existing and projected needs for housing for each region and, in consultation with each council of 98 SB35 —2— governments, adopt a final regional housing plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each city, county, or city and county that meets specified requirements. This bill would , as spccificd. require a city, including a charter city, and a county or city and county, including a charter city and county, to submit a report to the Department of Housing and Community Development that includes specified information regarding units of housing that have completed construction and would require the department to post the information contained in the report on its Internet Web site, as provided. By imposing new duties upon local agencies with respect to the streamlined approval process and reporting requirement described above, this bill would impose a state -mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: ae-yes. State -mandated local program: ne-yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Section 65582.1 of the Government Code is 2 amended to read: 3 65582.1. The Legislature finds and declares that it has provided 4 reforms and incentives to facilitate and expedite the construction 5 of affordable housing. Those reforms and incentives can be found 6 in the following provisions: 7 (a) Housing element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with 8 Section 65580) of Chapter 3). 9 (b) Extension of statute of limitations in actions challenging the 10 housing element and brought in support of affordable housing 11 (subdivision (d) of Section 65009). 12 (c) Restrictions on disapproval of housing developments 13 (Section 65589.5). 14 (d) Priority for affordable housing in the allocation of water and 15 sewer hookups (Section 65589.7). 98 -3— SB35 1 (e) Least cost zoning law (Section 65913.1). 2 (f) Density bonus law (Section 65915). 3 (g) Accessory dwelling units (Sections 65852.150 and 65852.2). 4 (h) By -right housing, in which certain multifamily housing are 5 designated a permitted use (Section 65589.4). 6 (i) No -net -loss -in zoning density law limiting downzonings and 7 density reductions (Section 65863). 8 (j) Requiring persons who sue to halt affordable housing to pay 9 attorney fees (Section 65914) or post a bond (Section 529.2 of the 10 Code of Civil Procedure). 11 (k) Reduced time for action on affordable housing applications 12 under the approval of development permits process (Article 5 13 (commencing with Section 65950) of Chapter 4.5). 14 (1) Limiting moratoriums on multifamily housing (Section 15 65858). 16 (m) Prohibiting discrimination against affordable housing 17 (Section 65008). 18 (n) California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 19 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3). 20 (o) Community redevelopment law (Part 1 (commencing with 21 Section 33000) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code, and 22 in particular Sections 33334.2 and 33413). 23 (p) Streamlining housing approvals during a housing shortage 24 (Section 65913.4). 25 SEC. 2. Section 65589.9 is added to the Government Code, to 26 read: 27 65589.9. (a) On or before April 1, 2018, and on or before 28 April 1 each year thereafter, a city, including a charter city, and 29 a county or city and county, including a charter city and county, 30 shall submit a report to the Department of Housing and Community 31 Development that includes both of the following: 32 (1) The number of units of housing that have completed 33 construction in the housing element cycle. 34 (2) The income category, including very low income, low 35 income, moderate income, and above moderate income, each unit 36 of housing satisfies. 37 (b) The Department of Housing and Community Development 38 shall post on its Internet Web site, within a reasonable time after 39 receiving the information, the information reported pursuant to 40 subdivision (a). 98 SB35 —4- 1 SEC. 3. Section 65913.4 is added to the Government Code, to 2 read: 3 65913.4. (a) A development shall be subject to the streamlined, 4 ministerial approval process provided by subdivision (b) and shall 5 not be subject to a conditional use permit if it satisfies all of the 6 following objective planning standards: 7 (1) The development is an accessory dwelling unit development 8 or a multifamily housing development that contains two or more 9 residential units. 10 (2) The development is located on a site that satisfies both of 11 the following: 12 (A) Is an urban infill site as defined by Section 210613 of the 13 Public Resources Code. 14 (B) Is a site zoned for residential use or residential mixed use 15 development. 16 (3) If the development contains units that are subsidized, the 17 development applicant or development proponent already has 18 recorded, or is required by law to record, a land use restriction 19 that is: 20 (A) Fifty-five years for subsidized units that are rented. 21 (B) Forty-five years for subsidized units that are owned. 22 (4) The development satisfies both of the following: 23 (A) Is located in a locality that, according to its last annual 24 production report to the Department of Housing and Community 25 Development, completed construction of fewer units of housing by 26 income category than was required for the regional housing needs 27 assessment cycle for that year. 28 (B) The development is subject to a requirement mandating a 29 minimum percentage of below market rate housing based on the 30 following: 31 (i) The locality constructed fewer units of above moderate 32 income housing than was required for the regional housing needs 33 assessment cycle for that year, and dedicated percent of the 34 total number of units to below market rate housing, unless the 35 locality has adopted a local inclusionary zoning ordinance that 36 requires that greater than percent of the units be dedicated 37 to below market rate housing, in which case that inclusionary 38 zoning ordinance applies. 39 (ii) The locality constructed fewer units of very low, low-, or 40 moderate -income housing than was required for the regional 98 -5— SB35 1 housing needs assessment cycle for that year, and dedicated 2 percent of the total number of units to below market rate housing, 3 unless the locality has adopted a local inclusionary zoning 4 ordinance that requires that greater than percent of the units 5 be dedicated to below market rate housing, in which case that 6 inclusionary zoning ordinance applies. 7 (5) The development is consistent with objective zoning 8 standards and objective design review standards in effect at the 9 time that the development is submitted to the local government 10 pursuant to this section. For purposes of this paragraph, "objective 11 zoning standards" and "objective design review standards" mean 12 standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a 13 public official. 14 (6) The development is not located on a site that is any of the 15 following: 16 (A) A coastal zone, as defined in Division 20 (commencing with 17 Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code. 18 (B) Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, 19 as defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture 20 land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, 21 and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping 22 and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation. 23 (C) Wetlands, as defined in Section 3283 of Title 33 of the Code 24 of Federal Regulations. 25 (D) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined 26 by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to 27 Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity 28 zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry 29 and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public 30 Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites 31 excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, 32 pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or sites that have 33 adopted sufficient fire hazard mitigation measures as may be 34 determined by their local agency with land use authority. 35 (E) A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 36 659625 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department 37 of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the 38 Health and Safety Code, unless the Department of Toxic Substances 39 Control has cleared the site for residential use or residential mixed 40 uses. 98 SB35 —6- 1 (F) Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by 2 the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State 3 Geologist. 4 (G) Within a flood plain as determined by maps promulgated 5 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the 6 development has been issued a flood plain development permit 7 pursuant to Part 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 8 (commencing with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of 9 Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 10 (H) Within a floodway as determined by maps promulgated by 11 the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the 12 development has received a no rise certification in accordance 13 with paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 60.3 of Title 44 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 15 (7) The development does not require the demolition of either 16 of the following: 17 (A) Housing that is subject to rent control, housing that is 18 subject to deed restrictions, or any housing that has been occupied 19 by residents within the past 10 years. 20 (B) A historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or 21 local historic register prior to December 31, 2016. 22 (8) It is the intent of the Legislature to amend this section to 23 subject the development to enforceable wage requirements. 24 (b) (1) If the city, including a charter city, or the county or city 25 and county, including a charter city and county, determines that 26 a development submitted pursuant to this section is in conflict with 27 any of the objective planning standards specified in subdivision 28 (a), it shall provide the development proponent written 29 documentation of which standard or standards the development 30 conflicts with, and an explanation for the reason or reasons the 31 development conflicts with that standard or standards, as follows: 32 (A) Within 60 days of submittal of the development to the local 33 government pursuant to this section if the development contains 34 150 or fewer housing units. 35 (B) Within 90 days of submittal of the development to the local 36 government pursuant to this section if the development contains 37 more than 150 housing units. 38 (2) If the city, including a charter city, or the county or city and 39 county, including a charter city and county, fails to provide the 40 required documentation pursuant to paragraph (1), the 98 -7— SB35 1 development shall be deemed to satisfy the objective planning 2 standards specified in subdivision (a). 3 (c) Any design review of the development shall be completed 4 as follows and shall not in any way inhibit, chill, or preclude the 5 ministerial approval provided by this section or its effect, as 6 applicable: 7 (1) Within 90 days of submittal of the development to the local 8 government pursuant to this section if the development contains 9 150 or fewer housing units. 10 (2) Within 180 days of submittal of the development to the local 11 government pursuant to this section if the development contains 12 more than 150 housing units. 13 (d) A development approved pursuant to this section shall not 14 be subject to any local or state parking minimum requirements. 15 SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to 16 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because 17 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service 18 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or 19 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 20 17556 of the Government Code. 21 SECTION 1. It is thc intent of thc Legislature to cnact 22 legislation to strcamlinc and inccntivizc thc crcation of affordable 23 housing projccts, to rcmovc local barricrs to creating affordable 24 25 local barricrs to housing crcation in jurisdictions failing to mcct 26 thcir regional housing nccds containcd in thcir housing cicmcnt, 27 and to cnsurc thc payment of prevailing ratc of wages in the 28 crcation of this housing. 0 98