The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda 11-27-2017ter4 at ge INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2017 7:00 P.M. Next Resolution No. 1217 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME Next Ordinance No. 357 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 September 25, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. List of 2018 City Council Meeting Dates and City Holidays. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. D. Republic Services Recycling Tonnage Report for October 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. E. Financial Statement for the Month of October 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. PRESENTATION Presentation by Kathleen McGowan, McGowan Consulting, on Status Report of City's Stormwater Management Program Page 1 of 3 5. COMMISSION ITEMS A. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-22 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2017-12 FOR A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN ZONING CASE NO. 922. THE MODIFICATION ENTAILS AN INCREASE BY 90 SQUARE FEET TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESIDENCE, AT 0 POPPY TRAIL, (LOT 90-BA-RH), (SERPA). 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. RESOLUTION NO. 1217 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING A PROCESS BY WHICH THE CITY WILL REIMBURSE THE PARTIES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000) FOR AN ARBITRATOR'S FEE INCURRED IN ARBITRATING A VIEW IMPAIRMENT COMPLAINT UNDER CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. B. RESOLUTION NO. 1218 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MODIFYING ROLLING HILLS FEES BY ELIMINATING CERTAIN FEES RELATED TO VIEW OBSTRUCTION FILING CASES AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 1206. 7. OLD BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY (LACCE) PROGRAM TO PROVIDE RESIDENTS FUTURE ENERGY OPTIONS. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. NOVEMBER 7, 2017 SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION RESULTS. 9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS A. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION ON MODIFYING HOW THE LOS ANGELES SHERIFF DEPARTMENT APPLIES THE CITY'S VEHICULAR ENFORCEMENT BY UTILIZING THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE INSTEAD OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE (ORAL ONLY). 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF NONE. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS City Council Agenda 11/27/17 Page 2 of 3 12. CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL THREATENED LITIGATION — GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (D)(3) LETTER FROM MORGAN LEWIS DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 BASED ON A WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FROM MORGAN LEWIS THREATENING LITIGATION, THE CITY COUNCIL IS MEETING ONLY TO DECIDE WHETHER, BASED ON THE EXISTING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION AGAINST THE CITY; DISCUSSION OF THIS MATTER IN OPEN SESSION WOULD PREJUDICE THE POSITION OF THE CITY IN ANY POTENTIAL LITIGATION. B. EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957 TITLE: CITY MANAGER 13. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION (ORAL REPORT). 14. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Monday, December 11, 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 11/27/17 Page 3 of 3 -DRAFT - Agenda Item No. 4-A Meeting Date: 11/27/17 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Black at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Dieringer, Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Black. Councilmembers Absent: None. Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Natalie Karpeles, Assistant City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Julia Stewart, Assistant Planner. Yvette Hall, Interim City Clerk. Dan Armendariz, District Manager, California Water Service. Jay Levitus, Project Manager, California Water Service. William Hassoldt, 15 Portuguese Bend Road. Cathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road. Arun Bhumitra, 13 Buggy Whip Drive. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West. John Nunn, 1 Crest Road West. Fred Lorig, 1 Spur Lane. Clint Patterson, 22 Georgeff Road. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME NONE. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes — 1) Regular Meeting of August 28, 2017; and 2) Regular Meeting of September 11, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. -1- C. Republic Services Recycling Tonnage Report for August 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Councilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented with modifications to the August 28, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. PRESENTATION Presentation by California Water Service on Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project Dan Armendariz, District Manager, California Water Service, introduced Jay Letivus, Project Manager, and informed the City Council that Mr. Levitus would make the presentation. Jay Levitus, Project Manager, California Water Service Company, provided the City Council with an overview of the Peninsula Water Reliability Project in the City of Rolling Hills; and an update on the schedule and next steps of the project. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Wilson's question, Mr. Levitus stated that the construction schedule for the segment on Palos Verdes Drive North was still pending and that alternative schedules were being considered which varied from two weeks to two months. Mr. Armendariz stated that they have provided the City of Rolling Hills Estates with various options for the road closure for their consideration. He indicated that California Water Service was holding a public workshop in conjunction with the City of Rolling Hills Estates to discuss the options. Mr. Armendariz stated he could bring back information from the workshop to the City Manager to share with the City Council. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson commented that a suggestion was made by the City of Rolling Hills Estates to allow public access through the City of Rolling Hills' gates during the road closure. In response to Councilmember Dieringer's question, Mr. Levitus stated that the estimate in extra rate to residents is $1 per day per household or $30 per month. He indicated that he would follow up with more current information as the Public Utilities Commission is currently preparing a general rate case. Mr. Levitus stated he did not know if there would be a rate increase, decrease, or if it would stay neutral. In response to Mayor Black's inquiry, Mr. Levitus stated that the construction route does not run along Palo Verdes Drive North. Mr. Levitus indicated that the City of Rolling Hills Estates informed California Water Service that they could not close this segment. He explained they were avoiding construction on Palos Verdes Drive North to eliminate the impact to the community and due to the hydrology of the project. He stated there was a significant financial cost to avoid Palos Verdes Drive North. Discussion ensued concerning the City's storage capacity and the number of water tanks and reservoirs that were in the City. COMMISSION ITEMS Minutes City Council Meeting 09-25-17 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-16. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL GARAGE ADDITION AND NEW STABLE AND CORRAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 931 AT 7 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH, LOT 249-A-UR, (MCCARTHY/CHENG). CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES CLASS 3, SECTION 15303. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Assistant Planner Stewart stated that the proposed project consists of a new stable, corral and a garage addition. She stated that there is an existing 336 square foot stable that will be demolished and the new stable is partially located over where the existing stable is to be set. She indicated that the reason why this proposal needed a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit was because with the garage addition there was a previous approval for 972 square feet in 2016, therefore; with the additional square footage for the garage the applicant exceeded their administrative approval limits and the Conditional Use Permit for the stable and corral exceeded the allowable limits. Assistant Planner Stewart stated that for the Site Plan Review the existing garage is 472 square feet attached to the residence and the addition is 475 square feet for a total of 947 square feet on the garage and which increases from two spaces to four spaces. She stated that for the Conditional Use Permit the stable is two stories at 1,608 square feet with 520 square feet of covered porches, and the footprint is 805 square feet with a 688 square foot loft. She stated that all of the coverages of the disturbance for the proposed project fell within the limits of the zoning code. Assistant Planner Stewart indicated that there were two neighbors that expressed concern with the proposed project. She stated that one neighbor was concerned with the proximity of the corral to the residence, however; the residence was approximately 135 linear feet away. She stated that she went on a field visit with the first neighbor who had no further concerns with the distance after they visited the site. Assistant Planner Stewart indicated that the second neighbor was concerned with the location of stable, however; after they went to the field visit they had no further concerns with the project. Assistant Planner Stewart indicated that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA and that staff is requesting that the City Council receive and file the resolution. In response to Councilmember Mirsch's question, Assistant Planner Stewart explained the onsite parking requirements. Assistant Planner Stewart stated that it appeared there were no parking requirements in the resolution. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the property has a long driveway and a motor court, and there will be more than a four -car garage. Assistant Planner Stewart indicated that the parking of construction vehicles was self-contained as the workers currently park on site. Mayor Black inquired if a condition could be added to the resolution indicating that no vehicle parking is allowed except on site during construction. Assistant Planner Stewart indicated that the project must be taken under jurisdiction to make that modification. Discussion ensued among Assistant City Attorney Karpeles, City Council and staff concerning over the counter permits, adding conditions when a permit is signed off on, and the addition of standard parking requirements that vehicles be parked on site during construction for these type of projects. Councilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2017-16, with an amendment that standard parking requirements during construction be added as a Minutes City Council Meeting 09-25-17 -3- condition to the permit, and granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 931 at 7 Middleridge Lane South. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS A HEARING REGARDING NUISANCE ABATEMENT AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 78-RH) AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DECLARING NONCOMPLIANCE WITH CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1196 TO BE A NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE ABATEMENT THEREOF. OWNERS: JUDITH AND WILLIAM HASSOLDT. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that this was a public hearing to determine if a violation of a previously adopted resolution by the City Council is a nuisance and should be abated. She stated that this was a view preservation case that came before the Committee on Trees and Views (CTV) in 2014 and that the applicants were the property owners at 18 Portuguese Bend Road and made a complaint about the property owners at 15 Portuguese Bend Road. She indicated that the case went through mediation, the CTV, and then was appealed to the City Council. She stated that the City Council upheld the CTV's resolution to remediate nine trees, as it was determined that the nine trees did obstruct the views from 18 Portuguese Bend Road. She indicated that the Hassoldts, property owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road, obtained an arborist that the Nuccions of 18 Portuguese Bend Road paid for and that the Nuccions Finley's Tree and Landscape, Inc. performed the work. Planning Director Schwartz stated that following the work done in May of 2017, the Nuccions came before the City Council and complained that not all the trees were trimmed per the resolution that was adopted by the City Council. She stated that the City Council directed staff to look into the matter. She stated that an arborist visited the property and produced a report of which a copy was provided to City Council that states that one of the trees that was in question was cut to 46 feet as required by Resolution No. 1196 and that an Olive tree was not trimmed as required by Resolution No. 1196. She indicated that pursuant to the City's Ordinance Section 8.24, the City Manager can determine that the violation of a resolution or a permit is a nuisance, which the City Manager has done so. She stated that the City Manager has issued a notice of violation to the Hassoldts and gave them 15 days to abate the nuisance to lace the Olive tree. Planning Director Schwartz indicated that this action has not been taken by the Hassoldts. She stated that the City Manager could request that the City Council make a determination if the violation is a nuisance and whether they would like to order the violation be abated. She indicated that a resolution was included in the staff report that staff prepared if the City Council determined that the violation is a nuisance. She indicated that the resolution states that the City gave the property owners 45 days to abate the nuisance and should they not do so, the City has the authority, with the concurrence of the property owner, to go on site to the property and remediate the violation. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the resolution also states that the property owners will be asked to pay within ten days of obtaining a bid to perform the remediation and should they not provide the City with plans the City could go on the property to remediate and place a lien on the property. Mayor Black opened the public hearing. William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane and 15 Portuguese Bend Road, provided a map of tree locations and correspondence to the City Council. He stated that Tree # 7 was trimmed and groomed at the crown. He stated that there was no obstruction of any view to go back into old cuts and that all the trees are old trees, Minutes City Council Meeting 09-25-17 -4- approximately 60 or 70 years old. He stated that they have been trimmed many times and that there are old cuts up and down every tree on the property. He indicated that this same issue exists on his street and that the tree is not obscuring any view. He referenced the document from Finley Tree Trimming and discussed the trees that the Nuccions wanted to be trimmed were not the trees related to the issue per the City staff. He discussed an Olive tree indicated by an "X' on his documents was being confused with Olive Tree #7 and stated that this Olive tree "X" was trimmed, however; it was not required to be trimmed. He commented that the idea of the view and View Committee was to provide a view and to prevent any obstruction of a view and that it does not state that trees should be removed or cut down unreasonably. He stated that Olive Tree #7 at that time was trimmed and when this was completed the Nuccions complained about the trimming. Mr. Hassoldt stated that at that time it was found that the Eucalyptus tree and Pepper tree were not part of the abatement. He indicated there was a meeting on site and that staff kept referring to the tree in the southeast corner as the tree that the Nuccions were complaining about and not Olive Tree #7 because Olive Tree #7 does not obscure any view. He indicated there was confusion over which tree was to be trimmed. He stated that if he is required to go back to the old cuts the whole tree will be ruined and the value of his property will be affected. Mr. Hassoldt stated that the report given by Mr. Applegate is not accurate regarding Olive Tree #7 as this tree is being confused with another tree. Mayor Black closed the Public Hearing. In response to Councilmember Dieringer's question, Assistant City Attorney Karpeles stated that the City Council does not have any legal authority or jurisdiction to make modifications or revisit issues related to Resolution No. 1196 once the City Council has approved the resolution and the appeal period has passed. In response to Mayor Black's question, Planning Director Schwartz stated that there was no confusion over the trees because they were tagged. In response to Mayor Black's inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Karpeles advised the City Council that it was a City Council decision to determine whether a nuisance condition exists and, if so, staff would move forward with the abatement In response to Mayor Black's question, Planning Director Schwartz stated that staff found the trimming was done to the standards of the resolution. In response to Councilmember Dieringer's inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Karpeles clarified that the nuisance condition before the City Council is whether or not Resolution No: 1196 has been violated. She stated that it is not the condition of the tree itself. She further clarified that a nuisance is the fact that Resolution -No. 1196 was adopted and an order was issued, and because the order was not complied with this is where the nuisance lies. Following public comment and discussion, Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1216 declaring the non-compliance with City Council Resolution No. 1196 a nuisance and ordering the abatement thereof. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion. Mayor Black called for a roll call vote on the aforementioned motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Dieringer, Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Black. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Minutes City Council Meeting 09-25-17 -5- CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 354 REGARDING APPROVAL OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2017-01 TO THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND SECTION 17.12.220 OF CHAPTER 17.12 (DEFINITIONS); AND REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH AN ADVISORY PROCESS FOR THE RESTORATION OF VIEWS OBSTRUCTED BY VEGETATION. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that this was the first public hearing regarding the view preservation ordinance. She stated that the recommendation is to adopt a new view preservation ordinance and replace the existing view preservation ordinance and make amendments to pertinent sections of the zoning ordinance. She stated that staff is requesting that the City Council review the staff report, take public testimony, waive full reading of the ordinance and provide direction to staff. She stated that the Planning Commission held several public hearings and several public forums and received many public comments from residents. She reviewed the staff report and exhibits and indicated that the exhibits included all the documents that the Planning Commission received in the preceding meetings. Assistant City Attorney Karpeles reviewed the changes that were made to the view ordinance as follows: 1) Zoning Ordinance — Removed view related defmitions from the Zoning Ordinance into the View Preservation Ordinance; 2) Principles and Intent — Various definitions were added, modified, or removed from the View Preservation Ordinance; 3) Established View/Pre-Existing View Definition created by the Planning Commission - The language in the current ordinance is silent as to what point in time a viewseeker is required to establish the existence of a view; 4) The definition of "View" was modified; 5) "View Impairment" definition was modified; 6) "Viewing Point" was expanded based upon the suggestions raised by the ad hoc committee, the Karpf Ordinance and Measure 2017 on where views may be enjoyed from a property; 7) Dispute Resolution Process — The Planning Commission determined that in order to effectuate a more expeditious process it was recommended to change to an advisory process; 8) Considerations for Applying the View Preservation Ordinance — This section lists certain considerations which may be adopted by a decision maker, such as an arbitrator, a mediator, the CTV or the City Council; 9) Restorative Action — The Planning Commission ordinance proposes in order of least to most severe restorative action which would be most appropriate on a case by case basis; 10) Litigation — At any point in time the parties can determine to litigate or enter into arbitration, if the parties do enter into arbitration the ordinance proposes to compensate the parties up to a certain amount that the City Council can determine whether they want this to be based on a sliding scale, meaning that the sooner that the parties enter into arbitration the more the City will compensate them for their efforts, or whether the City Council would like to set a cap. This amount would need to be determined if the City Council chooses to adopt the proposed resolution; 11) Enforcement and Liability — Because the current ordinance that is before the City Council is proposing an advisory only opinion the City would not be responsible for enforcing any of the resolutions or decisions that were rendered as a condition of this process, any mediation or arbitration award or litigation judgement would be enforceable by a court. The City would not be involved in enforcement and ensuring that the parties comply with any type of a resolution, mediation or court order; 12) There were some miscellaneous provisions that were discussed at the Planning Commission level. In general they related to the creation of a view database that would be created and maintained by the City, different mechanisms to be created by the City in order to determine when a property has been transferred or is going to be purchased so that staff can go on the property and Minutes City Council Meeting 09-25-17 -6- make a determination whether view impairments exist and to document them. Additional provisions which would allow the Planning Commission and the City Council to require a vegetation owner to remove vegetation as a condition of approval for new construction and the establishment of educational programs by the City. These miscellaneous provisions were considered by the Planning Commission, however; they were ultimately determined not to be included in the proposed ordinance; and 13) Retroactivity - It was determined that the new view preservation ordinance would not be retroactive and would proceed moving forward should it be enacted by the City Council. Mayor Black opened the Public Hearing. Cathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West, expressed concern that Section 17.26.030 View Impairment was burdensome. She stated that the proposed ordinance does not take into consideration that a person can plant trees in their view and then go to each of his neighbors and demand that they give him his view back. She expressed concern regarding the 60 day response time. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon, commented on the following matters related to property rights: 1) The right to the view that you purchased; 2) The right to maintain the trees and vegetation at the same height as when an owner purchased the property; and 3) Property tax not be used on litigation. Arun Bhumitra, 13 Buggy Whip Drive, commented that he previously had a 360 degree view when he moved to the City 38 years ago. He stated that trees have grown on the northwest section of his property. He indicated that he has discussed the options of dispute resolution and mediation with his neighbors and has had this same discussion every year. He suggested the City Council apply a common sense approach such as using the height of the tree to the roofline. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West, commented that under common law no person is entitled to a view. He stated that there were only a few ways to take away rights from a property owner, which include by covenant, easements, and legally by the government. He stated that he felt it was illegal to take trees away from property owners without compensation. John Nunn, 1 Crest Road West, commented that he has been involved with the View Preservation Ordinance discussion since the beginning. He indicated his support of one viewing point. He stated he is not in support of multiple viewing points. He stated he supports Measure B and would like the current ordinance to remain as is. Fred Lorig, 1 Spur Lane, commented that the City's General Plan is supposed to preserve scenic views and that it requires the City to facilitate the preservation and restoration of viewscapes through the removal of obstructions. He recommended that the City adopt an advisory role. Clint Patterson, 22 Georgeff Road, thanked Mr. Lorig for his comments and indicated he is the Chairman of the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) View Committee. He stated that the RHCA View Committee did not have enforcement capabilities and suggested that Mr. Lorig's aforementioned comments be considered. Mayor Black stated that he appreciated the efforts of the Planning Commissioners particularly since they are volunteers. Minutes City Council Meeting 09-25-17 Councilmember Mirsch indicated that on circle page 6 of the staff report, under Principles and Intent, that the wording "unreasonable obstruction" was subjective. Assistant City Attorney Karpeles responded that the Planning Commission did not discuss whether it was an unreasonable obstruction or a significant obstruction and that the idea was that it could not just be any obstruction, it would have to be a meaningful obstruction and that is why it is articulated under the Principles and Intent Section. In response to Councilmember Mirsch's question, City Attorney Karpeles explained that the wording "a visually impressive scene or vista" on circle page 7 of the staff report was added to explain and clarify the definition of "view." Councilmember Mirsch stated that she is personally opposed to the City being only an advisory role. She stated that if the City has adopted an ordinance then it should be enforced; however, she does not want to subject the City to legal costs. She stated that mediation would have to be stricken from the proposed ordinance if the City changes to an advisory body. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson noted that the word "crowing" on circle page 4 was misspelled and should be corrected to "crowning." He inquired about the reference to trees and any vegetation on circle page 8 as it relates to view impairment. Assistant City Attorney Karpeles responded that her interpretation of the Planning Commission's directive was that it is only vegetation. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson noted that there was a reference to trees on circle page 8. Assistant City Attorney Karpeles indicated that she would make that change to remove the references to trees in the proposed ordinance as it relates to "view impairment." Mayor Pro Tem Wilson stated that he is generally in favor of the proposed ordinance. Mayor Black stated that he appreciates the effort everyone has put into the proposed ordinance. He indicated that he appreciated some of the definitions as they are helpful and up to date. He indicated that he did not support the idea of the City being an advisory body and that he would like to protect those residents that cannot afford to be involved in this type of matter. Mayor Black stated he would not support the City being an advisory body. He stated he does not support eliminating the view corridor and the panoramic view section should be added back. Councilmember Dieringer stated that significant improvements have been made to the ordinance and discussed the costs of litigation. She stated that the City could have significant legal costs if enforcement is continued. She indicated that the City has limited resources and those resources could be reduced if cases are litigated. Mayor Black stated that the past costs of litigation were not significant. Councilmember Dieringer indicated support of an advisory role for the City and that the City should Minutes City Council Meeting 09-25-17 -8- contribute some funding towards arbitration costs. She expressed concern with the staffing resources and that there was no limitation on how many viewing points a property can have. She discussed the definition of a preexisting view and that it should have clear guidelines. Councilmember Dieringer suggested that proper documentation should be provided in Section 17.26.050. She expressed concern that there was no time limitation. Councilmember Dieringer stated that the proposed ordinance should have a provision to indicate what type of arborist can be hired and inquired why there is no retroactivity. Assistant City Attorney Karpeles stated that the current ordinance is proposing that these rules will apply to new cases moving forward and will not apply to any cases which have been previously decided. Councilmember Pieper stated that the proposed ordinance can be modified over time if there are provisions that need to be adjusted. He indicated that it is important going forward not to delay any changes if needed. He expressed concern with the affordability as it relates to litigation. He indicated support for a majority of the proposed ordinance except without the advisory body role. He indicated support for a quasi-judicial body. Councilmember Pieper discussed Measure C's impact on the proposed ordinance. Assistant City Attorney Karpeles provided clarification to the City Council pertaining to the upcoming election. She stated the City Council has two options to either introduce the proposed ordinance at this City Council meeting and not adopt it until after the election. She indicted that the ordinance will go into effect only if Measure C passes. She stated the second option is to adopt the ordinance before the election and add a clause that states that the ordinance will only take affect if Measure C is enacted by the voters. Councilmember Pieper expressed support of the second option. Mayor Black inquired what options are available as it relates to an advisory and quasi-judicial body. Assistant City Attorney Karpeles advised that the City Council could vote on whether the City Council wishes to have an advisory or quasi -legislative procedure and then introduce the ordinance and consider adopting the ordinance at the next meeting based on the changes that the City Council would like to make. Discussion ensued among the City Council concerning the options that the City Council has regarding adopting an advisory or quasi -legislative procedure. Assistant City Attorney Karpeles advised that staff could prepare an alternate version of the ordinance removing the advisory procedure if that is the direction of the City Council or leave advisory as is and make the changes that were expressed by the City Council. Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council direct staff to modify and bring back the proposed ordinance eliminating the advisory opinion and adding a quasi-judicial advisory procedure. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion. Discussion ensued among the City Council and the Assistant City Attorney regarding adopting an advisory or quasi -legislative procedure. Minutes City Council Meeting 09-25-17 -9- Mayor Black called for a roll call vote on the aforementioned motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmember Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Black. NOES: Councilmember Dieringer. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Assistant City Attorney Karpeles requested that the City Council review certain provisions of the proposed ordinance to provide suggestions. There were no objections from the City Council. Assistant City Attorney Karpeles reviewed the following items: Established View/Pre-Existing View Assistant City Attorney Karpeles indicated that there was a discussion by the Planning Commission as to whether the view should exist at any time. Mayor Black and Councilmember Mirsch indicated that no changes be made to this section. Councilmember Dieringer indicated her objection as to whether a view should exist at any time. She stated that a definite point in time should be established to be clear such as the date when the property was purchased. Multiple and Panoramic Views There was consensus by the City Council to leave as is and allow panoramic views from multiple areas. Significant Impairment Assistant City Attorney Karpeles inquired if "significant impairment" should be put back in the proposed ordinance. Discussion ensued among the City Council concerning whether to add "significant impairment" back into the language of the proposed ordinance. The City Council concurred to provide findings to the Planning Commission upon the initial filing of the view complaint. - Time Limitation to File a View Complaint The City Council concurred not to place a time limitation on the filing of view complaints. Dispute Resolution Process Assistant City Attorney Karpeles discussed her understanding of the City Council's direction in terms of Minutes City Council Meeting 09-25-17 -10- the dispute resolution process as follows: 1) An initial reconciliation process; 2) Mediation; 3) Quasi- judicial step; 4) Arbitration; and 5) Litigation. Mayor Black stated that if mediation is part of the process then arbitration is not needed. Councilmember Mirsch indicated that there is a difference between mediation and arbitration. She stated that mediation is not binding and suggested that if both parties agree to binding arbitration that the City would be willing to reimburse the parties to encourage arbitration. Councilmember Dieringer indicated that residents would not want to enter into arbitration if the City will pay for the court costs and utilize the City's attorneys. Mayor Black asked the City Council if arbitration was needed any longer. Assistant City Attorney asked the City Council if arbitration should be taken out. Discussion ensued among the City Council concerning the reimbursement of arbitration costs up to a maximum of $5,000. Assistant City Attorney Karpeles clarified that the City Council would like to maintain the option of arbitration between the parties at any time prior to appeal to City Council with a cap of $5,000. The City Council concurred to keep this option in the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Dieringer recommended that the City Council consider including the language on circle page 123 that discusses whether the view seeker delayed filing a view preservation case and for how long they have done so in terms of their rights of requesting that their view be restored. Assistant City Attorney Karpeles reviewed the inclusion of the language on circle page 123. Discussion ensued among the City Council concerning adding provisions for the decision maker to consider and examples of past view cases. Councilmember Pieper and Councilmember Mirsch indicated support of adding language that addresses the delayed filing of a view preservation case. Following discussion, there was consensus among the City Council to postpone the proposed ordinance to the next City Council meeting and direct staff to modify the ordinance as discussed. Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council direct staff to modify proposed Ordinance No. 354 per the City Council's direction and continue the public hearing to the October 9, 2017 City Council Meeting. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion. Mayor Black called for a roll call vote on the aforementioned motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmember Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Black. NOES: Councilmember Dieringer. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Minutes City Council Meeting 09-25-17 -11- OLD BUSINESS NONE. NEW BUSINESS NONE. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS Mayor Black complimented staff for their efforts on abating coyotes. He stated that a dog being walked by a child was recently attacked by a coyote. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson commented that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved a budget of up to one million dollars to litigate Senate Bill 229 regarding accessory dwelling units. MATTERS FROM STAFF NONE. CLOSED SESSION NONE. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Black adjourned the meeting 9:32 p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, October 9, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Yvette Hall Interim City Clerk Approved, James Black, M.D. Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 09-25-17 -12- City i JUL Agenda Item No: 4-B Mtg. Date: 11/27/17 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 CHECK CHECK • PAYEE NO. DATE - * EFT 10/30/2017 CALPERS * EFT 11/01/2017 CALPERS * 25073 11/13/2017 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION * 25074 11/13/2017 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY * 25075 11/13/2017 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES * 25076 11/13/2017 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES * 25077 11/13/2017 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. * 25078 - 11/13/2017 COX COMMUNICATIONS * 25079 11/13/2017 DAILY BREEZE * 25080 11/13/2017 DAILYBREEZE * 25081 11/13/2017 DAILY BREEZE * 25082 11/13/2017 EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC. * 25083 11/13/2017 FIRST CALL STAFFING, INC. * 25084 11/13/2017. FOUNTAINHEAD CONSULTING INC. * 25085 11/13/2017 GOVT STAFFING SERVICES INC * 25086 11/13/2017 ICMA * 25087 11/13/2017 JANET FARIA * 25088 - 11/13/2017 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP * 25089 11/13/2017 JOHN L HUNTER & ASSOC., INC. * 25090 11/13/2017 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS * 25091 11/13/2017 MAILFINANCE * 25092 11/13/2017 MCGOWAN CONSULTING • * 25093 11/13/2017 MIK;MAXCY * 25094 11/13/2017 PETTY CASH-EWA NIKODEM - * 25095 11/13/2017 REMOTE SATELLITE SYS INTL * 25096 11/13/2017 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON * 25097 11/13/2017 THE PRINTING • * 25098 11/13/2017 USCM * 25099 11/13/2017 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS * 25100 11/13/2017 WI.LDAN INC. * 25101 11/13/2017 XEROX CORPORATION 25102 11/27/2017 25103 11/27/2017 GOVT STAFFING SERVICES INC 25104 11/27/2017 JOHN MUNCHERIAN 25105 11/27/2017 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS 25106 11/27/2017 LA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT 25107 11/27/2017 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 25108 11/27/2017 OPUS BANK 25109 11/27/2017 PACIFIC COAST LANDSCAPE 25110 11/27/2017 REMOTE SATELLITE SYS INTL 25111 11/27/2017 VOID 25112 11/27/2017 VOID 25113 11/27/2017 THE GAS COMPANY 25114 11/27/2017 " WILLDAN INC. 25115 12/1/2017 DELTA DENTAL 25116 12/1/2017 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 25117 12/1/2017 VISION SERVICE PLAN - (CA) EFT 12/1/2017 CALPERS - - * PR LINK 10/27/2017 PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING * PR LINK -10/27/2017 PR LINK - PAYROLL 22 & PR TAXES - * PR LINK 11/10/2017 PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING - * PR LINK 11/10/2017 PR LINK - PAYROLL 23 & PR TAXES * PR LINK 11/10/2017 PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING * PR LINK 11/10/2017 PR LINK - PAYROLL 24 & PR TAXES CIVICPLUS NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 11/27/2017 - CHICK RUN DESCRIPTION RETIREMENT FOR OCTOBER 2017 SERVICE CREDIT - JULIA STEWART RETIREMENT FOR OCTOBER 2017 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP JANUARY - DECEMBER 2018 WATER BILL 9/27/17 TO 10/25/17 RADAR UNIT MAINTENANCE NOVEMBER 2017 - COYOTE CONTROL AUGUST 2017 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES SEPT 2017 PHONE/INTERNET 10/26-11/25/17 P.V. NEWS LEGAL PUB OCTOBER 2017 ADVERTISING OCTOBER 2017 ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION 11/3/17 - 10/30/18 JANITORIAL SERVICES OCTOBER 2017 - STAFF SERVICES WEEK ENDING 10/22/17 IT CONSULTING NOVEMBER 2017 • STAFF SERVICES WEEK ENDING 10/29/17 - MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL JANUARY - DECEMBER 2018 2017 HOLIDAY OPEN HOUSE - CATERING ATTORNEY SERVICES OCTOBER 2017 TRASH SURVEY SEPTEMBER 2017 COPIER MAINTENANCE 9/12/17 - 10/11/17 POSTAGE MACHINE QUARTERLY LEASE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AUGUST 2017 PEAFOWL CONTROL OCTOBER 2017 PETTY CASH AUGUST - OCTOBER 2017 SATELLITE PHONE NOVEMBER 2017 ELECTRICITY 9/22/17 -10/23/17 DIASTER PREPAREDNESS EXPO 10/29/17 DEFERRED COMP FOR 10/27/17 DEFERRED COMP FOR 10/27/17 TRAFFIC ENGINEER SEPTEMBER 2017 COPIER LEASE OCTOBER 2017 QTRLY FEE - HOSTING & SUPPORT STAFFING SERVICES WEEK ENDING 11/12/17 GRADING BOND DEPOSIT REFUND COPIER MAINTENANCE 10/12/17-11/11/17 LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES OCTOBER 2017 CITY CLERK NEW LAW & ELECTIONS SEMINAR 2017 ICMA CONFERENCE AND OFFICE SUPPLIES LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE NOVEMBER 2017 SATELLITE PHONES DECEMBER 2017 . - PRINTER ERROR PRINTER ERROR " GAS SERVICE 10/04/17-11/05/17 SPEED SURVEY 2017 " DENTAL INSURANCE DEC 2017 LIFE INSURANCE NOVEMBER 2017 VISION INSURANCE DEC 2017 HEALTH INSURANCE DECEMBER 2017 PROCESSING FEE - PAY PERIOD - OCTOBER 11, 2017 THROUGH OCTOBER 24, 2017 PROCESSING FEE _ PAY PERIOD - OCTOBER 25, 2017 THROUGH NOVEMBER 7, 2017 PROCESSING FEE - PAY PERIOD - NOVEMBER 8, 2017 THROUGH NOVEMBER 21, 2017 I, Raymond K Cmz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, California certify that the above demands are accurate and them is available in the General Fund a balance of $148,948.01or the payment ofjbOCE7ems. - Raymond R City Manager * Previously Disbursed AMOUNT 255.27 4,766.20 483.00 913.01 101.10 1,279.40 1,344.27 460.44 134.82 304.95 415.16 392.00 1,428.00 516.00 9,863.80 1,400.00 2,800.00 19,290.00. 1,170.00 134.60 718.85 4,825.80 600.00 1,385.73 97.90 1,167.16 250.76 1,604.00 364.00 1,123.75 41.00 1,416.97 5,064.30 5,000.00 95.61 27,210.10 475.00 2,718.49 565.00 97.90 19.89 488.00 681.72 202.22 95.27 95.27 54.95 14,935.H 44.95 15,000.71 54.95 15,000.73 S 148,948.01 103,856.71 Printed on Recycled Paper 2018 City Council Meeting Dates and City Holidays Unless otherwise noted, meetings in conflict with a holiday will be cancelled. Agenda Item No: 4-C Mtg. Date: 11/27/17 Scheduled Date Holiday Conflict Holiday Date Re -scheduled Date/Time January 8, 2018 January 22, 2018 February 12, 2018 February 26, 2018 March 12, 2018 March 28, 2018 April 8, 2018 April 23, 2018 May 14, 2018 May 28, 2018 Memorial Day May 28 TBD June 11, 2018 June 25, 2018 July 9, 2018 July 23, 2018 August 13, 2018 August 27, 2018 September 10, 2018 September 24, 2018 October 8, 2018 October 22, 2018 November 12, 2018 Veterans Day 11/11, Office Closed 11/12 TBD November 28, 2018 December 10, 2018 Holiday Open House N/A N/A December 24, 2018 Christmas Day Observed December 24 DARK 2018 Holidays Observed (City Hall Closed) January 1, 2018 January 15, 2018 February 19, 2018 May 28, 2018 July 4, 2018 September 3, 2018 November 11, 2018 November 22-23, 2018 December 24, 2018 December 25, 2018 Other Holidays: New Year's Day (observed) April 2-6, 2018 Martin Luther King Jr. Day March 30 -April 7, 2018 President's Day September 9-11, 2018 Memorial Day September 18-19, 2018 Independence Day Labor Day 11/12 -Veterans Day (observed) Thanksgiving Holiday Christmas Eve (Observed) Christmas Day PVPUSD Spring Break Passover Rosh Hashanah Yom Kippur Unless otherwise noted, meetings in conflict with a holiday will be cancelled. DRAFT 11/27/17 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL ALLIED WASTE RECYCLE NOW REPORT Report Date: 2017 II MONTH 2017 January February March April May June July August September October November December Year to Date Totals: RECYCLED (tons) 51.34 45.87 52.00 53.62 47.49 51.80 53.57 29.57 16.37 56.98 458.61 Average Monthly Totals: 2017 45.86 GREEN WASTE (tons) 83.67 66.88 75.56 155.40 98.65 114.43 103.23 122.15. 138.59 78.66 1,037.22 103.72 C&D Recycled C&D Disposed Disposal Diversion Tonnage % 29:80 6.62 133.36 54.07% 6.37 2.13 115.88 50.24% 32.98 11.00 125.65 54.02% 61.17 11.21 129.57 65.74% 106.36 5.80 114.76 67.68% 58.65 7.33. 125.18 62.92% 111.23 9.24 129.45 65.90% 56.96 8.97 162.15 54.94% 84.18 11.67 147.29 60.07% 22.80 2.71 154.07 50.26% - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% 570.51 76.67 1,337.37 59.37% 57.05 7.67 133.74 59% MONTHLY TOTALS (tons) 304.80 237.13 297.19 410.97 373.06 357.39 406.72 379.80 398.10 315.22 0.00 0.00 3,480.38 348.04 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS BALANCE SHEET October 31, 2017 ASSETS Cash & Cash Equivalents Cash & Cash Equivalents - Capital Project Fund Poppy Trail Grading Bond Accounts Receivable Prepaid Expense & Deposits LIABILITIES GENERAL & DEPOSIT CAPITAL FUND FUND 4,244,807 $ 24,505 20,988 MUNICIPAL COPS & COMMUN. SELF- REFUSE CLEEP FACILITIES INSUR. COLLECT. TRAFFIC TRANSIT UTILITY SAFETY PROP A, C, M FUND & TDA 1,771 $ 100,729 $ 15,951 $ 260,374 $ 229,204 $ (521) $ 66,092 $ 1,480,700 273,031 TOTAL ASSETS $ 4,290,300 $ 1,771 $ 100,729 $ 15,951 $ 260,374 $ 502,235 $ (521) $ 66,092 $ 1,480,700 Accounts & Contract Payable $ Employee Benefits Payable Deposits Deferred revenues TOTAL LIABILITIES FUND BALANCE 645 $ 4,570 18,852 24,067 Restricted Fund Balance - Unassigned Fund Balance 4,266,233 TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE 4,266,233 1,771 100,729 $ $_ - $ 251,817 $ 15,951 260,374 251,817 250,418 66,092 (521) - 1,480,700 1,771 100,729 15,951 260,374 250,418 (521) 66,092 1,480,700 OTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE & LIABILITII $ 4,290,300 $ 1,771 $ 100,729 $ 15,951 $ 260,374 $ 502,235 $ (521) $ '66,092 $ 1,480,700 COMPOSITION OF CASH Petty Cash $, 1,500 OPUS Bank - Checking Account 29,307 OPUS Bank - Money Market 95,475 Opus Bank Interest Checking 1,014,555 Calif. State Local Agency Investment Fund 4,273,270 Malaga Bank - CDARS - CD's 985,000 $ 6,399,107 Prepaz Teny S inance Director Raym e d R. C , City Manag Date ///3/7 YTD TOTAL BEGINNING OF YEAR TOTAL $ 6,399,107 $ 7,144,199 297,536 20,988 305,000 40,586 37,954 $ 6,717,631 $ 7,527,739 $ 252,462 $ 4,570 18,852 398,718 452 325,623 275,884 724,793 419,010 6,022,737 6,802,946 6,441,747 6,802,946 $ 6,717,631 $ 7,527,739 RH Balance Sheet FY 2017-18 11/13/2017 7:32 PM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Actual Compared to Annual Budget July 1, 2017 to October 31, 2017 Fund GENERAL Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue CITIZENS' OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue COMMUNITY FACILITIES Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue MUNICIPAL SELF-INSURANCE Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue REFUSE COLLECTION Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TRAFFIC SAFETY Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TRANSIT - PROPOSITION A, C & M Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue UTILITY FUND Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TOTAL ALL FUNDS Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue This Year Last Year This Year Better (Worse) . Annual Budget & Adj. Remaining Budget $ 113,262 $ 72,248 $ 41,014 1,935,250 $ 1,821,988 649,262 477,978 (171,284) 2,097,250 1,447,988 (536,000) (405,730) (130,270) (162,000) 374,000 6,965 8,000 (1,035) (212,450) (219,415) (529,035) (397,730) (131,305) (374,450) 154,585 59,712 48,181 11,531.00 140,125 80,413 36,102 26,267 (9,835) 156,500 120,398 23,610 21,914 1,696 (16,375) (39,985) - - - - 0 23,610 21,914 1,696 (16,375) (39,985) - - - 195,000 195,000.00 - - - (195,000) (195,000.00) - - - 195,000 195,000.00 - - - 100 100 - - - 12,700 12,700 - - - (12,600) (12,600) - - - (12,600) (12,600) - - - 3,000 3,000.00 - - - (3,000) (3,000.00) - - - (3,000) (3,000.00) 258,417 262,478 (4,061) 771,100 512,683 258,268 253,836 (4,432) 774,800 516,532 149 8,642 (8,493) (3,700) (3,849) (8,000) . (8,000) - (24,000) (16,000) (7,851) 642 (8,493) (27,700) (19,849) - 32,932 (32,932) 50 50 1,555 1,930 375 41,500 39,945 (1,555) 31,002 (32,557) (41,450) (39,895) 1,035 - 1,035 41,450 40,415 (520) 31,002 (31,522) - 520 31,286 26,810 4,476 113,275 81,989 31,286 26,810 4,476 113,275 81,989 31,286 26,810 4,476 113,275 81,989 - - - 150,000 150,000.00 - - - (150,000) (150,000.00) - - - (150,000) (150,000.00) .462,677 442,649 20,028 2,959,900 2,497,223 945,187 760,011 (185,176) 3,430,750 2,485,563 (482,510) (317,362) (165,148) (470,850) 11,660 $ (482,510) $ (317,362) $ (165,148) $ (470,850) $ 11,660 RH Income Statement FY 2017-18 11/13/2017 7:40 PM al Rai qteii INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 5A Mtg. Date: 11-27-17 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR C2f THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2017-22. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2017-12 FOR A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN ZONING CASE NO. 922. THE MODIFICATION ENTAILS AN INCREASE BY 90 SQUARE FEET TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESIDENCE, AT 0 POPPY TRAIL, (LOT 90-BA-RH), (SERPA). PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide other direction to staff. 2. The request is to increase the size of the previously approved 4,859 square foot residence by 90 square feet for a total of 4,949 square foot residence and to raise the ridgeline of the residence by no more than 10 inches. No other modifications from the previous approval are requested. 3. In August 2017 an application was filed by the applicants, for which approval was granted by Resolution No. 2017-12, to construct new 4,859 square foot residence and 1,232 square foot garage, 1,000 square feet covered porches, a 560 square foot swimming pool and spa, with additional amenities such as a 54 square feet gatehouse and 220 square foot outdoor covered kitchen; Conditional Use Permit for 688 square foot guesthouse and Variances to allow for partial construction of the outdoor amenities in the front yard area, for a privacy wall that exceeds 5' in height and to further exceed the previously approved exceedance of the disturbance of the lot. Grading of 2,726 cubic yards, which includes grading for a future stable and corral was also granted. ZC NO. 922 — Modification, 0 Poppy Trail 1 4. At the November 21, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2017-22 approving the modification and amending Resolution No. 2017- 12. A condition regarding construction fence removal and silhouette posts removal has been added to the amended Resolution. Three Commissioners were present at the November 21 meeting, however, at the meeting at which the Commission asked for a Resolution of approval, all Commissioners voted in agreement. The Planning Commission found that the modification is very minor and is compatible with the lot and uses adjacent thereto. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 5. Zoning and Land Size The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 4.08 acres. For development purposes the net lot area of the lot is 117,800 square feet or 2.7 acres. The lot contains a building pad, previously created as well as a driveway to the building pad. The lot contains a roadway easement, as portion of Poppy Trail traverses the lot, as well as an easement for a driveway leading to the lot to the south of 0 Poppy Trail. A small portion of Georgeff Trail is also located on the lot. The area across Poppy Trail (to the east of the road) has been designated as an easement to the RHCA. That portion of the lot includes access to the Hesse's Gap riding ring and is ecologically sensitive area. 6. Section 17.46.070 Subsequent modifications The above section of the Zoning Code specifies in part as follows: A. After a site plan review application has been approved, modification of the approved plans and/or any conditions imposed, including additions or deletions, may be considered by the City Manager or the Planning Commission. The City Manager or his designee shall have the authority to review and act upon minor modifications, and the Planning Commission shall have the authority to review and act upon major modifications, as prescribed in the following paragraphs. The City Manager shall establish criteria for minor and major modifications. D. Major modifications shall be considered a new project. As such, a new application for site plan review shall be required, and the application shall be reviewed as provided for in this chapter. From time to time the Planning Commission adopts policies to guide staff in uncertain areas of the code. In 2012, the Planning Commission adopted a policy of what constitutes a minor and major modification of a discretionary review, which is attached. Substitution of square footage from one element of a structure to another could be considered minor modification, but new square footage is not. Staff suggested to the applicants that, per the policy, if they were to reduce the covered porch by 90 square feet then the addition of 90 square feet to the residence could be approved administratively. The applicants instead chose to apply for the modification to the Planning Commission. ZC No. 922 -Modification, 0 Poppy Trail 2 7. Development standards The project will not trigger major increases in the previously approved development standards. The Structural coverage (all structures) will be 7.86% (with allowable deductions); (7.8 %-previous approval) The Total coverage, (structures and hardscape will be) 19.8%; (19.6% -previous approval) Building Pad coverage -30.8%; (30.5% -previous approval) Grading and Disturbance: the addition will be placed on the previously disturbed and - created pad, therefore no increase in disturbance or grading will result, and will remain: disturbance of the lot at 78.95%; grading 2,726 c.y. w/ stable Height - the height of the residence will be at 18'4" at the highest ridge (17'6" -previous approval) Walls -same wall is proposed; an up to 5.75' high privacy wall enclosing the patio on the western side Future Stable - a 1,000 square foot set aside area for a stable and corral was previously Approved. 8. General The applicants representative states in part, that the modification is within the allowable requirements, does not trigger greater grading nor disturbance of the lot, as it is going to be located on the existing pad is minimal in size with the house being smaller than most adjoining properties or any new homes in the City. The addition is outside of all setbacks. 9. Rolling Hills Community Association Review Rolling Hills Community Association reviewed the as approved project and required a change in roof pitch and minor architectural features. 10. Planning Commission Responsibilities When reviewing a development application, the Planning Commission considers whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review as enumerated below. 11. Environmental Review The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 3, Section 15303. Development Comparable ZC NO. 922 NEARBY PROPERTIES (For information only) ADDRESS HOUSE SIZE IN SQ. FT. (BUILT/ADD OR REMODEL) LOT AREA (GROSS ACRES) 1 Poppy Trail Vacant Land 4.59 2 Poppy Trail 4,377 2.24 ZC No. 922 -Modification, 0 Poppy Trail 3 3 Poppy Trail 3,598* 5.13 25 Portuguese Bend Road 5,136 7.99 24 Portuguese Bend Road 8,661 4.48 100 Saddleback Road 5,951 3.91 0 Poppy Trail Proposed 4,949 4.08 NOTE: SOURCES: The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory structures. Assessors' records Project Summary * City records SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVED 8/2017 RA -S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS NEW RESIDENCE WITH Front: 50 ft. from front easement line ACCESSORY USES & STABLE Side: 35 ft. from property line SET ASIDE Rear: 50 ft. from rear easement line MODIFICATION 10/2017 NEW RESIDENCE WITH ACCESSORY USES & STABLE SET ASIDE STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required for grading, new structures including new residence and if size of addition increases by more than 999 sq.ft. in a 36 -month period). Residence Garages Pool and spa Pool Equipment Stable (set aside) Service yard Porches Outdoor kitchen Gatehouse Guesthouse Fountains 4,859 sq.ft. 1,232 sq.ft. 560 sq.ft. 64 sq. ft. 450 sq.ft 96 sq.ft 1,000 sq.ft. 220 sq.ft. 54 sq. ft. 688 sq. ft. 110 sq. ft. Residence Garages Pool and spa Pool Equipment Stable (set aside) Service yard Porches Outdoor kitchen Gatehouse Guesthouse Fountains 4,949 sq.ft. 1,232 sq.ft. 560 sq.ft. 64 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 1,000 sq.ft. 220 sq.ft. 54 sq.ft. 688 sq.ft. 110 sq. ft. TOTAL 9,333 sq.ft TOTAL 9,423 sq.ft STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) BUILDING PADS (30% guideline) Residence, pool, other miscl. structures 9,169 or 7.8% (with deductions) 9,259 or 7.86% (with deductions) 19.6% (with deductions) 19.8% (with deductions) STABLE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.; must be balanced on site. 30.5% residence pad coverage (with deductions) 45% stable pad coverage 2,726 cubic yards of overall grading. 30.8% residence pad coverage (with deductions 45% stable pad coverage 2,726 cubic yards of overall grading (w/stable) DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where 78.95% requires variance 78.95% requires variance ZC No. 922 -Modification, 0 Poppy Trail 4 SITE PLAN REVIEW impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS APPROVED 8/2017 Set aside only N/A Existing driveway approach already approved Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS MODIFICATION 10/2017 Set aside only N/A Existing driveway approach already approved Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. ZC No. 922 -Modification, 0 Poppy Trail 5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RESOLUTION NO. 2017-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2017-12 FOR A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN ZONING CASE NO. 922. THE MODIFICATION ENTAILS AN INCREASE BY 90 SQUARE FEET TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESIDENCE, AT 0 POPPY TRAIL, (LOT 90-BA-RH), (SERPA). THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Serpa to increase the size of the previously approved 4,859 square foot residence by 90 square feet for a total of 4,949 square foot residence and to raise the ridge line of the residence by no more than 10 inches. No other modifications from the previous approval are requested. In August 2017 an application was duly filed by the applicants, for which approval was granted to construct new 4,859 square foot residence and 1,232 square foot garage, 1,000 square feet covered porches, a 560 square foot swimming pool and spa, with additional amenities such as a 54 square feet gatehouse and 220 square foot outdoor covered kitchen; Conditional Use Permit for 688 square foot guesthouse and Variances to allow for partial construction of the outdoor amenities in the front yard area, for a privacy wall that exceeds 5' in height and to further exceed the previously approved exceedance of the disturbance of the lot. Grading of 2,726 cubic yards, which includes grading for a future stable and corral was also granted. Section 2. The Planning Commission considered this item at duly noticed public hearings on October 17, 2017 and at a field trip on October 17, 2017, at which time information was presented indicating the request for the modification. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants and their representatives were in attendance at the hearings. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project to modify Zoning Case No. 922 qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption, and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. Section 17.46.070 of the Zoning Ordinance provides procedures for the request of modification to approved projects. The City Manager or his/her designee shall determine if the modification is "major" or "minor". The City Manager or his/her Reso. 2017 -22 -Modification 1 0 Poppy Trail. designee may act on a minor modification. A major modification shall be considered a new project and requires a new application.. Staff deemed the modification a "major" modification, which requires Planning Commission review under the Site Plan Review process. Section 5. Section 17.46.050 of the Zoning Ordinance require the Planning Commission to make certain findings to lawfully grant a request for Site Plan Review. When the Planning Commission previously granted the Site Plan Review the required findings were set forth in Section 5 of Resolution No. 2017-12. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the findings contained in that prior resolution are applicable to and can be made again in their entirety as the findings for the project as modified and are accordingly incorporated herein by reference. Section 6. , Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning Commission does hereby amend Resolution No. 2017-12, dated August 15, 2017, as follows: A. Paragraph A of Section 8 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: A. The approval granted under Zoning Case No. 922, as amended herein, shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval of this modification if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080(A),17.42.070(A) and 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. B. Paragraph E of Section 8 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated October 11, 2017, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. All conditions of the Site Plan Review, Variances and Conditional Use Permit approvals shall be incorporated into the building permit working drawings, and where applicable complied with prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the building department. The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto building plans submitted to the Building. Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times. Any modifications and/or changes to the approved project, including resulting from field conditions, shall be discussed and approved by staff prior to implementing the changes. C. Paragraph G of Section 8 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: G. Structural net lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 9,259 square feet (with exclusions) or 7.86% and the total net lot coverage, including structures and flatwork, Reso. 2017 -22 -Modification 2 0 Poppy Trail. shall be 23,169 square feet (with exclusions) or 19.8 % in conformance with lot coverage limitations, and with the permitted allowances. D. Paragraph I of Section 8 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: I. The residential building pad exists at 26,615 square feet and shall not exceed structural coverage of 8,200 square feet or 30.8% with allowed. deductions. E. Condition AC is hereby added to Section 8 of Resolution No. 2017-12 to read as follows: AC. The height of the residence, at its highest ridge, may not exceed 18'4" from the finished grade to the finished surface of the roof. F. Condition AD is hereby added to Section 8 of Resolution No. 2017-12 to read as follows: AD. The silhouette (story poles) shall be taken down and removed from the property immediately upon completion of the review process of the project. The City or the Building Department staff may require that a construction fence be erected for the duration of the construction of this project. Such fence shall not be located in any easement or cross over trails or natural drainage course and shall be removed immediately upon substantial completion of the project, or as required by staff. Section 7. Except as herein amended, the provisions, findings and conditions of Resolution No. 2017-12 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21' ,DAY 0 1 MB x R, 2017. / LF, CHAIRM ATTEST: 1"11, HALL, INTERIM CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Reso. 2017 -22 -Modification 3 0 Poppy Trail. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 1 I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2017-22 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A MODIFICATION TO . PLANNING COMMISSION' RESOLUTION NO. 2017-12 FOR A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN ZONING CASE NO. 922. THE MODIFICATION ENTAILS AN INCREASE BY 90 SQUARE FEET TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESIDENCE, AT 0 POPPY TRAIL, (LOT 90-BA-RH), (SERPA). was approved and adopted at regular meeting of the Planning Commission on November 21, 2017 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Kirkpatrick, Seaburn and Chairman Chelf. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Cardenas and Cooley. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices INTERIM CITY CLERK Reso. 2017 -22 -Modification 4 0 Poppy Trail. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SHE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONS RUCi'10N OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH GARAGE, AND ACC'FSSORY AMENITIES; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT' A GUEST HOUSE AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE THAN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR THE LOT, FOR HIGHER THAN 5' PRIVACY WALL AND TO LOCATE PORTION OF THE POOL AND COVERED PATIO IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE PROPERTY IN ZONL\IG CASE NO. 922 AT 0 POPPY TRAIL, (LOT 90 -BA RH), (SERPA). A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT WAS ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 5, 2010 AND AMENDED ON FEBRUARY 11, 2011. AN ADDENDUM TO THE MND REFLECTING THE C'URENTLY PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REQUIREMENTS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Serpa for construction of a new 4,859 square foot residence and 1,232 square foot garage, 1,000 square feet covered porches, a 560 square foot swimming pool and spa, with additional amenities such as a 54 square feet gatehouse and 220 square foot outdoor covered kitchen; Conditional Use Permit for 688 square foot guesthouse and Variances to allow for partial construction of the outdoor amenities in the front yard area, for a privacy wall that exceeds 5' in height and to exceed the previously approved disturbance of the lot. Grading of 2,726 cubic yards, which includes grading for a future stable and corral is also proposed. Section 2. On March 5 of 2005, a landslide occurred on property located at 1 Poppy Trail Road and terminated just below the roadway easement for Poppy Trail Road. The landslide buried a portion of Poppy Trail Road, which was the sole means of ingress and egress for nine residential lots. The dirt movement affected two adjacent lots. During the remediation process through several lot line adjustments between the affected parcels, two lots were created 0 Poppy Trail and 1 Poppy Trail. Currently both lots are vacant; however 0 Poppy Trail is ready for development and is subject of his Resolution. Following the landslide, the City of Rolling Hills and the Rolling Hills Community Association undertook various improvements and, between April and October of 2010, detailed project plans were developed for remediation of the failed slope. In connection with the Landslide Remediation Project, the property owner Rego. 2017-12 1 0 Poppy Trail. prepared an Initial Study and determined that, with the implernentation of mitigation measures, no negative effect on the environment would result. Therefore, an MND was prepared and on October 4, 2010, the City Council approved and adopted the MND. A first amendment to the MND was adopted by the Planning Commission on February 15, 2011 and reported to the City Council. In 2010 several discretionary approvals were granted in for the landslide remediation project, including a variance to disturb 65% of the net lot area of what is now 0 Poppy Trail Road. Pursuant to an updated survey of 0 Poppy Trail Road, the existing disturbance is actually 78.95%. There is no additional disturbance planned for the proposed project at 0 Poppy Trail Road; any slight grading that will be conducted in connection with the proposed project at 0 Poppy Trail Road consists of smoothing and evening out the existing building pad. In order to approve the overage of the disturbance of the lot, an addendum to the MND and its addendum has been prepared. The overall purpose of this Second Addendum is to modify the minor technical discrepancy between the approved disturbance percentage (65%) and the actual disturbance percentage (78.95%) for 0 Poppy Trail. This change is clerical and therefore it will not cause new significant impacts not identified in the previously certified MND or result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts related to the Landslide Remediation Project. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at their regular meeting on June 20, 2017, July 18, 2017 and at a field trip on July 18, 2017. Neighbors within 1,000 -foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on July 6, 2017. The applicants and their agents were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and the applicants and agents were in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants' representatives were in attendance at the public hearings. One neighbor inquired about drainage on the property. Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 4.08 acres. For development purposes the net lot area of the lot is 117,800 square feet or 2.7 acres. The lot contains a building pad, previously created as well as a driveway to the building pad. A portion of Poppy Trail roadway easement traverses the lot, as well as an easement for a driveway leading to the lot to the southeast of 0 Poppy Trail, (1 Poppy Trail). A small portion of Georgeff Trail is also located on the lot. The area across Poppy Trail (to the north-east of the road) has been designated as an easement to the RHCA. That portion of the lot includes access to the Hesse's Gap riding ring and has also been designated as ecologically sensitive area. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the development project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (new construction of single family residence and accessory structures), and Section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption) of the CEQA guidelines. Reso. 2017-12 0 Poppy Trail. 2 Section 5. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any new building or structure may be constructed. The new development requires a Site Plan Review. With respect to the Site Plan for the development the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures and maintaining sufficient setbacks to provide buffers between residential uses. The net lot area of the lot is over 2 acres and the lot is adjacent to other large lots along Poppy Trail. A building pad has been created as a result of grading for slope remediation and the applicants will utilize that pad for the construction. An area for a future stable and corral was also previously approved for this lot to be located in the front yard of the lot. None of the proposed structures are in setbacks. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. The topography and the configuration of the lot have been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures, because the proposed project will be constructed in its entirety on the existing building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will allow the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. The proposed project is located on an already developed building pad leaving the steeper and more densely vegetated areas in their existing state and the drainage course will not be affected. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in the vicinity of said lot. The development plan takes into consideration the views from Portuguese Bend Road and the development will be moved back from the Road, so that views from the road will not be blocked. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The project will be screened from the road and all neighbors, and the project in general will retain the existing slopes and vegetation and not affect the lower portion, that was designated as Ecologically Significant Area. D. The development plan will introduce additional landscaping, which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and the landscaping will provide a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the new 15' Reso. 2017-12 0 Poppy TraiL 3 driveway, approved by the Fire Department, will be safe to drive on as two cars can safely pass one another. There is ample parking in the garages and in the turn around area at the front of the house, outside of all setbacks, so all visitors parking will be contained on site. F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303. Section 6. Section 17.16.210 (A)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a guesthouse, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed guesthouse structure complies with the provisions of this section. With respect to this request for Conditional Use Permits, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. Conditionally permitted uses are not outright permitted by the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. The Commission must consider applications for a Conditional Use Permit and may, with such conditions as are deemed necessary, approve a conditional use which will not jeopardize, adversely affect, endanger or to otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare or be materially detrimental to the property of other persons located in the vicinity of such use. B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the guest house would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community, and meets all the applicable code development standards for such use and it is located in an area on the property that is adequately sized to accommodate such use, and on an existing building pad. The proposed use is appropriately located in that it will be sufficiently separated from nearby structures. The proposed guesthouse is a common amenity to Rolling Hills. C. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent structures have been considered, and the project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed use (guest house) is located of sufficient distance from nearby residences so as to not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. As part of the approval, a condition is imposed that the guesthouse not be rented and not be located within 50 -feet of a driveway or a parking pad. D. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the proposed use complies with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and will not give the property an over -built look. Sufficient areas of the lot will remain open and unobstructed. The lot is over 2 acres net in size, but over 4 acres gross in size, and is sufficiently large to accommodate the proposed use. Reso. 2017-12 0 Poppy Trail. 4 E. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district and requires Conditional Use Permits pursuant to Section 17.16.210(A)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance. F. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. Variances from Section 17.16.070(B), Section 17.12.250 "Y" and Section 17.16.190(F) is required because it states that the lot disturbance shall be limited to 40% of the net lot area; that there shall be no structures within the front yard of a property and that the maximum permitted height of walls shall not exceed 5'. The applicant is requesting Variances because total disturbance will be 78.95% of the net lot area; a portion of the outdoor amenities will be located in the front yard of the lot and an up to 6' high privacy wall is proposed along a patio of the residence. The approval of the variance for lot disturbance variance of With respect to this request for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same zone because, unlike most other properties in this zone, there was a landslide on the property, which was remediated but required greater than 40% of the lot to be disturbed, and 65% disturbance was approved prior to remediation. This calculation did not take into consideration the graded areas of the lot, which were not affected by the landslide and were therefore not remediated or the area of the lot necessary to grade for a future stable and corral, which was also not affected by the landslide. Pursuant to an updated survey of 0 Poppy Trail Road, the existing disturbance is actually 78.95%. There is no additional disturbance planned for the proposed project at 0 Poppy Trail Road; any slight grading that will be conducted in connection with the proposed project consists of smoothing and evening out the existing building pad. All of the areas of the lot where grading or remediation took place were reviewed by geotechnical, soils and civil engineer consultants prior to any grading being implemented, and is substantiated in the geotechnical reports that are on file at City Hall. The 65% reported in the original project application for the landslide remediation was a numerical error. During remediation of the lot, a building pad was developed towards the rear of the property, on which the proposed construction will take pace. The minor amenities, a portion of which would be located in front of the leading edge of the residence are appropriately spaced and located on the lot. Due to the limited size of the building pad area, which may not be enlarged, those amenities are located in the most logical space Reso. 201712 5 0 Poppy Trail. on the pad. The privacy wall will not exceed 6' in height, (whereas 5' high maximum wall would be allowed without a Variance) and is 6' for a short distance to encompass a small patio adjacent to the master bathroom. With a residence located on an adjacent lot above the subject building pad for the new residence, it is feasible that without the 6' privacy wall, the master bathroom would be visible from the lot above. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which would be denied to the property in question. The landslide has resulted in the need to reutediate and stabilize the lot, which caused greater than allowed disturbance of the lot. The property owner is not proposing to grade additional area of the lot, except that slight grading will be required if in the future a stable and corral were to be proposed. The dirt movement for the currently proposed development entails smoothing out the existing, previously graded pad to level it off and get it ready for construction. The proposed amenities and wall are a very minor element of the project and are appropriately located. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The proposed development proposes to utilize the previously approved grading for slope stability, which augmented and corrected a landslide condition. The proposed development will not affect the previously approved grading and disturbance for slope stability drainage, and buttressing of the slopes. The proposed amenities and wall will not be detrimental, as they are a very small portion of the development and located on an existing building pad, where no other grading or disturbance will be undertaken. D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code will be observed, and the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant because the remediation of landslides improved the safety and beauty of the land; but exceeded the maximum permitted disturbance. The additional disturbance is a minor technical discrepancy between the approved disturbance percentage (65%) and the actual disturbance percentage (78.95%). This change is clerical and therefore it does not cause new significant impacts or grant special privilege to the applicant. The additional previously non -reported disturbance does not affect the area of previous remediation and stability of the remediated slopes. The outdoor amenities and the privacy wall are common amenities enjoyed by many properties in the City. F. The variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because there are no hazardous waste facilities at issue in this case. G. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan.. The proposed project, together with the variances, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Zoning Case No. 922 request for a Site Plan Review for minor grading (2,726 cubic yards, which includes grading of the set aside area for a future stable and corral) and construction of a new 4,859 square foot residence and 1,232 square foot Reso. 201712 6 0 Poppy Trail. garage, covered porches, a 560 square foot swimming pool and spa, with additional amenities such as a gatehouse and outdoor covered kitchen; a Conditional Use Permit for 688 square foot guest house and Variances to allow for partial construction in the front yard area, for a privacy wall that exceeds 5' in height and to exceed the previously approved disturbance of the lot and a second Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, to replace the previous variance for lot disturbance of 65% to a variance of 78.95% lot disturbance. A. The Site Plan, Variances, and Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080, 17.42.070 and 17.38.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. B. If any condition of this resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by this resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the violation The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee's determination that a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for which the agenda has not yet been posted; the Applicant shall be provided writteaa notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, the Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on the property until and unless the violation is cured by the deadline, other than work designated by the Council to accomplish the cure. If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at the Applicant's request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by this Resolution pursuant to Chapter 17.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to Building and Safety Department for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to City staff- for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the City Council. Reso. 2017-12 0 Poppy TraiL 7 E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated June 14, 2017 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. All conditions of the Site Plan Review, Variances and Conditional Use Permit approvals shall be incorporated into the building permit working drawings, and where applicable complied with prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the building department. The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto building plans submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times. Any modifications and/or changes to the approved project, including resulting from field conditions, shall be discussed and approved by staff prior to implementing the changes. F. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. G. Structural net lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 9,169 square feet (with exclusions) or 7.8% and the total net lot coverage, including structures and flatwork, shall be 23,079 square feet (with exclusions) or 19.6% in conformance with lot coverage limitations, and with the permitted allowances. H. The disturbed area of the lot, including the set aside area for the stable and corral and including the previously remediated and stabilized area of the lot shall not exceed 78.9%. Grading for this project shall be 2,166 cubic yards, total, to even out and compact the existing building pad, and is to be balanced on site. Grading for the future stable and corral, if developed, will entail 560 cubic yards of dirt. L The residential building pad exists at 26,615 square feet and shall not exceed structural coverage of 8,110 square feet or 30.5% with allowed deductions. J. A driveway and a.turn around shall be provided per the Fire Department requirements; the apron of the driveway shall be roughened and the first 20 feet of the driveway shall not exceed 7% in slope. K. A minimum of five-foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of all of the proposed structures, or as otherwise required by the Fire Department Reso. 2017--12 0 Poppy Trail. 8 L. The guesthouse shall not exceed 688 square feet. All provisions of Section 17.16.210(A)(5)(c) of the zoning ordinance, including but not be limited shall be complied with; such as: only one sanitary facility consisting of a shower, sink, and a toilet and a kitchenette is permitted in the guesthouse; there shall be no parking area within 50 -feet of the guesthouse; no renting of the guest house is permitted. M. The property on which the project is located shall contain a set aside area to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with adequate access. The stable and corral set aside area may not be graded, unless an application is filed with the City for construction of a stable. However, that area may be used for construction staging during the site development, Upon completion of the construction, all construction materials and equipment, debris and other material shall be rernoved from the site . and the set aside area restored to its pre -staging condition. The applicant shall provide before and after pictures of the area planned for staging. N. The conditions of approval enumerated in Resolution No. 2010-21, (Site Plan and Variances for rernediation and stabilization of the lot), where applicable, shall be complied with and shall include but not be limited to the following: a. - The MSE (Mechanically Stabilized Earth) walls shall be landscaped and maintained in good condition at all times. b. The previously remediated slopes shall be maintained with suitable deep- rooted ground cover and be in substantial compliance with the landscaping plans approved for the land stabilization and remediation in Zoning Case No. 791. c. The area of the lot, located across Poppy Trail, (westerly thereof) has been designated as Ecologically Sensitive Area and no construction, parking, staging, storage or any other activity shall take place in this area. O. If trees or shrubs are planted, their growth shall not obstruct views of neighboring properties but are to be planted to screen the home and accessory structures, and shall be maintained at a height of the ridgeline of the structure it is intended to screen. If planted, trees and shrubs shall not result in a hedge like screen. The landscaping shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area, are water -wise and are consistent with the rural character of the community. The landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, (Chapter 13.18 of the RHMC), for landscaping of 5,000 sq.ft. or more in area. . P. The pool and pool equipment area shall be screened with landscaping. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound from the pool equipment area and the pool pump. The project shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. Per LA County Building Code, pool barrier/fencing shall be required. Reso. 2017-12 0 Poppy Trail 9 If required by the Building Official a safety pool barrier shall be constructed. Q. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Lighting Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills (RHMC 17.16.190 E), pertaining to lighting on said property; roofing requirements and material requirements for properties in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. A copy of the Fire Department approved Fuel Modification plan and certification shall be deposited with the City. R. All utility lines to all structures on the lot shall be placed underground, subject to all applicable standards and requirements. S. Hydrology, soils, geology and other reports, as required by the Building and Public Works Departments, and as may be required by the Building Official, shall be prepared. T. Perimeter easements, including roadway easements and trail easement, shall remain free and dear of any improvements including, but not be limited to fences - including construction fences, any hardscape, driveways, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, except as otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. U. Minimum of 65% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City's Construction and Demolition permits for waste hauling prior to start of work and provide proper documentation to the City. V. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehide trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors shall be required. W. During construction, to the extent feasible, all parking shall take place on the project site, but if necessary, any overflow parking may take place within the unimproved roadway easements along adjacent streets, and shall not obstruct neighboring driveways, visibility at intersections or pedestrian and equestrian passage. During construction, to the maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City. To the extent feasible, a minimum of 4' wide path, from the edge of the roadway pavement, for pedestrian and equestrian passage shall be available and be clear of vehicles, construction materials and equipment at all times. A flagmen shall be used to direct traffic when necessary, including during delivery Of large construction equipment or materials. X. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical Reso. 2017-12 0 Poppy Trail. 10 equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. Y. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/I ox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard_definitions #FIRE. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire distinguisher. Z. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) requirements related to solid waste, drainage, cisterns, and storm water drainage facilities management and to the City's Low Impact development Ordinance (LID), if applicable. Further the property owners shall be required to conform to the County Health Department requirements for a septic systeni. AA. Prior to finaling of the project an "as graded" and "as constructed" plans and certifications, including certifications of ridgelines of the structures, shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed project is in compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during construction, shall be depicted on the "as built/as graded" plan. AB. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this permit pursuant to .Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. The affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution. PASSED OPTED THIS 15th DAY OF AUGUST 2017. , CHAIRMAN ATTEST: INTERIM CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Reso. 2017-12 0 Poppy Trail. 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No..2017-12 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING; APPROVAL FOR A Sri .E PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUC DON OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH GARAGE, AND ACCESSORY AMENITIES; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE THAN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR THE LOT, FOR HIGHER THAN 5' PRIVACY WALL AND TO LOCATE PORTION OF THE POOL AND COVERED PATIO IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE PROPERTY IN ZONING CASE NO. 922 AT 0 POPPY TRAIL, (LOT 90 -BA RH), (SERPA). A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (NLND) FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT WAS ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 5, 2010 AND AMENDED ON FEBRUARY 11, 2011. AN ADDENDUM TO THE MND REFLECTING THE CURENTLY PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) R EQUIREMEN'I'S. was approved and adopted at regular meeting of the Planning Commission on August 15, 2017 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Cooley and Chair Chelf. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Kirkpatrick and Seaburn. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices a'4 '1'15 HALL, INTERIM CITY CLER K INTERIM CLERK Reso. 2017-12 0 Poppy Trail. 12 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 POLICY CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING MINOR AND MAJOR MODIFICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS It is the intent of every approval that the project be developed in substantial compliance with the plans submitted and approved by the Planning Commission or City Council, on appeal. The City recognizes that modifications and adjustments to projects are sometimes necessary due to field conditions or other aspects of the development. With this in mind the City adopted provisions in Sections 17.38.065, 17.42.065 and 17.46.070 of the Zoning Ordinance which state that after a Variance, Conditional Use Permit or a Site Plan Review application has been approved, the City Manager or the Planning Commission - while construction is taking place - may consider modifications) to the approved plans and/or to any conditions imposed, when requested by the applicant. The City Manager or his designee has the authority to review and act upon minor modifications, and the Planning Commission has the authority to review and act upon major modifications. Minor modifications when approved by the City Manager, or his designee, are considered an administrative action and do not require a public hearing. Major modifications are recognized as a new project and are subject to a public hearing. Any proposed modification that triggers discretionary review is considered "major" modification. Pursuant to the above provisions of approval of discretionary permits, staff is required to establish criteria for minor and major modifications. The following is a list of projects that are intended to serve as an illustrative guideline to determine if a project modification is to be deemed "minor" or "major". The list is not all-inclusive. Other and/or similar requests for modifications may not always be based on the examples listed therein. Prior to rendering a decision as to whether the proposed project could be considered "minor" or "major," City staff evaluates the Planning Commissions or City Council's conditions of approval imposed at the time the project was initially approved, records and minutes of the public hearings and the property's prior history. Staff may also require that the applicant notify neighbors and inform them of the proposed project amendment. Policy- approved by the Planning Commission 3/20/2012 EXAMPLES OF MINOR AND MAJOR MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECTS MINOR MODIFICATION MAJOR MODIFICATION Cut or fill of no more than 3 feet Cut or fill of more than 3 feet Enlarge the building pad or limit of grading by no more than 2,000 sq.ft. when the total disturbance does not exceed the max. permitted of 40%. Enlarge the building pad or limit of grading by more than 2,000 sq.ft. Move a pool or pool equipment area to other location (not triggering discretionary review) Reconfigure a pool/spa where the total water surface area does not exceed 100 s.f. and which does not trigger SPR Increase of pool size by more than 100 sq.ft. than originally approved Reduce the size of structure; or enlarge structure where trade off is proposed for reducing a structure elsewhere Larger than approved structure, where no trade off is proposed Add or move garden walls or planter walls; extend a wall, (3' high or less) Additional walls, more than 3' high * Raise the building pad, driveway or height of structures by no more than 12 inches Raise the building pad, driveway or height of structures by more than 12 inches Import or export of dirt, 500 c.y. or less, when meet City requirements (Sections 15.04.150 & 15.04.170) Import or export of dirt over 500 c.y. Minor shift of the structure, i.e. move the house or other structures no more than 5 feet in one direction or another; pivot a tennis court by few degrees Additional square footage to a previously approved house/garage (additions to approved rec.rm., guest hs. and similar requires a CUP) Change in slope configuration (from more steep to less steep), where the limit of grading is no greater than 2,000 sq.ft. from the approved limit of grading Change in slope configuration (from less steep to more steep) Add an outdoor kitchen, barbeque, fire place, trellis Modification requiring a second driveway Change out of square footage of structures, where the total structural coverage does not change, (i.e. decrease size of house for additional trellis or for a larger garage; remove attached trellis/porch to construct a detached trellis) Projects, which are determined by the City Manager/Planning Director to be similar to and likely to have similar or greater impacts than those projects enumerated above. Temporary access way for construction materials delivery (may require Bldg. & Safety review) Page 2 of 3 EXAMPLES OF MINOR AND MATOR MODIFICATIONS TO PROTECTS MINOR MODIFICATION MAJOR MODIFICATION Add a basement (w/o grading) Modification to driveway or approach (Traffic Commission approval is required for new or enlarged driveway approach) Deeper than anticipated excavation for caissons or to locate bedrock, where no additional surface area is graded; or if graded for access or work area, then it must be restored to pre -disturbed condition Projects, which are determined by the City Manager/Planning Director to be similar to and likely to have no greater impacts than those projects enumerated above. Staff's decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 17.55 of the Zoning Ordinance. * Every effort is made to allow the least variation in height from approved plans, except in extenuating circumstances where a larger increase has no significant impact, up to 12 inches may be approved. Page 3 of 3 a1 TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJECT: 84 a/Rdfirif qee4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 6-A Mtg. Date: 11/27/17 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER RESOLUTION NO. 1217. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING A PROCESS BY WHICH THE CITY WILL REIMBURSE THE PARTIES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000) FOR AN ARBITRATOR'S FEE INCURRED IN ARBITRATING A VIEW IMPAIRMENT COMPLAINT UNDER CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution or provide other direction to staff. DISCUSSION On October 23, 2107 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 354 amending Chapter 17.26 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code regarding view preservation and the process by which one may go about to restore their view(s). The language of the ordinance includes a provision for the City to take an advisory role in view preservation cases. In addition, in order to encourage private resolution of view disputes the ordinance stipulates that if the parties to a view impairment complaint pursue resolution by voluntarily entering into binding arbitration, then the City will reimburse the arbitrator's fee in the amount established by resolution of the City Council. During the public hearings, members of the City Council discussed a total of $5,000 reimbursement amount to the parties and only if they avail themselves of this option at a point in the proceedings before either party appeals the Committee on Trees and Views recommendations to the City Council. -1- Enclosed is Resolution No. 1217 establishing the reimbursement amount and the step in the process that it would be applicable to. The Resolution also stipulates that the City will reimburse the parties at the conclusion of arbitration following the parties' submittal to the City of an invoice and an executed agreement binding both parties to the arbitration award. CONCLUSION The City Council is requested to consider Resolution No. 1217 to establish a reimbursement process, in view obstruction cases, when the parties utilize binding arbitration to resolve their differences. Following adoption of the Resolution, the reimbursement provision will become effective immediately. -2- RESOLUTION NO. 1217 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING A PROCESS BY WHICH THE CITY WILL REIMBURSE THE PARTIES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000) FOR AN ARBITRATOR'S FEE INCURRED IN ARBITRATING A VIEW IMPAIRMENT COMPLAINT UNDER CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does find, order and resolve as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to Section 17.26.040 of Chapter 17.26 of Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, and in order to encourage private resolution of view disputes as an alternative to the expenditure of public resources associated with processing a view complaint, if the parties to a view impairment complaint pursue resolution by voluntarily entering into binding arbitration at any time prior to submitting an appeal to the City Council of the Committee on Trees and Views recommendations, the City will reimburse the arbitrator's fee in an amount, a total of, which shall not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000). Section 2. The City will reimburse the parties at the conclusion of arbitration following the parties' submittal to the City of an invoice and an executed agreement binding both parties to the arbitration award. Any amount in excess of $5,000 owed by either party towards the arbitrator's fee shall be the sole responsibility of the parties, as are the parties' respective attorney's fees and other costs. Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 354. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2017. JAMES BLACK, M.D. MAYOR ATTEST: YVETTE HALL INTERIM CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )§§ ). I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1217 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING A PROCESS BY WHICH THE CITY WILL REIMBURSE THE PARTIES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000) FOR AN ARBITRATOR'S FEE INCURRED IN ARBITRATING A VIEW IMPAIRMENT COMPLAINT UNDER CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on , 2017 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. YVETTE HALL INTERIM CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1217 2 8est Ral&if qice4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 6-B Mtg. Date: 11/27/17 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THROUGH: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER 1'/0 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 1218 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLLING HILLS MODIFYING ROLLING HILLS FEES BY ELIMINATING CERTAIN FEES RELATED TO VIEW OBSTRUCTION FILING CASES AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 1206. DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2017 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council consider eliminating the mediation fee from the City of Rolling Hills Fee Schedule as described herein and adopt theattached Resolution No. 1218. The FY 2017/2018 Consolidated Tax and Fee Schedule will be updated accordingly. DISCUSSION On October 23, 2017 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 354 amending Chapter 17.26 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code regarding view preservation and the process by which one may go about to restore view(s). The language of the ordinance includes a provision that if the initial reconciliation does not yield a resolution of the complaint, and the complainant wishes to further utilize the process prescribed in the ordinance, then the complainant could request that the vegetation owner enter into mediation. If the parties cannot agree on a mediator, they may jointly request that the City select a mediator. However, the City would not enter into an agreement with the mediator nor have any involvement in compensating him/her. Under the recently repealed View Preservation Ordinance staff selected the mediator, entered into an agreement with the mediator and reimbursed the mediator from the Page 1 of 2 funds collected by the City from the complaining party in an amount of $1,000. The City paid for any additional costs incurred by the mediator in excess of $1,000. Under the current ordinance the City in not a part of the mediator agreement, it is therefore not necessary to collect a fee from the complaining party. Section 2 A of the attached Resolution is therefore amended, eliminating that fee. CONCLUSION The City Council is requested to consider Resolution No. 1218 to eliminate the mediation fee related to view obstruction cases. Following adoption of the Resolution, the new schedule will become effective immediately. Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 1218 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING AND MODIFYING ROLLING HILLS FEES BY AMENDING FEES FOR VIEW IMPAIRMENT APPLICATION PROCESSING AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 1206. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The following fees are established and charged for applications for processing discretionary cases for Planning, Zoning and Subdivisions and shall be paid by the applicant prior to submission for public hearing, pursuant to Title 16 (Subdivision) and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code: A. Site Plan Review $ 1,500 B. Conditional Use Permit $ 1,500 C. Variance $ 1,250 D. Variance, Minor $ 750 1. Minor deviation into required yard setback, not exceeding 5' and attached to main residential structure E. Multiple discretionary reviews; Most expensive fee for the first review and 1/2 fee for second review. No cost for third or more reviews. F. Lighting Ordinance Modification $ 375 G. Outdoor Lighting Audit $ 150 (initiated by resident) H. Time extension $ 200 I. Zone Change $ 2,000 J. General Plan Amendment $ 2,000 K. Zoning/Subdivision Code Amendment $ 2,000 L Discretionary Approval Modification $ 2/3 of original application fee M. Appeal Fee $ 2/3 of original application fee N. City Council and Planning $ 375 Fee to be credited if Commission interpretation results in filing of a formal Resolution No. 1218 1 and miscellaneous reviews 0. Environmental Review fees for discretionary permits 1. Preparation and Staff Review of Initial Study 2. Preparation of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration P. Environmental Impact Reports Q. County Clerk Processing Fee R. Lot Line Adjustment S. Tentative Parcel/Tract Map T. Final Parcel/Tract Map U. Zoning violation and construction penalty fee application to City Council or Planning Commission $ 200 $ 50 (plus fee charged by CA Department of Fish and Wildlife, applicable, as adjusted annually) Consultant fee plus 10% County fee $ 1,500, plus County fee $ $1,500, plus County fee County fee $ 1,500 1. Applications for illegal or "as built" grading or construction or non- compliance with approved plans for projects that require Planning Commission review. Fee is charged in addition to the discretionary application review fee. V. Stop work order $ 200 1. Fee charged for each additional "stop work order" that is issued beyond the original stop work order for illegal construction and grading activity . W. Service Request County fee plus 20% (For services provided by L.A. County not included in the General Services Agreement) X. Y. Z. Appeal of Zone Clearance $ 375 Stable Use Permit $ 375 (For stables under 800 sq ft considered by the Planning Commission) Major Remodel Review $375 (For remodels of more than 50% demolition) Resolution No. 1218 2 Section 2. The following fees are established and charged for applications for processing View Impairment and Traffic Commission cases: A. View Impairment 1. Review by Committee on Trees and Views Processing fee 2. Environmental Review Fees A. Preparation and Staff Review of Initial Study B. Preparation of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration B. Traffic Commission Review 1. New driveways or other traffic related items $2,000 $200 $50 (plus fee charged by CA Department of Fish and Wildlife, if applicable, as adjusted annually $ 300 Section 3. The following fees are established and charged for General Administration processing: A. General Plan B. Zoning Code C. Subdivision Code D. Budget E. Zoning Map F. Xeroxed copies, each page G. False Alarms $ 30 $ 25 $ 25 $ 30 $3 $ 0.25 Fee for 1St incident involving a false alarm is waived 2nd $ 50 3rd $ 100 4th $150 5th $ 200 6th $ 250 Resolution No. 1218 3 Section 4. The following fees are established and shall be collected for each permit pursuant to Title 15, (Building and Construction) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code: A. 1. BUILDING PERMIT Two and one-half times the amount set forth in the Building Code for each fee, table and schedule therein. 2. PARKS AND RECREATION Each new residential dwelling shall pay 2% of the first $100,000 of construction valuation, plus 0.25% of such valuation over $ 100,000. B. PLUMBING PERMIT C. MECHANICAL PERMIT D. ELECTRICAL PERMIT E. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, SI'T'E AND PLAN REVIEW Two and one-half times the amount set forth in the Plumbing Code for each fee, table and schedule therein. Two and one-half times the amount set forth in the Mechanical Code for each fee, table and schedule therein. Two and one-half times the amount set forth in the Electrical Code for each fee, table and schedule therein. 0.42% of the valuation of the proposed structures; however, minimum fee shall be $535.00 and the maximum fee shall be $3,588.00 F. SOLAR AND PHOTOVOLTAIC The amount set forth in the Los SYSTEMS AND APPURTENANT Angeles County Building and EQUIPMENT Electrical Codes for each fee, table and schedule therein, plus $60.11 City administrative fee. Section 5. The following fees are established and shall be collected for each permit pursuant to Title 15, (Building and Construction) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code for review conducted by the City's contract building official, other than Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety: A. BUILDING PERMIT Resolution No. 1218 4 In addition to the provisions of Section 4 A.1 of this resolution, a 25% surcharge on Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety fees shall be B. PLUMBING PERMIT C. MECHANICAL PERMIT D. ELECTRICAL PERMIT E. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, SITE AND PLAN REVIEW charged for the alternative use of the City's contract building official. In addition to the provisions of Section 4 B. of this resolution, a 25% surcharge on Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety fees shall be charged for the alternative use of the City's contract building official. In addition to the provisions of Section 4 C of this resolution, a 25% surcharge on Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety fees shall be charged for the alternative use of the City's contract building official. In addition to the provisions of Section 4 D of this resolution, a 25% surcharge on Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety fees shall be charged for the alternative use of the City's contract building official. In addition to the provisions of Section 4 E of this resolution, a 25% surcharge on Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety fess shall be charged for the alternative use of the City's contract building official. F. SOLAR AND PHOTOVOLTAIC In addition to the provision of Section SYSTEMS AND APPURTENANT 4F of this resolution, a 25% surcharge EQUIPMENT on Los Angles County Department of Building and Safety fees, plus $60.11 City administrative fee, shall be charged for the alternative use of the City's contract building official. Section 6. The following fees are established and shall be collected for each permit relating to construction and demolition waste: Resolution No. 1218 5 A. CONSTRUCTION AND $ 25 single project permit DEMOLITION PERMIT Section 7. The following fines are established for issuance of administrative citations relating to a violation of Chapter 9.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code: Administrative Penalty for $2,500 1st violation violation of Chapter 9.58 $5,000 2nd violation within one year of the 1st violation $7,500 Each additional violation within one year of the 1st violation Section 8. The fees set forth do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing such services. Section 9. The City Council Resolution No. 1206 is hereby rescinded. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 2017. James Black, M.D. Mayor ATTEST: Yvette Hall Interim City Clerk Resolution No. 1218 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1218_ entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING AND MODIFYING ROLLING HILLS FEES BY AMENDING PEES FOR VIEW IMPAIRMENT APPLICATION PROCESSING AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 1206. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on , 2017 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. YVETTE HALL INTERIM CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1218 7 484 ai Reeatf get4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 7-A Mtg. Date: 11/27/17 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER fil44" JULIA STEWART, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY (LACCE) PROGRAM TO PROVIDE RESIDENTS FUTURE ENERGY OPTIONS DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2017 ATTACHMENTS: Draft JPA Agreement with LACCE Draft Enabling Ordinance LACCE Business Plan Summary Comparison Chart —Culver City Edison Presentation on CCAs OPTIONS The City Council at this time can take one of the following actions concerning joining the Los Angeles Community Choice Energy (LACCE) program: A. Adopt the enclosed LACCE Joint Powers Agreement and the first reading of the Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) enabling ordinance that allows the City of Rolling Hills to join LACCE before the December 27, 2017 deadline that allows the City to be an "Initial Participant" in the Joint Powers Authority. B. Wait to become a member of LACCE to a later date. C. Not join the LACCE. -1- BACKGROUND In an attempt to explore future energy options for the City of Rolling Hills while lowering power rates for residents, the City Manager and staff have researched Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs) or rather, an authority that delivers power to a municipality by allowing for greater decision making privileges regarding rates and mix of energy sources. At the August 14, 2017 City Council meeting staff presented an overview of the definition of a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) and various CCA types. As a result, the City Council directed staff to coordinate a presentation by a County representative of the Los Angeles Community Choice Energy (LACCE) program. At the August 28, 2017 meeting, the City Council did hear a presentation from a representative from the LACCE program. After the presentation, the City Council had several questions about the LACCE business plan, its organizational structure, potential liability to the City, and rate savings history for other CCA programs in the state. Although the City Council did not display a great comfort level with the program, they did ask the LACCE official that spoke to provide them more information before they could make a decision about joining. The LACCE official provided as much of that information from which he had access though it did not include every requested item. Additionally, staff has communicated with other cities in and around the South Bay and has attached additional information to consider (pleased see LACCE Updated Business Plan and Summary Comparison by Culver City), and is therefore putting this item on the agenda because the deadline for joining the LACCE as an "Initial Participate" is December 27, 2017 and the City Council does not have another meeting until the end of the year. Therefore, if it wants to become an "Initial Member," that decision will need to be made at the November 27, 2017 City Council meeting —unless it wants to have a special meeting in December before the deadline to discuss the topic further. DISCUSSION If Rolling Hills has an interest in joining a CCA, the LACCE program is the only viable option for the City of Rolling Hills because of the small size of City staff. The LACCE promotes that it has the ability to lower energy rates for residents and provides fair representation on its board if a city joins before December 27, 2017. For details of this plan, please read the attached business plan. As presented previously, under the LACCE program, residents are given energy options so that if they feel strongly about wanting to use more (or less) of certain types of renewable energy they have the ability to choose. And if residents do not want to change they can opt to go back to their current provider Southern California Edison (SCE). The responsibility for opting out of the energy plan selected by the City would lie with the ratepayer but, ultimately, the choice would be completely in the hands of each individual resident. -2- Since the City of Rolling Hills already has low emissions of greenhouse gases and does not need to direct jobs to inhabitants of the city, lowering energy rates becomes a larger priority. Therefore, the LACCE option offers the ability to lower rates with a reasonable commitment of staff participation in the program. So far the cities of Rolling Hills Estates, West Hollywood, Calabasas, Alhambra, Sierra Madre, Downey, Claremont and South Pasadena have joined the JPA. Cities actively considering joining the LACCE JPA include Culver City, Agoura Hills, Manhattan Beach, Carson, Beverly Hills, Paramount and West Covina. Elements of the LACCE Program The energy program being offered through the County JPA includes the following elements: • Developing an electric supply portfolio that includes greenhouse gas intensities lower than the emissions produced currently by SCE. • Providing electricity rates that are lower, or at worst, competitive with those offered by SCE. • Forming a joint power authority with decision -making authority and ability to conduct business to deliver power. o Including putting a representative from initially participating cities on the Board of Directors. o Not charging any fees to "Initial Participants" (cities) to join the JPA (until December 27, 2017). • Protecting individual cities from any liability, including financial liability for debt. • Giving representatives on the Board of Directors one vote each (not multiple votes for only one entity). • Not charging cities for participation in the program. The City Manager recently watched a presentation at the City Managers' meeting for Contract Cities presented by Ranbir Sekhon of SCE. The presentation is included in this packet. Mr. Sekhon spoke about state legislation affecting CCAs and customers remaining with SCE (or their current energy provider if not SCE). AB 117 established the right for CCAs to form and in that legislation created a mechanism with the intent of ensuring that customers staying with SCE would not be harmed by exiting customers. So, CCAs were designed to pay a departing load cost to balance remaining load costs. SB 315 further clarified the legislation by prohibiting cost shifting, meaning there should also be no burden to customers leaving to join the CCA. The intent of both laws was to make sure those customers leaving and those customers remaining did not bear the brunt of any CCA changes. As part of the previously mentioned legislation, the mechanism for accomplishing no cost shifting was for a PCIA (Power Change Indifference Adjustment) to use benchmarks to determine the value of the existing portfolio at the time of the CCA departure. This has created the potential that as more customers leave to join CCAs, if the benchmarks set were too high (as has been historically the case) then it could result in rising energy costs for customers remaining with SCE because the difference between -3- what it actually costs and the benchmark is passed on to the customer. For example, if the value of renewable energy is determined in a benchmark to be set at $70 per megawatt hour but the reality is that it is actually valued at $40 per megawatt hour then the $30 above market price is what SCE customers will be charged, not what it actually costs. It is based on the benchmark. SCE and other privately owned electrical utilities are in the process of attempting to establish a new process that does not use benchmarks at all but rather is proposing an allocation mechanism. So, instead of taking value from those departing would take attributes with them. AB 57 is a procurement plan that was passed that helps with cost recovery. But it still depends on the benchmark system. Under Open Rulemaking, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is looking at alternatives and is considering whether benchmarks can be fixed or if the system needs to be overhauled. But a decision on any changes will not be made until July 2018. Currently, the law supports benchmarks that could result in customers paying a higher rate if they stay with SCE. Only if the law is changed and the system is overhauled will an allocation - based system go into effect. The allocation -based system is seen as the best option for bringing a level field to energy service providers but it is not currently law. It appears that the goal of the State legislation and CPUC rule making is not. to burden any non-CCA customer with only stranded costs. However, that is not the case presently and will not be decided until the summer of 2018. Although it appeared that the City Council did not have a desire to join the LACCE or any other CCA, staff wanted to bring this before the City Council one more time before the LACCE deadline passed for becoming an Initial Participant on December 27, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT Los Angeles County Supervisors were interested in helping cities in the County to participate in decisions regarding delivery of renewable energy. So, they approved $10 million as a 0% loan that is paid back in one year by the LACCE once it is established. That means there are no start up costs for the City to join and there is no risk to the City itself because the JPA, not the City, is responsible for the loan. Any failure on the part of the JPA to repay the loan would not become the responsibility of the City. However, it is only free to join the LACCE CCA if the City joins during the first phase of the program by December 27, 2017. Beyond not having to commit any start up funding, Initial Participants will have the opportunity to make important foundational decisions at the inception of the LACCE. If cities do not wish to be Initial Participants, membership would then be subject to approval of the LACCE Board of Directors and a monetary contribution may be based on community's electrical costs for three or six months. However, the LACCE Board recently has stated that they will attempt to make it easy for cities to join if it completed by the early part of 2018. -4- CONCLUSION Although LACCE has claimed it could provide cities with various energy options at less expensive rates, only 15 of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County plan to sign up for the WA. Many cities have not joined because they are concerned that the LACCE isbeing operated by the County, the possible risks, the uncertainty of pending State legislation/ CPUC regulation associated with CCAs and the lack of time to better evaluate the proposal. Since the LACCE has not provided all the information that was requested by the City Council when they made a presentation in August, it is understandable that the City Council may decide not to join or wait to make a decision once it has more information. However, with this pending deadline on December 27, 2017 to become an Initial Participant and the associated benefits, staff brought the item before you tonight. With that stated, the City Council now can decide how it wants to proceed with the issue. -5- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY AUTHORITY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT This Joint Powers Agreement (the "Agreement"), effective as of , is made and entered into pursuant to the provisions of Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5, Article 1 (Section 6500 et seq.) of the California Government Code relating to the joint exercise of powers among the public agencies set forth in Exhibit A. RECITALS 1. The Parties are public agencies sharing various powers under California laws, including but not limited to the power to purchase supply, and aggregate electricity for themselves and their inhabitants. 2. In 2006, the State Legislature adopted AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, which mandates a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 to 1990 levels. The California Air Resources Board is promulgating regulations to implement AB 32 which will require local government to develop programs to reduce greenhouse emissions. 3. The purposes for the Initial Participants (as such term is defined in Section 2.3 below) entering into this Agreement include addressing climate change by reducing energy related greenhouse gas emissions and securing energy supply and price stability; energy efficiencies and local economic benefits, such as jobs creation, community energy programs; and local power development. It is the intent of this Agreement to promote the development and use of a wide range of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency programs, including but not limited to solar and wind energy production. 4. The Parties desire to establish a separate public agency, known as the Los Angeles Community Choice Energy Authority ("Authority"), under the provisions of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act of the State of California (Government Code Section 6500 et seq.) ("Act") in order to collectively study, promote, develop, conduct, operate, and manage energy programs. 5.. The Initial Participants have each adopted an ordinance electing to implement through the Authority a Community Choice Aggregation program pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 ("CCA Program"). The first priority of the Authority will be the consideration of those actions necessary to implement the CCA Program. 6. By establishing the Authority, the Parties seek to: (a) Develop an electric supply portfolio with overall lower greenhouse gas intensity and lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than Southern California Edison ("SCE"), and one that supports the achievement of the parties' greenhouse gas reduction goals and the comparable goals of all participating jurisdictions; (b) Establish an energy portfolio that encourages the use and development of cost- effective local renewable and distributed energy resources and that discourages the use unbundled renewable energy credits; LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (c) Promote an energy portfolio that incorporates energy efficiency and demand response programs and pursues ambitious energy consumption reduction goals; (d) Provide electricity rates that are lower or at worst competitive with those offered by SCE for similar products; (e) Offer differentiated energy options (e.g. 33% or 50% qualified renewable) for default service, and a 100% renewable content option in which customers may "opt -up" and voluntarily participate; (f) Achieve quantifiable economic benefits to the region; (g) Recognize the value of current workers in existing jobs that support the energy infrastructure of Los Angeles County and Southern California (e.g. union and prevailing wage jobs, local workforce development, apprenticeship programs, and local hire). The Authority, as a leader in the shift to clean energy, commits to ensuring it will take steps to minimize any adverse impacts to these workers to ensure a "just transition" to the new clean energy economy; (h) Support a stable, skilled workforce through such mechanisms as project labor agreements, collective bargaining agreements, or community benefit agreements, or other workforce programs that are designed to avoid work stoppages, ensure quality, and benefit local residents by delivering cost-effective clean energy programs and projects (e.g. riew energy programs and increased local energy investments); (i) Promote supplier and workforce diversity, including returning veterans and those from disadvantaged and under -represented communities, to better reflect the diversity of the region; (j) Promote personal and community ownership of renewable resources, spurring equitable economic development and increased resilience, especially in low income communities; (k) Provide and manage its energy portfolio and products in a manner that provides cost savings to customers and promotes public health in areas impacted by energy production; (1) Ensure that low-income households and communities are provided with affordable and flexible energy options, including the provision of energy discounted rates to eligible low-income households; (m) Recognize and address the importance of healthy communities, including those disproportionately affected by air pollution and climate change; (n) Use program revenues to provide energy -related programs and services; and (o) Create an administering Authority that is fmancially sustainable, responsive to regional priorities, well -managed, and a leader in fair and equitable treatment of employees. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -2 - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT 1. DEFINITIONS 1.1 "AB 117" means Assembly Bill 117 (Stat. 2002, Ch. 838, codified at Public Utilities Code Section 366.2), which created Community Choice Aggregation. 1.2 "Act" means the Joint Exercise of Powers Act of the State of California (Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code commencing with Section 6500). 1.3 "Agreement" means this Joint Powers Agreement. 1.4 "Authority" means Los Angeles Community Choice Energy Authority. 1.5 "Authority Document(s)" means document(s) duly adopted by the Board by resolution or motion implementing the powers, functions and activities of the Authority, including but not limited to the Operating Policies and Procedures, the annual budget, and plans and policies. 1.6 "Board" means the Board of Directors of the Authority. 1.7 "Community Choice Aggregation" or "CCA" means an electric service option available to cities, counties, and other public agencies pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 366.2. 1.8 "CCA Program" means the Authority's program relating to CCA that is principally described in Section 2.4 (Purpose) of this Agreement. 1.9 "Days" shall mean calendar days unless otherwise specified by this Agreement. 1.10 "Director" means a member of the Board representing a Party, including up to two alternate Directors appointed in accordance with Sections 4.1 (Board of Directors) and 4.2 (Appointment and Removal of Directors) of this Agreement. "Effective Date" means the date on which the Agreement shall become effective and the Authority shall exist as a separate public agency, as further described in Section 2.1 (Effective Date and Term) of this Agreement. 1.12 "Initial Costs" means all costs incurred by the Authority relating to the establishment and initial operation of the Authority, such as the hiring of the executive, technical, and any administrative staff, any required accounting, administrative, technical and legal services in support of the Authority's initial formation activities or in support of the negotiation, preparation and approval of power purchase agreements. The Board shall determine the termination date for the Initial Costs. 1.13 "Initial Participants" means, for purpose of this Agreement, the County of Los Angeles, and the cities of , and any JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -3 - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT other Parties joining in accordance with Section 2.3 (Initial Participants) of this Agreement. 1.14 "Operating Policies and Procedures" means the rules, regulations, policies, bylaws and procedures governing the operation of the Authority. 1.15 "Parties" means, collectively, the signatories to this Agreement that have satisfied the conditions in Sections 2.3 (Initial Participants) or 2.5 (Addition of Parties) of this Agreement, such that they are considered members of the Authority. 1.16 "Party" means, singularly, a signatory to this Agreement that has satisfied the conditions in Sections 2.3 (Initial Participants) or 2.5 (Addition of Parties) of this Agreement, such that it is considered a member of the Authority. 1.17 "Public Agency" as defined in the Act includes, but is not limited to, the federal government or any federal department or agency, this state, another state or any state department or agency, a county, a county board of education, county superintendent of schools, city, public corporation, public district, regional transportation commission of this state or another state, a federally recognized Indian tribe, or any joint powers authority formed pursuant to the Act. 2. FORMATION OF LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY AUTHORITY 2.1 Effective Date and Term. This Agreement shall become effective and the Authority shall exist as a separate public agency on the date this Agreement is executed by the County of Los Angeles and at least one other public agency after the adoption of the ordinances required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(12). The Authority shall provide notice to the Parties of the Effective Date. The Authority shall continue to exist, and this Agreement shall be effective, until the Agreement is terminated in accordance with Section 8.3 (Mutual Termination) of this Agreement, subject to the rights of the Parties to withdraw from the Authority. 2.2 Formation of the Authority. Under the Act, the Parties hereby create a separate joint exercise of power agency which is named Los Angeles Community Choice Energy Authority. Pursuant to Sections 6506 and 6507 of the Act, the Authority is a public agency separate from the Parties. The debts, liabilities or obligations of the Authority shall not be debts, liabilities or obligations of the individual Parties unless the governing body of a Party agrees in writing to assume any of the debts, liabilities or obligations of the Authority. The jurisdiction of the Authority shall be all territory within the geographic boundaries of -the Parties; however the Authority may, as authorized under applicable law, undertake any action outside such geographic boundaries as is necessary and incidental to the accomplishment of its purpose. 2.3 Initial Participants. In addition to Parties executing this Agreement on or prior to the Effective Date, any incorporated municipality, county, or other eligible JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -4 - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT public agency may become a Party and recognized as an Initial Participant provided during the first 180 days after the Effective Date it executes this Agreement and delivers an executed copy of this Agreement and a copy of the adopted ordinance required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(12) to the Authority. All Initial Participants to this Agreement shall be required to commence electric service as soon as practicable, as determined by the Board. 2.4 Purpose. The purpose and objectives of this Agreement are to establish the Authority, to provide for its governance and administration, and to define the rights and obligations of the Parties. This Agreement authorizes the Authority to provide a means by which the Parties can more effectively develop and implement sustainable energy initiatives that reduce energy demand, increase energy efficiency, and advance the use of clean, efficient, and renewable resources in the region for the benefit of the Parties and their constituents, including, but not limited to, establishing and operating a Community Choice Aggregation program. 2.5 Addition of Parties. After 180 days from the Effective Date any incorporated municipality, county, or other public agency may become a Party to this Agreement if all of the following conditions are met: 2.5.1 The adoption of a resolution of the Board admitting the public agency to the Authority; 2.5.2 The adoption by an affirmative vote of the Board satisfying the requirements described in Section 4.10 (Board Voting) of this Agreement, of a resolution authorizing membership into the Authority and establishing its pro rata share of organizational, planning and other pre-existing expenditures, and describing additional conditions, if any, associated with membership; 2.5.3 The adoption by the public agency of an ordinance required by Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(12) and approval and execution of this Agreement and other necessary program agreements by the public agency; 2.5.4 Payment of the membership payment, if any; and 2.5.5 Satisfaction of any reasonable conditions established by the Board. Pursuant to this Section 2.5 (Addition of Parties), all parties shall be required to commence electric service as soon as is practicable, as determined by the Board, as a condition to becoming a Party to this Agreement. 2.6 Continuing Participation. The Parties acknowledge that membership in the Authority may change by the addition, withdrawal and/or termination of Parties. The Parties agree to participate with such other Parties as may later be added, as described in Section 2.5 (Addition of Parties) of this Agreement. The Parties also JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -5 - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT agree that the withdrawal or termination of a Party shall not affect this Agreement or the remaining Parties' continuing obligations under this Agreement. 3. POWERS 3.1 General Powers. The. Authority shall have the powers common to the Parties and which are necessary or convenient to the accomplishment of the purposes of this Agreement, subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 3.4 (Limitation on Powers) of this Agreement. As provided in the Act, the Authority shall be a public agency separate and apart from the Parties. 3.2 Specific Powers. The Authority shall have all powers common to the Parties and such additional powers accorded to it by law. The Authority is .authorized, in its own name, to exercise all powers and do all acts necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this Agreement and fulfill its purposes, including, but not limited to, each of the following: 3.2.1 make and enter into contracts; 3.2.2 employ agents and employees, including . but not limited to an Executive Director; 3.2.3 acquire, contract, manage, maintain, and operate any buildings, works or improvements; 3.2.4 acquire property by eminent domain, or otherwise, except as limited under Section 6508 of the Act, and to hold or dispose of any property; 3.2.5 lease any property; 3.2.6 sue and be sued in its own name; 3.2.7 incur debts, liabilities, and obligations, including but not limited to loans from private lending sources pursuant to its temporary borrowing powers authorized by law pursuant to Government Code Section 53850 et seq. and authority under the Act; 3.2.8 issue revenue bonds and other forms of indebtedness; 3.2.9 apply for, accept, and receive all licenses, permits, grants, loans or other aids from any federal, state or local public agency; 3.2.10 form independent corporations or entities, if necessary to carry out energy supply and energy conservation programs at the lowest possible cost or to take advantage of legislative or regulatory changes; JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -6 - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT 3.2.11 submit documentation and notices, register, and comply with orders, tariffs and agreements for the establishment and implementation of the CCA Program and other energy programs; 3.2.12 adopt rules, regulations, policies, bylaws and procedures governing the operation of the Authority ("Operating Policies and Procedures"); and 3.2.13 make and enter into service agreements relating to the provision of services necessary to plan, implement, operate and administer the CCA Program and other energy programs, including the acquisition of electric power supply and the provision of retail and regulatory support services. 3.3 Additional Powers to be Exercised. In addition to those powers common to each of the Parties, the Authority shall have those powers that may be conferred upon it as a matter of law and by subsequently enacted legislation. 3.4 Limitation on Powers. As required by Section 6509 of the Act, the powers of the Authority are subject to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising power possessed by the County of Los Angeles. 3.5 Obligations of the Authority. The debts, liabilities, and obligations of the Authority shall not be the debts, liabilities, and obligations of the Parties unless the governing body of a Party agrees in writing to assume any of the debts, liabilities, and obligations of the Authority. In addition, pursuant to the Act, no Director shall be personally liable on the bonds or subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance of bonds. 3.6 Compliance with the Political Reform Act and Government Code Section 1090. The Authority and its officers and employees shall comply with the Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000 et seq.) and Government Code Section 1090 et seq. The Board shall adopt a Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to Government Code Section 87300. The Board may adopt additional conflict of interest regulations in the Operating Policies and Procedures. 4. GOVERNANCE 4.1 Board of Directors. The governing body of the Authority shall be a Board of Directors ("Board") consisting of one director for each Party appointed in accordance with Section 4.2 (Appointment and Removal of Directors) of this Agreement. The Board, in consultation with the Executive Director, may determine at any time to consider options to reduce the size of the Board if it determines that the efficient functioning and operation of the Board would be improved by having a smaller number of Directors. Any such change to the size of the Board would require amendment of this Joint Powers Agreement in accordance with Section 4.11 (Special Voting). JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -7 - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT 4.2 Appointment and Removal of Directors. The Directors shall be appointed and may be removed as follows: 4.2.1 The governing body of each Party shall appoint and designate in writing one regular Director who shall be authorized to act for and on behalf of the Party on matters within the powers of the Authority. The governing body of each Party shall appoint and designate in writing up to two alternate Directors who may vote on matters when the regular Director is absent from a Board meeting. The person appointed and designated as the regular Director shall be an elected or appointed member of the governing body of the Party. The persons appointed and designated as the alternate Directors may be an elected or appointed member of the governing body of the Party, an appointed member of an advisory body of the Party, a staff member of the Party or a member of the public who meets the criteria below. All Directors and alternates shall be subject to the Board's adopted Conflict of Interest Code. (a) Any alternate Director that is a member of the public must have demonstrated knowledge in energy -related matters through significant experience in either: 1) an electric utility or company, agency, or nonprofit providing services to a utility, 2) a regulatory agency or local government body overseeing an electric utility or a company, agency, or nonprofit providing services to such an agency, 3) an academic or nonprofit organization engaged in research and/or advocacy related to the electric sector. 4.2.2 The Operating Policies and Procedures, to be developed and approved by the Board in accordance with Section 3.2.12 (Specific Powers), shall specify the reasons for and process associated with the removal of an individual Director for cause. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Party shall be deprived of its right to seat a Director on the Board and any such Party for which its Director and/or alternate Directors have been removed may appoint a replacement. 4.3 Terms of Office. Each regular and alternate Director shall serve at the pleasure of the governing body of the Party that the Director represents, and may be removed as Director by such governing body at any time. If at any time a vacancy occurs on the Board, the affected Party shall appoint to fill the position of the previous Director within 90 days of the date that such position becomes vacant. 4.4 Purpose of Board. The general purpose of the Board is to: 4.4.1 Provide structure for administrative and fiscal oversight; 4.4.2 Retain an Executive Director to oversee day-to-day operations; 4.4.3 Retain legal counsel; JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -8 - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT 4.4.4 Identify and pursue funding sources; 4.4.5 Set policy; 4.4.6 Maximize the utilization of available resources; and 4.4.7 Oversee all Committee activities. 4.5 Specific Responsibilities of the Board. The specific responsibilities of the Board shall be as follows: 4.5.1 Identify Party needs and requirements; 4.5.2 Formulate and adopt the budget prior to the commencement of the fiscal year; 4.5.3 Develop and implement a financing and/or funding plan for ongoing Authority operations; 4.5.4 Retain necessary and sufficient staff and adopt personnel and compensation policies, rules and regulations; 4.5.5 Adopt rules for procuring supplies, equipment, and services; 4.5.6 Adopt rules for the disposal of surplus property; 4.5.7 Establish standing and ad hoc committees as necessary to ensure that the interests and concerns of each Party are represented and to ensure operational, technical, and financial issues are thoroughly researched and analyzed; 4.5.8 The setting of retail rates for power sold by the Authority and the setting of charges for any other category of retail service provided by the Authority; 4.5.9 Termination of the CCA Program; 4.5.10 Address any concerns of consumers and customers; 4.5.11 Conduct and oversee Authority audits at intervals not to exceed three years; 4.5.12 Arrange for an annual independent fiscal audit; 4.5.13 Adopt such bylaws, rules and regulations as are necessary or desirable for the purposes hereof; provided that nothing in the bylaws, rules and regulations shall be inconsistent with this Agreement; JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -9 - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT 4.5.14 Exercise the Specific Powers identified in Sections 3.2 and 4.6 except as the Board may elect to delegate to the Executive Director; and 4.5.15 Discharge other duties as appropriate or required by statute. 4.6 Startup Responsibilities. The Authority shall have the duty to do the following within one year of the Effective Date of the Agreement: 4.6.1 To adopt an implementation plan prepared by the County of Los Angeles, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(3), for electrical load aggregation; 4.6.2 To prepare a statement of intent, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(4), for electrical load aggregation; 4.6.3 To encourage other qualified public agencies to participate in the Authority; 4.6.4 To obtain fmancing and/or funding as is necessary or desirable; 4.6.5 To evaluate the need for, acquire, and maintain insurance. 4.7 Meetings and Special Meetings of the Board. The Board shall -hold at least one regular meetings per year but the Board may provide for the holding of regular meetings at more frequent intervals. The date, hour and place of each regular meeting shall be fixed by resolution or ordinance of the Board. Regular meetings may be adjourned to another meeting time. Special meetings of the Board may be called in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 54956. Directors may participate in meetings telephonically, with full voting rights, only to the extent permitted by law. 4.8 Brown Act Applicable. All meetings of the Board shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950, et seq.). 4.9 Quorum; Approvals. A majority of the Directors shall constitute a quorum, except that less than a quorum may adjourn from time to time in accordance with law. The affirmative votes of a majority of the Directors who are present at the subject meeting shall be required to take any action by the Board. 4.10 Board Voting. 4.10.1 Percentage Vote. Each Director shall have one vote. Action of the Board on all matters shall require an affirmative vote of a majority of all Directors who are present at the subject meeting, except when a supermajority vote is expressly required by this Agreement. When a supermajority vote is required under Section 4.11 (Special Voting), action of the Board shall require an affirmative vote of the specified JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -10 - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT supermajority of all Directors who are present at the subject meeting. All votes taken pursuant to this Section 4.10.1 shall be referred to as a percentage vote. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of a tie in a percentage vote, the Board can break the tie and act upon an affirmative voting shares vote as described in section 4.10.2 (Voting Shares Vote). 4.10.2 Voting Shares Vote. In addition to and immediately after an affirmative percentage vote three or more Directors may request that a vote of the voting shares shall be held. In such event, the corresponding voting shares, as described in section 4.10.3, of all Directors voting in order to take an action shall exceed 50%, or such other higher voting shares percentage expressly required by this Agreement or the Operating Policies and Procedures of all Directors who are present at the subject meeting. All votes taken pursuant to this Section 4.10.2 shall be referred to as a voting shares vote. In the event that any one Director has a voting share that equals or exceeds that which is necessary to disapprove the matter being voted on by the Board, at least one other Director shall be required to vote in the negative in order to disapprove such matter. When a voting shares vote is held, action by the Board requires both an affirmative percentage vote and an affirmative voting shares vote. 4.10.3 Voting Shares Formula. When a voting shares vote is requested by three or more Directors, voting shares of the Directors shall be determined by the following formula: (Annual Energy Use/Total Annual Energy) multiplied by 100, where (a) "Annual Energy Use" means (i) with respect to the first two years following the Effective Date, the annual electricity usage, expressed in kilowatt hours ("kWh"), within the Party's respective jurisdiction and (ii) with respect to the period after the second anniversary of the Effective Date, the annual electricity usage, expressed in kWh, of accounts within a Party's respective jurisdiction that are served by the Authority and (b) "Total Annual Energy" means the sum of all Parties' Annual Energy Use. 4.11 Special Voting. 4.11.1 Except as provided below, matters that require Special Voting as described in this Section shall require 72 hours prior notice to any Brown Act meeting or special meeting. Two-thirds vote (or such greater vote as required by state law) of the appointed Directors shall be required to take any action on the following: (a) Change the designation of Treasurer or Auditor of the Authority; (b) Issue bonds or other forms of debt; JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (c) Exercise the power of eminent domain, subject to prior approval by the passage of an authorizing ordinance or other legally sufficient action by the affected Party; and (d) Amend this Agreement or adopt or amend the bylaws of the Authority. At least 30 days advance notice shall be provided for such actions. The Authority shall also provide prompt written notice to all Parties of the action taken and enclose the adopted or modified documents. 5. INTERNAL ORGANIZATION 5.1 Chair and Vice Chair. For each fiscal year, the Board shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair from among the Directors. The term of office of the Chair and Vice Chair shall continue for one year, but there shall be no limit on the number of terms held by either the Chair or Vice Chair. The Chair shall be the presiding officer of all Board meetings, and the Vice Chair shall serve in the absence of the Chair. The Chair shall sign all contracts on behalf of the Authority, and shall perform such other duties as may be imposed by the Board. In the absence of the Chair, the Vice -Chair shall sign contracts and perform all of the Chair's duties. The office of the Chair or Vice Chair shall be declared vacant and a new selection shall be made if: (a) the person serving dies, resigns, or the Party that the person represents removes the person as its representative on the Board, or (b) the Party that he or she represents withdraws from the Authority pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. Upon a vacancy, the position shall be filled at the next regular meeting of the Board held after such vacancy occurs or as soon as practicable thereafter. Succeeding officers shall perform the duties normal to said offices. 5.2 Secretary. The Board shall appoint a Secretary, who need not be a member of the Board, who shall be responsible for keeping the minutes of all meetings of the Board and all other office records of the Authority. 5.3 Treasurer. The Board shall appoint a qualified person to act as the Treasurer, who need not be a member of the Board. Unless otherwise exempted from such requirement, the Authority shall cause an independent audit to be made by a certified public accountant, or public accountant, in compliance with Section 6506 of the Act. The Treasurer shall act as the depositary of the Authority and have custody of all the money of the Authority, from whatever source, and as such, shall have all of the duties and responsibilities specified in Section 6505.5 of the Act. The Board may require the Treasurer to file with the Authority an official bond in an amount to be fixed by the Board, and if so requested the Authority shall pay the cost of premiums associated with the bond. The Treasurer shall report directly to the Board and shall comply with the requirements of treasurers of incorporated municipalities. The Board may transfer the responsibilities of Treasurer to any person or entity as the law may provide at the time. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -12 - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT 5.4 Auditor. The Board shall appoint a qualified person to act as the Auditor, who shall not be a member of the Board. The Board may require the Auditor to file with the Authority an official bond in an amount to be fixed by the Board, and if so requested the Authority shall pay the cost of premiums associated with the bond. 5.5 Executive Director. The Board shall appoint an Executive Director for the Authority, who shall be responsible for the day-to-day operation and management of the Authority and the CCA Program. The Executive Director may exercise all powers of the Authority, except those powers specifically reserved to the Board including but not limited to those set forth in Section 4.5 (Specific Responsibilities of the Board) of this Agreement or the Operating Policies and Procedures, or those powers which by law must be exercised by the Board. The Executive Director may enter into and execute any Energy Contract, in accordance with criteria and policies established by the Board. 5.6 Bonding of Persons Having Access to Property. Pursuant to the Act, the Board shall designate the public officer or officers or person or persons who have charge of, handle, or have access to any property of the Authority exceeding a value as established by the Board, and shall require such public officer or officers or person or persons to file an official bond in an amount to be fixed by the Board. 5.7 Other Employees/Agents. The Board shall have the power by resolution to hire employees or appoint or retain such other agents, including officers, loan -out employees, or independent contractors, as may be necessary or desirable to carry- out the purpose of this Agreement. 5.8 Privileges and Immunities from Liability. All of the privileges and immunities from liability, exemption from laws, ordinances - and rules, all pension, relief, disability, workers' compensation and other benefits which apply to the activities of officers, agents or employees of a public agency when performing their respective functions shall apply to the officers, agents or employees of the Authority to the same degree and extent while engaged in the performance of any of the functions and other duties of such officers, agents or employees under this Agreement. None of the officers, agents or employees directly employed by the Board shall be deemed, by reason of their employment by the Authority to be employed by the Parties or by reason of their employment by the Authority, to be subject to any of the requirements of the Parties. 5.9 Commissions, Boards and Committees. The Board may establish any advisory commissions, boards and committees as the Board deems appropriate to assist the Board in carrying outs its functions and implementing the CCA Program, other energy programs and the provisions of this Agreement. The Board may establish rules, regulations, policies, bylaws or procedures to govern any such commissions, boards, or committees and shall determine whether members shall be compensated or entitled to reimbursement for expenses. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -13 - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT 5.9.1 The Board shall establish the following Advisory Committees: (a) Executive Committee. The Board shall establish an executive committee consisting of a smaller number of Directors. The Board may delegate to the Executive Committee's such authority as the Board might otherwise exercise, except that the Board may not delegate authority regarding certain essential functions, including but not limited to, approving the fiscal year budget or hiring or firing the Executive Director, and other functions as provided in the Operating Policies and Procedures. The Board may not delegate to the Executive Committee or any other committee its authority under Section 3.2.12 to adopt and amend the Operating Policies and Procedures. (b) Finance Committee. The Board shall establish a finance committee consisting of a smaller number of Directors. The primary purpose of the Finance Committee is to review and recommend to the Board: (1) A funding plan; (2) A fiscal year budget; (3) Financial policies and procedures to ensure equitable contributions by Parties; (4) Such other responsibilities as provided in the Operating Policies and Procedures, including but not limited to policies, rules and regulations governing investment of surplus funds, and selection and designation of financial institutions for deposit of Authority funds. (c) Community Advisory Committee. The Board shall establish a community advisory committee comprised of members of the public representing key stakeholder communities. The primary purpose of the Community Advisory Committee shall be to provide a venue for ongoing citizen support and engagement in the operations of the Authority. (d) Meetings of the Advisory Committees. All meetings of the Advisory Committees shall be held in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. For the purposes of convening meetings and conducting business, unless otherwise provided in the bylaws, a majority of the members of the Advisory Committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, except that less than a quorum or the secretary of each Advisory Committee may adjourn meetings from time -to -time. As soon as practicable, but no later than the time of posting, the Secretary of the Advisory JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -14 - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY - JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Committee shall provide notice and the agenda to each Party, Director and Alternate Directors. (e) Officers of Advisory Committees. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, each Advisory Committee shall choose its officers, comprised of a Chairperson, a Vice -Chairperson and a Secretary. 6. IMPLEMENTATION ACTION AND AUTHORITY DOCUMENTS 6.1 Preliminary Implementation of the CCA Program. 6.1.1 Enabling Ordinance. In addition to the execution of this Agreement, each Party shall adopt an ordinance in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 366.2(c)(12) for the purpose of specifying that the Party intends to implement a CCA Program by and through its participation in the Authority. 6.1.2 Implementation Plan. The Authority shall cause to be prepared and secure Board approval of an Implementation Plan meeting the requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 366.2 and any applicable Public Utilities Commission regulations as soon after the Effective Date as reasonably practicable. . 6.1.3 Termination of CCA Program. Nothing contained in this Section 6 or this Agreement shall be construed to limit the discretion of the. Authority to terminate the implementation or operation of the CCA Program at any time in accordance with any applicable requirements of state law. 6.2 Authority Documents. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the affairs of the Authority will be implemented through various documents duly adopted by the Board through Board resolution or minute action, including but not necessarily limited to the Operating Policies and Procedures, the annual budget, and specified plans and policies defined as the Authority Documents by this Agreement. The Parties agree to abide by and comply with the terms and conditions of all such Authority Documents that may be adopted by the Board, subject to the Parties' right to withdraw from the Authority as described in Section 8 (Withdrawal and Termination) of this Agreement. 7. FINANCIAL PROVISIONS 7.1 Fiscal Year. The Authority's fiscal year shall be 12 months commencing July 1 and ending June 30. The fiscal year may be changed by Board resolution. 7.2 Depository. 7.2.1 All funds of the Authority shall be held in separate accounts in the name of the Authority and not commingled with funds of any Party or any other person or entity. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -15 - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT 7.2.2 All funds of the Authority shall be strictly and separately accounted for, and regular reports shall be rendered of all receipts and disbursements, at least quarterly during the fiscal year. The books and records of the Authority shall be open to inspection and duplication by the Parties at all reasonable times. The Board shall contract with a certified public accountant or public accountant to make an annual audit of the accounts and records of the Authority, which shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 6506 of the Act. 7.2.3 All expenditures shall be made in accordance with the approved budget and upon the approval of any officer so authorized by the Board in accordance with its Operating Policies and Procedures. The Treasurer shall draw checks or warrants or make payments by other means for claims or disbursements not within an applicable budget only upon the prior approval of the Board. 7.3 Budget and Recovery Costs. 7.3.1 Budget. The initial budget shall be approved by the Board. The Board may revise the budget from time to time as may be reasonably necessary to address contingencies and unexpected expenses. All subsequent budgets of the Authority shall be prepared and approved by the Board in accordance with the Operating Policies and Procedures. 7.3.2 Funding of Initial Costs. Subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors, the County of Los Angeles has agreed to provide up to $10 million for funding Initial Costs in establishing the Authority and implementing the CCA Program. In the event that the CCA Program becomes operational, the County of Los Angeles shall be reimbursed for the Initial Costs. The County and the Authority will execute an agreement specifying the terms and conditions of the Initial Costs provided by the County, including but not limited to: (a) Repayment of this amount, which shall be first priority in relation to all other indebtedness of the Authority; and (b) authorization for the County Auditor -Controller to conduct an audit of the Authority's books and records (including personnel records, as necessary) and/or investigation, following reasonable advance notice from 'the County, to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. The Authority may establish a reasonable time period over which such costs are recovered. In the event that the CCA Program does not become operational, the County shall not be entitled to any reimbursement of the Initial Costs they have paid from the Authority or any other Party. 7.3.3 Program Costs. The Parties desire that, to the extent reasonably practicable, all costs incurred by the Authority that are directly or indirectly attributable to the provision of electric services under the CCA Program, including the establishment and maintenance of various reserve JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -16 - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT and performance funds, shall be recovered through charges to CCA customers receiving such electric services. 7.3.4 General Costs. Costs that are not directly or indirectly attributable to the provision of electric services under the CCA Program, as determined by the Board, shall be defined as general costs. General costs shall be shared among the Parties on such bases as the Board shall determine pursuant to the Authority documents. 7.4 Contributions. Parties are not required under this Agreement to make any fmancial contributions. Consumers may subscribe as customers of the Authority pursuant to the Act and outside of this Agreement and through their on -bill selections. 7.4.1 A Party may, in the appropriate circumstance, and when agreed -to: (a) Make contributions from its treasury for the purposes set forth in this Agreement; Make payments of public funds to defray the cost of the purposes of the Agreement and Authority; (c) Make advances of public funds for such purposes, such advances to be repaid as provided by written agreement; or (b) (d) Use its personnel, equipment or property in lieu of other contributions or advances. (e) No Party shall be required to adopt any tax, assessment, fee or charge under any circumstances. 7.5 Accounts and Reports. The Treasurer shall establish and maintain such funds and accounts as may be required by good accounting practice or by any provision of any trust agreement entered into with respect to the proceeds of any bonds issued by the Authority. The books and records of the Authority in the hands of the Treasurer shall be open to inspection and duplication at all reasonable times by duly appointed representatives of the Parties. The Treasurer, within 180 days after the close of each fiscal year, shall give a complete written report of all financial activities for such fiscal year to the Parties. 7.6 Funds. The Treasurer shall receive, have custody of and/or disburse Authority funds in accordance with the laws applicable to public agencies and generally accepted accounting practices, and shall make the disbursements required by this Agreement in order to carry out any of the purposes of this Agreement. 8. WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION 8.1 Withdrawal JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -17 - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT 8.1.1 Withdrawal by Parties. Any Party may withdraw its membership in the Authority, effective as of the beginning of the Authority's fiscal year, by giving no less than 180 days advance written notice of its election to do so, which notice shall be given to the Authority and each Party. Withdrawal of a Party shall require an affirmative vote of the Party's governing board. 8.1.2 Amendment. Notwithstanding Section 8.1.1 (Withdrawal by Parties) of this Agreement, a Party may withdraw its membership in the Authority upon approval and execution of an amendment to this Agreement provided that the requirements of this Section 8.1.2 are strictly followed. A Party shall be deemed to have withdrawn its membership in the Authority effective 180 days after the Board approves an amendment to this Agreement if the Director representing such Party has provided notice to the other Directors immediately preceding the Board's vote of the Party's intention to withdraw its membership in the Authority should the amendment be approved by the Board. 8.1.3 Continuing Liability; Further Assurances. A Party that withdraws its membership in the Authority may be subject to certain continuing liabilities, as described in Section 8.4 (Continuing Liability; Refund) of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, Power Purchase Agreements. The withdrawing Party and the Authority shall execute and deliver all further instruments and documents, and take any further action that may be reasonably necessary, as determined by the Board, to effectuate the orderly withdrawal of such Party from membership in the Authority. The Operating Policies and Procedures shall prescribe the rights if any of a withdrawn Party to continue to participate in those Board discussions and decisions affecting customers of the CCA Program that reside or do business within the jurisdiction of the Party. 8.2 Involuntary Termination. This Agreement may be terminated with respect to a Party for material non-compliance with provisions of this Agreement or the Authority Documents upon an affirmative vote of the Board in which the minimum percentage vote and percentage voting shares, as described in Section 4.10 (Board Voting) of this Agreement, shall be no less than 67% excluding the vote and voting shares of the Party subject to possible termination. Prior to any vote to terminate this Agreement with respect to a Party, written notice of the proposed termination and the reason(s) for such termination shall be delivered to the Party whose termination is proposed at least 30 days prior to the regular Board meeting at which such matter shall first be discussed as an agenda item. The written notice of proposed termination shall specify the particular provisions of this Agreement or the Authority Documents that the Party has allegedly violated. The Party subject to possible termination shall have the opportunity at the next regular Board meeting to respond to any reasons and allegations that may be cited as a basis for termination prior to a vote regarding termination. A Party that has had its membership in the Authority terminated may JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -18 - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT be subject to certain continuing liabilities, as described in Section 8.4 (Continuing Liability; Refund) of this Agreement. In the event that the Authority decides to not implement the CCA Program, the minimum percentage vote of 67% shall be conducted in accordance with Section 4.10 (Board Voting) of this Agreement. 8.3 Mutual Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of all the Parties; provided, however, the foregoing shall not be construed as limiting the rights of a Party to withdraw its membership in the Authority, and thus terminate this Agreement with respect to such withdrawing Party, as described in Section 8.1 (Withdrawal) of this Agreement. 8.4 Continuing Liability; Refund. Upon a withdrawal or involuntary termination of a Party, the Party shall remain responsible for any claims, demands, damages, or liabilities arising from the Party's membership in the Authority through the date of its withdrawal or involuntary termination, it being agreed that the Party shall not be responsible for any claims, demands, damages, or liabilities arising after the date of the Party's withdrawal or involuntary termination. In addition, such Party also shall be responsible for any costs or obligations associated with the Party's participation in any program in accordance with the provisions of any agreements relating to such program provided such costs or obligations were incurred prior to the withdrawal of the Party. The Authority may withhold funds otherwise owing to the Party or may require the Party to deposit sufficient funds with the Authority, as reasonably determined by the Authority, to cover the Party's liability for the costs described above. Any amount of the Party's funds held on deposit with the Authority above that which is required to pay any liabilities or obligations shall be returned to the Party. 8.5 Disposition of Authority Assets. Upon termination of this Agreement and dissolution of the Authority by all Parties, and after payment of all obligations of the Authority, the Board: 8.5.1 May sell or liquidate Authority property; and 8.5.2 Shall distribute assets to Parties in proportion to the contributions made by the existing Parties. Any assets provided by a Party to the Authority shall remain the asset of that Party and shall not be subject to distribution under this section. 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 9.1 Dispute Resolution. The Parties and the Authority shall make reasonable efforts to settle all disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement. Before exercising any remedy provided by law, a Party or the Parties and the Authority shall engage in nonbinding mediation or arbitration in the manner agreed upon by the Party or Parties and the Authority. The Parties agree that each Party may specifically enforce this section 9.1 (Dispute Resolution). In the event that nonbinding mediation or arbitration is not initiated or does not result in the JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -19 - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT settlement of a dispute within 60 days after the demand for mediation or arbitration is made, any Party and the Authority may pursue any remedies provided by law. 9.2 Liability of Directors, Officers, and Employees. The Directors, officers, and employees of the Authority shall use ordinary care and reasonable diligence in the exercise of their powers and in the performance of their duties pursuant to this Agreement. No current or former Director, officer, or employee will be responsible for any act or omission by another Director, officer, or employee. The Authority shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the individual current and former Directors, officers, and employees for any acts or omissions in the scope of their employment or duties in the manner provided by Government Code Section 995 et seq. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the defenses available under the law, to the Parties, the Authority, or its Directors, officers, or employees. 9.3 Indemnification of Parties. The Authority shall acquire such insurance coverage as is necessary to protect the interests of the Authority, the Parties and the public. The Authority shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Parties and each of their respective governing board members, officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, losses, damages, costs, injuries and liabilities of every kind arising directly or indirectly from the conduct, activities, operations, acts and omissions of the Authority under this Agreement. 9.4 Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be made hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered in the manner prescribed herein at the principal place of business of each Party. The Parties may give notice by (1) personal delivery; (2) e-mail; (3) U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, or a faster delivery method; or (3) by any other method deemed appropriate by the Board. Upon providing written notice to all Parties, any Party may change the designated address or e-mail for receiving notice. All written notices or correspondence sent in the described manner will be deemed given to a party on whichever date occurs earliest: (1) the date of personal delivery; (2) the third business day following deposit in the U.S. mail, when sent by "first class" mail; or (3) the date of transmission, when sent by e-mail or facsimile. 9.5 Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors of each Party. 9.6 Assignment. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, the rights and duties of the Parties may not be assigned or delegated without the advance written consent of all of the other Parties, and any attempt to assign or delegate such rights or duties in contravention of this Section 9.6 shall be null and void. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the successors and assigns of the Parties. This Section 9.6 does not prohibit a Party JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -20 - LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY — JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT from entering into an independent agreement with another agency, person, or entity regarding the financing of that Party's contributions to the Authority, or the disposition of the proceeds which that Party receives under this Agreement, so long as such independent agreement does not affect, or purport to affect, the rights and duties of the Authority or the Parties under this Agreement. 9.7 Severability. If any one or more of the terms, provisions, promises, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement were adjudged invalid or void by a court of competent jurisdiction, each and all of the remaining terms, provisions, promises, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect to the maximum extent permitted by law. 9.8 Governing Law. This Agreement is made and to be performed in the State of California, and as such California substantive and procedural law shall apply. 9.9 Headings. The section headings herein are for convenience only and are not to be construed as modifying or governing the language of this Agreement. 9.10 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, and upon execution by all Parties, each executed counterpart shall have the same force and effect as an original instrument and as if all Parties had signed the same instrument. Any signature page of this Agreement may be detached from any counterpart of this Agreement without impairing the legal effect of any signatures thereon, and may be attached to another counterpart of this Agreement identical in form hereto but having attached to it one or more signature pages. CITY OF ROLLING HILLS JAMES BLACK, M.D. Mayor ATTEST: By: YVETTE HALL, INTERIM CITY CLERK JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - -21- EXHIBIT A LIST OF PUBLIC AGENCIES 1. Rolling Hills Estates 2. West Hollywood 3. Calabasas 4. Alhambra 5. Sierra Madre 6. Downey 7. Claremont 8. South Pasadena -22- ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY AUTHORITY AND AUTHORIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION PROGRAM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills has been actively investigating options to provide electric services to constituents within its service area with the intent of achieving greater local involvement over the provisions of electric services and promoting competitive and renewable energy; WHEREAS, on September 24, 2002, the Governor signed into law Assembly Bill 117 (Stat. 2002, Ch. 838; see California Public Utilities Code section 366.2; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), which authorizes any California city or county, whose governing body so elects, to combine the electricity load of its residents and businesses in a community -wide electricity aggregation program known as Community ChoiceAggregation; WHEREAS, the Act expressly authorizes participation in a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program through a joint powers agency, and to this end the County of Los Angeles (County) has been participating since 2015 in the evaluation of a CCA program for the County and the cities and towns within it; WHEREAS, through Docket No. R.03-10-003, the California Public Utilities Commission has issued various decisions and rulings addressing the implementation of CCA programs, including the recent issuance of a procedure by which the California Public Utilities Commission will review "Implementation Plans," which are required for submittal under the Act as the means of describing the CCA program and assuring compliance with various elements contained in the Act; WHEREAS, representatives from the City along with representatives from the County and participating cities within the County, have developed the Los Angeles Community Choice Energy Authority Joint Powers Agreement ("Joint Powers Agreement") (attached hereto as Exhibit A) in order to accomplish the following: To form a Joint Powers Authority known as "Los Angeles Community Choice Energy Authority"; and To specify the terms and conditions by which participants may participate as a group in energy programs, including but not limited to the preliminary implementation of a CCA program; WHEREAS, representatives from the City along with the County and participating cities within the County have developed a Business Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit B) that describes Ordinance No. the formation of Los Angeles Community Choice Energy (LACCE) Authority and the CCA program to be implemented by and through the LACCE Authority; WHEREAS, a final Implementation Plan will be submitted for review and adoption by the LACCE Authority's Board of Directors; WHEREAS, as described in the Business Plan, Community Choice Aggregation by and through the LACCE Authority appears to provide a reasonable opportunity to accomplish all of the following: To provide greater levels of local involvement in and collaboration on energy decisions. To increase significantly the amount of renewable energy available to LACCE Authority energy customers, To provide initial price stability, long-term electricity cost savings and other benefits for the community, and To reduce greenhouse gases that are emitted by creating electricity for the community; WHEREAS, the Act requires CCA program participants to individually adopt an ordinance ("CCA Ordinance") electing to implement a CCA program within its jurisdiction by and through its participation in the LACCE Authority; WHEREAS, based on the feasibility studies and Business Plan, it is in the public's interest and welfare to establish a CCA program within the City of Rolling Hills; and WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement expressly allows the City to withdraw its membership in the LACCE Authority. (and its participation in the CCA program) by providing no less than 180 advance written notice to the LACCE Authority. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated as though fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. Based upon the findings and declarations set forth in this ordinance, and in order to provide businesses and residents within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City with a choice of power providers and with the benefits described in the recitals above, the City Council hereby elects to implement a CCA program within the City's jurisdiction boundaries. Upon approval of the LACCE Joint Powers Agreement, the City will implement the CCA program by and through the City's participation in the LACCE Authority), a joint powers authority established pursuant to California Government Code section 6500 et seq. and California Public Utilities Code section 366(c)(12). SECTION 3. That the City Council hereby approve and direct that the City proceed with the participation in the LACCE Joint Powers Authority. SECTION 4. That the City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any fmal court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this ordinance as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. That all the provisions of any of the City's ordinances as heretofore adopted by the City that are in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 6. That this ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. SECTION 7. That the City Attorney prepared and framed this ordinance pursuant to Section of the Municipal Code and finds that the City Council has the authority to adopt this ordinance, that the ordinance is constitutionally valid and that the ordinance is consistent with the general powers and purposes of the City as set forth in Section of the City's Municipal Code. SECTION 8. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF , 2017. JAMES BLACK, M.D. MAYOR ATTEST: YVETTE HALL INTERIM CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. entitled: ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY AUTHORITY AND AUTHORIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION PROGRAM was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on , 2017 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. YVETTE HALL INTERIM CITY CLERK Los Angeles Community Choice Energy Business Plan. Update April 17, 2017 Prepared by: Consulting, Inc. A registered professional engineering and management consulting firm www.eesconsulting.com 570 Kirkland Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 Telephone: (425) 889-2700 Contents Background 1 Updated Findings 1 Phase -In Assumptions 1 Load Forecast 2 SCE Rate Forecast 2 Power Supply 3 Proforma Analysis 11 Administrative Costs 12 Financing 13 Rates 13 Risks 15 Summary 19 LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE I Background On September 15, 2015, the Board of Supervisors ("Board") of the County of Los Angeles ("County") instructed the County's Internal Services Department (ISD) and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to assess the feasibility of establishing a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) for County unincorporated areas, with the potential to expand to other public agencies within the County. The County fulfilled that directive by issuing the County of Los Angeles Community Choice Energy Business Plan ("Business Plan") on July 28, 2016. On September 27, 2016, the Board directed the CEO, Chief Sustainability Officer, County Counsel, and ISD to form a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) with other interested public agencies, negotiate a governance structure, and determine an operations plan. As part of those negotiations, the CEO requested that the information in the Business Plan be updated to reflect current market prices, regulatory fees, and operational plans to provide potential LACCE JPA member agencies with the most accurate possible assessment of LACCE's financial outlook. This document ("Business Plan Update") details the changed inputs, assumptions, and outcomes. Updated Findings • Power supply costs are approximately 21% lower than in the initial business plan due to lower renewable and market price projections. • It is assumed that LA County provides the initial working capital funding during FY 2018. LA County is then reimbursed by the end of the fiscal year using funds obtained by LACCE once financing has been obtained. This plan does not assume vendor funding; however, it is estimated that cash working capital can be reduced by approximately 50% if LACCE can negotiate a delayed payment contract with power supply vendors (i.e. vendors do not get paid until revenues have been received). • The residential PCIA increased from $0.00098 to $0.00776 per kWh and is projected to continue to increase in the next few years. Non-residential PCIA rates increased by a similar margin. • There is no significant cost saving between a 75% residential/65% non-residential participation scenario and a 95% residential/85% non-residential participation scenario because the administrative costs are minor compared to the power supply costs and non- bypassable charges vary based on load. • Updated projected rates for two scenarios were developed: 75% residential/65% non- residential participation scenario and a 95% residential/85% non-residential participation scenario. The projected rates can be found in the tables below: Phase -In Assumption This Business Plan Update assumes LACCE will launch in January 2018 with the same phase -in strategy that was used in the original Business Plan: LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE - 1 e Phase 1 include County -owned facilities within the unincorporated County areas • Phase 2 serves all customers located in the unincorporated County Phase 3 serves all customers within LACCE Exhibit 1 summarizes the potential load, demand, revenue, and account information for each assumed phase. (411011.4 il Phase Start Eligibility Customer Accounts. Peak Load (MW) Average Load aMW LACCE Annual Revenues Phase 1 January 2018 LA County Facilities in Unincorporated Area 1,728 40 20 $25M Phase 2 July 2018 All Unincorporated Customers 306,930 900 440 $180M Phase 3 To Be Determined All Customers 1,497,747 7,000 3,000 $1,200M Depending on the Cities joining LACCE, LACCE may launch a different combination of accounts for Phase 2 such as commercial and industrial accounts operating within the unincorporated County and in any other participating public agencies. Modeling those accounts for this Business Plan Update would have presented two challenges. First, because it remains uncertain which cities will participate in the LACCE JPA, it would be impossible to determine the load, demand, and number. of accounts. Second, the specific accounts to include in Phase 2 depends on the total load in LACCE in order to ensure a smooth transition from SCE to LACCE. This Business Plan Update therefore provides an update of LACCE's rates based on the implementation plan listed in Exhibit 1. Load Forecast This business plan assumes launch in January 2018. The load forecast was updated to reflect projected loads and participation rates. This Business Plan Update models two CCA participation scenarios. The first scenario ("Conservative Participation Scenario") modeled participation rates of 75 percent for residential customers and 65 percent for non-residential customers. The second scenario ("Most Likely Participation Scenario") assumed 95% participation for residential customers and 85% for non-residential customers which is based on the average participation of all currently operating CCAs in California. SCE Rate Forecast Southern California Edison's (SCE) rates are updated based on the January 1, 2017 posted rates. In addition, the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) is also updated as of January 1, 2017. An updated PCIA forecast was also developed to reflect expected changes in renewable resource benchmarking costs. Exhibit 2 shows the updated PCIA rate forecast used. LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 2 10\1;--“ Iyi'-t-Qk1 %ci0k-Tr Actual Forecast 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Domestic 0.00098 0.00776 0.01009 0.01160 0.01117 TC-1 0.00048 0.00348 0.00452 0.00520 0.00501 TOU-GS-1 0.00071 0.00635 0.00826 0.00949 0.00914 TOU-GS-2 0.00079 0.00590 0.00767 0.00882 0.00850 TOU-GS-3 0.00070 0.00524 0.00681 0.00783 0.00754 TOU-PA-2 0.00055 0.00533 0.00693 0.00797 0.00767 TOU-PA-3 0.00042 0.00399 0.00519 0.00597 0.00575 TOU-8-PRI 0.00061- 0.00395 0.00514 0.00591 0.00569 TOU-8-SEC 0.00052 0.00457 0.00594 0.00683 0.00658 TOU-8-SUB 0.00045 0.00339 0.00441 0.00507 0.00488 In addition to the PCIA, SCE's generation and distribution rates were updated for each rate class. Power Supply The forecast cost of power was updated to reflect the most recent trends in the power market. Natural gas -fired power plants define the base power price in southern California and throughout the Western Energy Coordinating Council (WECC) footprint as they serve as the marginal resource. As the market price of electricity is usually set by the cost of the marginal unit, EES developed a wholesale market price forecast using a forecast of natural gas prices and projected market -implied heat rates or spark spreads. The projected market -implied heat rates reflect the average efficiency of gas -fired power plants in California. The projected heat rates are based on historic market -implied heat rates calculated by dividing historic southern California (SP1S) wholesale market prices by historic southern California natural gas prices. EES developed a natural gas price forecast based on NYMEX forward gas prices for the Henry Hub trading hub and southern California basis differentials. Projected market heat rates were then applied to the southern California natural gas price forecast to calculate a wholesale electric market price forecast for southern California. The following steps were taken to produce the wholesale electric market price forecast: 1. Forward prices for natural gas at Henry Hub are available through December 2029. 2. The southern California basis differential is used to adjust the Henry Hub forward prices to southern California prices. Southern California forward natural gas prices are equal to NYMEX forward prices (Henry Hub) plus the southern California basis. The southern California basis forward curve is available through December 2022. After December 2022, the monthly southern California basis differentials are assumed to escalate at the same escalation rate at which Henry Hub forward prices escalate or near 2.3 percent on average. 3. Projected monthly market -implied heat rates are multiplied by forecast southern California. natural gas prices to calculate forecast southern California wholesale market prices. 4. Projected heat rates are based on historic heat rates (southern California wholesale electricity prices divided by SoCal natural gas prices). LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 3 5. Monthly market -implied heat rates are held constant in all years. 6. Forecast southern California prices are benchmarked against other market price forecasts. 7. Forecast market prices are escalated 3.8 percent annually beginning in 2030. Based on the methodology detailed above, southern California wholesale market prices are projected to escalate annually at an average rate of 3.3 percent over the 20 -year period from 2018 through 2037. Exhibit 3 below shows the forecast southern California natural gas prices included in the calculation of forecast southern California market prices. Projected 2018-25 gas prices are approximately 21 percent lower than those included in the first draft of the business plan. Exhibit 3 Forecast SoCaI Natural Gas Price ($/MMBtu) 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 CO 00 CO Cr, T 0 0 0 .-1 .-I N N rtl M 0) C V .1 L/1 0) 0) .'-I .-1 N H .--1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O d N CJ R U b=0 ^ • O 0. N v d !0 • z Q -1n LL 8 g 8 g Q • z Q 1n 1i 0 g N N 0 Q 00 Exhibit 4 shows the resulting monthly southern California wholesale market price forecast. The levelized value of market prices over the study period is $34.6/MWh assuming a 4 percent discount rate. This is a decrease of nearly $5/MWh and 12 percent from the levelized value of $39.5/MWh included in the first draft of the business plan. LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 4 Exhibit 4 Forecast Southern California Wholesale Market Prices ($/MWh) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 CO D 01 N cL m Cr) In to N co co Cl O c-4 N m m r In ID N N N N N N N N N N .m co m m m m m m m Z Z Z r-1 ci C > Q co 0 N Z tn Wholesale power prices were used to calculate balancing market purchases and sales. When the LACCA's loads are greater than its resource capabilities, the LACCA's scheduling agent will schedule balancing purchases and the LACCA will incur balancing market purchase costs. When the LACCA's loads are less than its resource capabilities, the LACCA's scheduling agent will transact balancing sales and the LACCA will receive market sales revenue. Balancing market purchases and sales can be transacted on a monthly, daily and hourly pre -schedule basis. Exhibit 5 shows the 20 -year levelized resource costs included in the study. In the first draft of the business plan the "spot market" and "market PPA" costs were $39.5/MWh and $41.5/MWh, respectively, or 12 percent greater than those shown below. The costs shown below for "renewable resource", "brown resources" and "local renewables" are the same as those included in the first draft of the business plan. Energy Efficiency, Demand Response, and Distributed Energy Resources The power supply forecast does not account for the extensive investment in local conservation and resource programs that LACCE will make. This assumption was employed because of the uncertainty around the timeframe, type, and scale of the programs that LACCE will deploy as these must be voted on by the JPA board. However, these programs are expected to be extensive. . LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 5 Exhibit 5 20 -Year Levelized Cost (2017 $/MWH) 70 - 60 -- s0 - 44 34.6 30 20 Spot Market Updated Resource Portfolios 36.6 Renewable Resources Brown Resources Local Renewables Market PPA An updated load forecast was input to the power supply cost calculations. As a result, the resource portfolios and associated costs were updated. Below is a summary of the revised portfolios. There was no change to the amount of renewable and non-renewable resource targets, only a change in the amount of energy required to achieve thosetargets due to the change in the load forecast. Portfolio 1: Meet Current RPS Requirements In the first portfolio, the CCA would meet the state RPS requirements shown below: ❑ 2017-19: 25 percent ❑ 2020-23: 33 percent ❑ 2024-26: 40 percent ❑ 2027-29: 45 percent ❑ 2030 - 50 percent Exhibit 6 shows the power supply portfolio used to serve load in Portfolio 1 with the revised load forecast. In the first draft of the business plan total purchased power requirements were 436 aMW in final year of the 20 -year study period compared to the 479 aMW shown below in 2037. LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 6 Exhibit 6 Portfolio 1: Meet RPS Requirements (aMW) 500 450 400 — 350 300 -- 250 200 -- 150 OMNI 1 11 1111 The green bars shown in Exhibit 6 above increase each year along with California's RPS requirements. 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 MarketPPA Brown Resources 0 Renewables 0 Local Renewables M Spot Market Portfolio 2: Serve 50% of Retail Load with Renewables Starting on Day 1 In this portfolio, the 50% renewable energy purchase requirement in the RPS is effectively moved up from 2030 to October 2016. Exhibit 7 shows the breakdown of power purchases under portfolio 2 with the revised load forecast. The total power purchase requirements are the same as those shown above in Exhibit 6, including a total purchase requirement of 479 aMW in 2037. LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 7 Exhibit 7 Portfolio 2: Serve 50% of Retail Load with Renewables (aMW) 500 450 400 — 350 — 300 250 l 200 -- r 150 100 --r Portfolio 3: Serve 100% of Retail Load with Renewables Starting on Day 1 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Market PPA .? Brown Resources D Renewables D Local Renewables ' Spot Market In this portfolio retail loads are served entirely with renewable energy purchases. Exhibit 8 below shows the resource mix used to serve load in Portfolio 3 with the revised load forecast. The total power purchase requirements are the same as those shown above in Exhibits 6 and 7, including a total purchase requirement of 479 aMW in 2037. LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 8 Exhibit 8 Portfolio 3: Serve 100% of Retail Load with. Renewables (aMW) 500 450 i 400 350 300 -- 250 200 -- 150 - 100 - 50 -- PIP 4111.1. r- 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 MarketPPA Brown Resources CI Renewables 13 Local Renewables s Spot Market As shown above, there is a small amount of market PPA and brown resource power included in Portfolio 3 due to distribution and transmission system losses. The renewable energy requirements in the state's RPS are based on retail energy sales. To be consistent it was assumed that the 100% renewable energy target would only apply to retail energy sales, not total power purchase requirements. 20 -Year Levelized Portfolio Costs 20 -year levelized costs were calculated for the three resource portfolios described above using base case resource costs and the revised load forecast. Exhibit 9 below shows a breakdown of power, ancillary service and scheduling costs associated with each portfolio. LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 9 Exhibit 9 20 -year Levelized Base Case Portfolio Costs ($/MWh) 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 RPS in Power in Anciallary Services EI Scheduling $69/MWh 100% Renewables The 20 -year Ievelized cost shown above for portfolio 1 ("RPS") is $2/MWh less than the cost included in the first draft of the business plan. The 20 -year Ievelized cost shown above for portfolio 2 ("50% Renewables") is $1/MWh less than the cost included in the first draft of the business plan. The 20 -year Ievelized cost shown above for portfolio 3 ("100% Renewables") is $1/MWh greater than the cost included in the first draft of the business plan. Since wholesale market prices decreased in the revised power supply cost calculations one would expect the 20 -year Ievelized costs shown above to have decreased in all cases, including the "100% Renewables" case, compared to the first draft of the business plan. Power purchase costs, excluding capacity purchase costs, did in fact decrease in all cases. However, capacity purchase costs increased in all cases due to a reduction in the average monthly load factor in the revised load forecast. Monthly Toad factors are calculated by dividing average monthly energy consumption by monthly peak demands. The average monthly load factor in the revised load forecast is 56 percent. The average monthly load factor in the load forecast used in the first draft of the business plan was 66 percent. The decrease in the average monthly load factor result in higher monthly peak demands. Increased monthly peak demands result in increases in capacity purchase costs associated with meeting the 115 percent resource adequacy standard. On a 20 -year Ievelized cost basis the capacity purchase costs associated with meeting resource adequacy requirements increased by near $1.5/MWh in all three portfolios. Exhibit 9 above shows the base case 20 -year Ievelized cost of each portfolio. Since resource costs are based on forecast renewable and brown resource market prices and updated forecast natural gas and wholesale market prices, it is prudent to look at the sensitivity of the 20 -year Ievelized cost LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 10 calculation to fluctuations in these projections. Exhibit 10 below shows a summary of low, base and high resource costs. Only the "market PPA" costs differ from the first draft of the business plan. i3::1 t1drii so) •,r,ti)i'pt-cljMfi.j , %) `,i-44--,Lomlfol xIpcyput iAbrlio Case Portfolio 1 and 2 Portfolio 3 Local Market PPA Renewables Renewables Brown Resources Renewables Low Case 24.9 32 40 45 45 Base Case 36.6 42 52 60 65 High Case 69.2 62 76 80 85 The 20 -year levelized costs of each portfolio were calculated using the range of resource costs shown above. Exhibit 11 shows the resulting range of 20 -year levelized costs of each resource portfolio. The base case costs are depicted by the black dots in Exhibit 11. Exhibit 11 Sensitivity of Portfolio 20 -year Levelized Costs 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Portfolio 1 Portfolio 2 Portfolio 3 The range of costs shown above is slightly ($1/MWh) greater than the range of costs included in the first draft of the business plan. As in the first draft of the business plan, Portfolio 3, which relies on renewable energy purchases to serve all retail loads, has the highest projected costs. The low case for Portfolio 3 ($57/MWh) is greater than the base case for both Portfolios 2 and 3. Proforma Analysis The first category of the pro forma analysis is the cost of service for LACCE program operations. To estimate the overall costs associated with LACCE operations, the following components were included in the development of the financial pro forma: LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 11 a Power Supply Costs • Non -Power Supply Costs: • Start-up costs • LACCE staffing and administration costs • Consulting Support • SCE and regulatory charges • Financing costs o Pass -Through Charges to SCE: • Transmission and distribution charges • Power Cost Indifference Adjustment (PICA) Charge • Other SCE non-bypassable charges Once the costs of the LACCE operations have been determined, the total costs and resulting revenue needs were compared to SCE's projected rates and revenues for the potential LACCE customers. Administrative Costs The administrative costs were updated based on the most recent LACCE budget. At this time, it is assumed that $10 million in initial funding will be provided by LA County as part of the FY2018 budget to support the start-up of the LACCE Authority. This funding includes $8 million for power procurement to support Phase I of the program and up to $2 million for administrative costs. In addition to administrative costs, expenses such as power supply costs, non-bypassable charges, data management costs, utility fees, and estimated uncollectibles are included in the proforma. The LACCE budget assumes only the Executive Director and one administrative staff will be hired prior to Phase 2 as LACCE will rely on consultant help initially. However, LACCE could hire additional staff earlier and reduce the cost of consultants to remain within budget. Exhibit 12 lists the assumed expenses. LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 12 qi tZJ FY17 FY18 EXPENSES Consultants Financial $30,000 $120,000 Legal $0 $200,000 Executive Support . $50,000 $180,000 Technical & Regulatory $40,000 $460,000 Communication & Outreach $0 $80,000 County Staff (borrowed) Chief Sustainability Officer $20,000 $40,000 ISD Staff $40,000 $80,000 County Counsel $30,000 $30,000 Administrative Support $10,000 $20,000 New JPA Staff - Executive Director $0 $150,000 Assistant $0 $50,000 General & Admin $0 $295,000 Contingency $0 $50,000 Budgeted Expenses Off -set ($220,000) ($630,000) Total Administrative Cost $0 $1,125,000 Financing The $10 million provided by LA County as part of the FY2018 budget will need to be repaid to LA County by the end of June 2018. For ongoing cash flow needs, this Business Plan Update assumes that LACCE must provide sufficient working capital to cover 60 days of lag between when expenses occur and when revenues are received. LACCE will therefore need to finance approximately $50 million by June 2018 either with a loan or a line of credit. A more likely scenario, would be that the power supply and data management consultants will not get paid until revenues have been collected from customers. This methodology has become more common with recent CCAs and would reduce LACCE's financing needs by approximately 50%. This option will be explored during the RFP process for power supply and data management services. Rates Exhibits 13 and 14 compare the revised LACCE rates with those of the comparable SCE product for each rate class under the Conservative Participation Scenario and the Most Likely Participation Scenario. LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 13 = i in i li&w) Rate Class Customer Type SCE Basic* LACCE RPS SCE 50% Renewable LACCE 50% Renewable SCE 100% Renewable LACCE 100% Renewable Residential Domestic 17.2 16.3 18.9 16.5 20.7 18.3 GS -1 Commercial 16.6 15.7 18.2 15.9 19.8 17.7 GS -2 Commercial 15.7 14.9 17.8 15.1 19.8 16.7 GS -3 Industrial 14.2 13.4 16.5 13.6 18.7 15.1 PA -2 Public Authority 12.4 11.7 14.6 11.9 16.7 13.2 PA -3 Public Authority 10.8 10.2 13.6 10.4 16.3 11.5 TOU-8 Secondary Commercial 12.6 • 11.9 14.9 12.1 17.1 13.4 TOU-8 Primary Commercial 11.5 10.9 13.9 11.0 16.2 12.2 TOU-8 Substation Industrial 7.5 7.1 10.3 7.2 13.2 8.0 LACCE Savings vs. SCE Basic 5.3% 4.1% -6.3% LACCE Savings vs. SCE Equivalent 5.3% . -13.7% -12.9% *SCE bundled average rate based on Table 3 in Advice 3515 -E -A. aiy1 ,1TiE)=i (li! - l i Rate Class Customer Type SCE Basic* LACCE RPS SCE 50% Renewable LACCE 50% Renewable SCE 100% Renewable LACCE 100% Renewable Residential Domestic 17.2 16.3 18.9 16.5 20.7 18.3 GS -1 Commercial 16.6 15.7 18.2 15.9 19.8 17.6 GS -2 Commercial 15.7 14.9 17.8 15.0 19.8 16.7 GS -3 Industrial 14.2 13.4 16.5 13.6 18.7 15.1 PA -2 Public Authority 12.4 11.7 14.6 11.9 16.7 13.2 PA -3 Public Authority 10.8 10.2 13.6 10.3 16.3 11.5 TOU-8 Secondary Domestic 12.6 11.9 14.9 12.1 17.1 13.4 TOU-8 Primary Commercial 11.5 10.9 13.9 11.0 16.2 12.2 TOU-8 Substation Industrial 7.5 7.1 10.3 7.2 13.2 8.0 LACCE Savings vs. SCE Basic 5.3% • 4.2% -6.3% LACCE Savings vs. SCE Equivalent 5.3% -13.7% -13.0% *SCE bundled average rate based on Table 3 in Advice 3515 -E -A. LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 14 LACCE customers are likely to see rates that on average are 5.3% lower than SCE in the portfolio meeting RPS standards, 4.1% to 4.2% lower than SCE with 50% renewable power supply and 6.3% higher than SCE with 100% renewable power supply. Risks The results of this Business Plan Update are subject to uncertainties. The list below provides a summary discussion of the key uncertainties of this Plan. These have not changed since the Initial Business Plan. A comparative table of risks to CCA viability is also provided in Exhibit 15. o Market Price Forecasts = Market prices (and forecasts) are continually changing. The market price forecasts for electricity and natural gas utilized in this Plan are based on the best currently available information regarding future natural gas and electricity prices, and have been confirmed by recent wholesale power transactions in southern California. However, these types of forecasts vary over time. o Retail Rate Forecasts — The Plan forecasts retail rates for both LACCE and SCE over the study period. These forecasts are based on current information regarding inflation, RPS requirement and other cost drivers. o Forecast Load and Customer Growth — The Plan bases the load forecasts on customer growth and participation. Both variables are inherently uncertainty. o Regulatory Risks— Unforeseen changes in legislation (California Public Utility Commission, state legislation and federal legislation) may impact the results of this Plan. This sensitivity analysis from the initial Business Plan show that the LACCE rates could be greater than SCE rates if: o The Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) increases significantly without an offsetting power supply cost reduction. o LACCE loads are much less than forecast. For example, if LACCE only achieves Phase 1 participation, it would be difficult to operate LACCE at lower rates than SCE. Wholesale market prices drop to 25% lower than present levels. As power costs to both SCE and LACCE are decreased, the PCIA would increase. This causes additional risks to LACCE even though power procurement costs could be lower. Each of these three scenarios can be managed if they occur (see Exhibit 15). LACCE can mitigate risk from PCIA increases or from wholesale market price drops by investing in a power portfolio that is balanced between long and short-term contracts and by maintaining a healthy reserve fund to cushion rates through periods of high PCIA rates (as Marin Clean Energy and Sonoma Clean Power have done repeatedly). If LACCE's load becomes significantly lower than expected due to poor customer participation, LACCE could expand its service territory, merge with another existing CCA, or reduce overhead expenses. In the long-term, the PCIA is expected to decline as contracts expire and market prices increase. In addition, SCE is now taking into account the potential loss of load to CCAs and is not purchasing - purchase power on behalf of CCA customers, thus not incurring additional stranded costs on behalf of CCA customers. LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 15 Finally, the extremely low levels of participation needed to undermine the financial viability of LACCE is extremely unlikely given the increasing precedent set by other CCAs in California and their success in retaining customers. The results of this update demonstrate that there is sufficient load in LA County such that participation as low as 75% residential and 65% non-residential will not have an impact of the feasibility of LACCE. LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 16 Exhibit 15 Comparison of Risks, Mitigation Strategies, and Risk Severity Risk Description Problem Mitigation Strategy Likelihood of Problem Severity of Problem Potent /al to break LACCE 1 SCE Rates and Surcharges SCE's generation rates decrease or its non- bypassable charges increase • LACCE rates exceed SCE • Increased customer opt -out rate • Establish Rate Stabilization Fund • Invest in a balanced portfolio to remain agile in power market •Emphasize the value of programs, local control, and environmental impact in marketing High — most operating CCAs in California have undergone short periods of rate competition from the incumbent IOU. Medium - CCAs have always been able to buffer rate impacts using financial reserves, then adjust power supply to regain rate advantage. Low — only in the event of very poor contract management by LACCE and unprecedented changes in IOU rates. 2 Regulatory Risks Energy policy is enacted that compromises CCA competitiveness or independence • New costs incurred • Reduced authority • Coordination with CCA community on regulatory involvement • Hire lobbyists and regulatory representatives Low — existing regulatory precedent makes the likelihood of state policies that severely disadvantage CCAs low. High — a worst case scenario regulatory legislative decision limiting CCA autonomy or enforcing additional costs could hinder CCA viability. Low — energy policy severe enough to make LACCE infeasible is very unlikely. 3 Power Supply Costs Power prices increase at crucial time for ; LACCE • LACCE rates exceed SCE • Increased > customer opt -out rate • Long-term contracts • Draw on LACCE reserves to stabilize rates through price spike Low — market prices are unlikely to spike enough to make LACCE financially infeasible prior to LACCE launch. From that point on, LACCE can limit its exposure through contract selection. Medium — a poorly timed price spike combined with poor power supply contract management could require LACCE to dig into reserves or delay launch. Very low 4 SCE RPS Share SCE's RPS or GHG-free power portfolio grows Increased customer opt -out rate • Increase renewable power portfolio • Emphasize rates and local programs in marketing Medium — SCE's power portfolio is dynamic and could change rapidly as a Low - LACCE will have capability to increase renewable energy purchases to match or Very Low — LACCE is highly likely to respond LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 17 to match or exceed LACCE's result of other CCA departures. exceed SCE if the event occurs. In addition, LACCE will promote other benefits of its service to customers. effectively if this occurs. 5 Availability of RPS/GHG- free power Unexpectedly high market demand or loss of supply of renewable : resources • LACCE unable to provide target power products • Shift emphasis to GHG- free or RPS resources depending on availability • Secure long-term contracts • Invest in local renewable resources Low - power procurement providers report a plethora of RPS and GHG-free bids available on the market. Medium — if LACCE were unexpectedly unable to procure enough RPS or GHG- free power, it could emphasize other program strengths to retain customers until new resources came online. Very Low — negligible chance of occurring. 6 Financial Risks LACCE is unable to acquire desired financing or credit • Slower or delayed program launch • Unable to build generation projects • Adopt gradual program roll -out • Establish Rate Stabilization Fund • Minimize overhead costs Low — CCAs have become sufficiently established in California that financing is almost certainly available. Medium — in the event LACCE is limited in financing options, it can adopt a more conservative program design and gradual roll -out. Very Low 7 Loads and customer participation Unprecedented opt -out rate reduces competitiveness • Excess power contracts • Poor margins • Increase marketing • Reduce overhead • Expand to new customer markets • Consider merging with existing CCA Low — as CCAs have become more common in California, and CCA marketing firms more experienced, opt -out rates have gone lower and lower. Low — LACCE will have numerous viable options in the event they suffer unexpectedly low participation. Very Low LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 18 Summary This updated Business Plan supports the initial findings that the formation of a CCA in Los Angeles County is financially viable and will yield considerable benefits for the County's residents and businesses. These benefits include competitive rates for electricity and increased renewable resource deployment. With the achievement of Phase 2 operations, LACCE could reduce GHG emissions by as much as 500,000 tons of COze per year, add hundreds of jobs, generate over $24 million in additional GDP, and give the County and its residents local control over their power supply and distributed energy resource programs. LACCE BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 19 LA County Community Choice Aggregation Financial Operating Model - RPS Most Likely Load Scenario April 17, 2017 2018 2018 CCE Operating Costs Jan - June July - Dec 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Power Supply $3,686,331 $65,790,271 $124,402,952 $131,084,972 $135,206,213 $139,311,119 $143,876,267 $149,939,112 $154,456,310 $159,160,232 $164,565,198 $169,481,295 Billing & Data Management $12,960 $2,377,248 $4,770,904 $4,815,913 $4,881,173. $4,956,358 - $5,057,834 $5,169,415 $5,285,118 $5,408,747 $5,526,017 $5,614,925 SCE Fees $1,132,892 $1,992,059 $1,564,964 $1,579,727 $1,601,133 $1,625,793 $1,659,077 $1,695,676 $1,733,627 $1,774,177 $1,812,641 $1,841,803 Technical Services $665,000 $665,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 Staffing $200,000 $935,000 $2,825,400 $2,881,908 $2,939,546 $2,998,337 $3,058,304 $3,119,470 $3,181,859 $3,245,496 $3,310,406 $3,376,615 General & Administrative expenses $170,000 $230,000 $356,000 $312,120 $318,362 $324,730 $331,224 $337,849 $344,606 $351,498 $358,528 $365,698 Contribution to Annual Reserves $0 $12,500,132 $11,859,731 $14,211,596 $17,222,458 $0 $0 ' $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 New Programs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,222,458 $19,006,515 . $19,731,020 $20,345,034 $21,016,655 $21,697,061 $22,392,359 Debt Service (CCE Bonds & Start-up Costs) $0 $2,091,983 $4,183,967 $4,183,967. $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 Start -Up Capital . ($5,795,079) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 . $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Uncollectibles $35,238 $475,734 $917,272 $952,220 $973,452 $994,659 $936,132 $965,433 $988,371 $1,012,191 $1,039,157 $1,063,956 Total Operating Costs $107,341 $87,057,427 $152,181,191 $161,322,422 $168,626,304 $172,917,420 $179,409,321 $186,441,940 $191,818,892 $197,452,963 $203,792,975 $209,620,618 Other Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total CCE Revenue Requirement $107,341 $87,057,427 $152,181,191 $161,322,422 $168,626,304 $172,917,420 $179,409,321 $186,441,940 $191,818,892 $197,452,963 $203,792,975 $209,620,618 Average CCE Rate ($/kWh) $0.0304. $0.0525 $0.0551 $0.0570 $0.0579 $0.0595 $0.0612 $0.0623 $0.0635 $0.0649 eDIV/01 Average SCE Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.0708 $0.0721 $0.0748 $0.0763 $0.0777 $0.0794 $0.0816 $0.0831 $0.0847 $0.0866 $0.0882 Total CCE Charges SCE Non-bypassable Charges $1,180,317 $21,065,221 $44,050,294 $44,285,334 $44,260,075 $44,231,547 $27,759,816 $27,341,146 $27,188,763 $27,014,003 $26,774,656 $26,626,898 CCE Revenue Requirement $107,341 $87,057,427 $152,181,191 $161,322,422 $168,626,304 $172,917,420 $179,409,321 $186,441,940 $191,818,892 $197,452,963 $203,792,975 $209,620,618 Total CCE Generation Revenue Requirement $1,287,658 $108,122,649 $196,231,485 $205,607,756 $212,886,379 $217,148,968 $207,169,137 $213,783,086 $219,007,655 $224,466,965 - $230,567,631 $236,247,516 Bundled SCE Revenues Total CCE Customer Bill Revenues (Power Supply and Delivery) Savings Percent Savings $14,645,671 $261,382,583 $496,123,003 $514,635,004 $530,143,564 $545,933,115 $562,626,036 $581,567,457 $598,848,517 $616,709,587 $635,822,737 $654,666,595 $13,850,089 $247,183,773 $469,547,565 $487,496,287 $503,609,432 $518,760,617 $533,501,486 $549,838,302 $565,250,803 $581,155,157 $598,022,149 $614,853,993 $795,581 $14,198,811 $26,575,439 $27,138,717 $26,534,132 $27,172,498 $29,124,550 $31,729,155 $33,597,715 $35,554,430 $37,800,588 $39,812,601 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.3% 5.0% 5.0% 5.2% 5.5% 5.6% 5.8% 5.9% 6.1% LA County Community Choice Aggregation Financial Operating Model - 50% Most Likely Load Scenario April 17, 2017 2018 2018 CCE Operating Costs Jan -June July - Dec 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Power Supply $4,015,169 $71,659,076 $135,183,802 $138,693,462 $142,388,025 $146,043,916 $150,140,651 $154,233,188 $158,395,613 $162,795,708 $167,274,678 $171,908,752 Billing & Data Management $12,960 $2,377,248 $4,770,904 $4,815,913 $4,881,173 $4,956,358 $5,057,834 $5,169,415 $5,285,118 $5,408,747 $5,526,017 $5,614,925 SCE Fees $1,132,892 • $1,992,059 $1,564,964 $1,579,727 $1,601,133 $1,625,793 $1,659,077 . $1,695,676 $1,733,627 $1,774,177 $1,812,641 $1,841,803 Technical Services $665,000 $665,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 Staffing ' $200,000 $935,000 $2,825,400 $2,881,908 $2,939,546 $2,998,337 $3,058,304 $3,119,470 $3,181,859 $3,245,496. $3,310,406 $3,376,615 General & Administrative expenses $170,000 $230,000 $356,000 • $312,120 $318,362 $324,730 $331,224 $337,849 $344,606 $351,498 $358,528 $365,698 Contribution to Annual Reserves $0 $10,312,252 $6,822,356 $12,202,675 $15,588,389 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 New Programs • $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,588,389 $16,837,461 $18,175,678 $20,952,012 $22,123,195 $23,257,445 $25,050,601 Debt Service (CCE Bonds & Start-up Costs) - $0 $2,091,983 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 Start -Up Capital - ($5,795,079) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Uncollectibles $36,882 $505,078 $971,177 $990,262 $1,009,361 $1,028,323 $967,454 $986,904 $1,008,068 - $1,030,368 $1,052,704 $1,076,093 Total Operating Costs $437,824. $90,767,696 $157,978,570 $166,960,034 $174,209,956 $178,049,813 $183,535,972 $189,202,146 $196,384,870 $202,213,156 $208,076,386 $214,718,454 Other Revenues $0. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total CCE Revenue Requirement $437,824 $90,767,696 $157,978,570 $166,960,034 $174,209,956 $178,049,813 $183,535,972 $189,202,146 $196,384,870 $202,213,156 $208,076,386 $214,718,454 Average CCE Rate ($/kWh) $0.0318 $0.0545 $0.0570 $0.0589 $0.0596 $0.0608 $0.0621 $0.0638 $0.0651 $0.0663 iiDIV/01 Average SCE Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.0708 $0.0721 $0.0748 $0.0763 50.0777 $0.0794 $0.0816 $0.0831 $0.0847 50.0866 $0.0882 Total CCE Charges - SCE Non-bypassable Charges $1,180,317 $21,065,221 $44,050,294 $44,285,334 $44,260,075 $44,231,547 $27,759,816 $27,341,146 $27,188,763 $27,014,003 $26,774,656 $26,626,898 CCE Revenue Requirement $437,824 $90,767,696 $157,978,570 $166,960,034 $174,209,956 $178,049,813 $183,535,972 $189,202,146 - $196,384,870 $202,213,156 $208,076,386 $214,718,454 Total CCE Generation Revenue Requirement $1,618,141 $111,832,917 $202,028,863 $211,245,367 $218,470,032 $222,281,360 $211,295,788 $216,543,292 $223,573,633 $229,227,158 $234,851,042 $241,345,352 Bundled SCE Revenues $14,645,671 $261,382,583 $496,123,003 $514,635,004 $530,143,564 $545,933,115 $562,626,036 $581,567,457 $598,848,517 $616,709,587 $635,822,737 $654,666,595 Total CCE Customer Bill Revenues (Power Supply and Delivery) $14,064,486 $251,010,127 $475,344,943 $493,133,898 $509,193,084 $523,358,025 $538,241,850 $554,760,827 $570,316,343 $586,369,193 $603,403,419 $620,390,618 Savings $581,185 $10,372,456 $20,778,060 $21,501,106 $20,950,479 $22,575,091 $24,384,186 $26,806,630 $28,532,175 $30,340,394 $32,419,318 $34,275,976 Percent Savings 4.0% 4.0% 4.2% 4.2% 4.0% 4.1% 4.3% 4.6% 4.8% 4.9% 5.1% 5.2% LA County Community Choice Aggregation Financial Operating Model - 100% Most Likely Load Scenario April 17, 2017 2018 2018 CCE Operating Costs Jan -June July - Dec 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 - 2028 Power Supply $5,548,178 $99,018,830 $186,079,876 $188,636,541 $192,678,974 $196,031,746 $199,572,470 $203,167,022 $206,716,119 $210,557,028 $214,410,606 $218,369,553 Billing & Data Management . $12,960 $2,377,248 $4,770,904 $4,815,913 $4,881,173 $4,956,358 $5,057,834 $5,169,415 $5,285,118 $5,408,747 . $5,526,017 $5,614,925 SCE Fees $1,132,892 $1,992,059 $1,564,964 $1,579,727 $1,601,133. $1,625,793 $1,659,077 $1,695,676 $1,733,627 $1,774,177 $1,812,641 $1,841,803 Technical Services $665,000 $665,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 Staffing $200,000 $935,000 $2,825,400 $2,881,908 $2,939,546 $2,998,337 $3,058,304 $3,119,470 $3,181,859 $3,245,496 $3,310,406 $3,376,615 General & Administrative expenses - $170,000 $230,000 $356,000 $312,120 $318,362 $324,730 $331,224 $337,849 $344,606 $351,498 $358,528 $365,698 Contribution to Annual Reserves $0 $8,983,030 $7,434,112 $18,385,996 $20,882,509 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 New Programs - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,882,509 $24,067,283 $27,751,248 $33,305,073 $36,880,335 $40,432,768 $44,944,873 Debt Service (CCE Bonds & Start-up Costs) $0 $2,091,983 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 Start -Up Capital ($5,795,079) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Uncollectibles $44,547 $641,877 $1,225,657 $1,239,978 $1,260,816 $1,278,262 $1,214,613 $1,231,573 $1,249,670 $1,269,175 $1,288,384 $1,308,397 Total Operating Costs $1,978,498 $116,935,027 $209,740,879 $223,336,149 $230,046,480 $233,581,703 $240,444,772 $247,956,219 $257,300,039 $264,970,422 $272,623,317 $281,305,832 Other Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total CCE Revenue Requirement $1,978,498 $116,935,027 $209,740,879 $223,336,149 $230,046,480 $233,581,703 $240,444,772 $247,956,219 $257,300,039 $264,970,422 $272,623,317 $281,305,832 Average CCE Rate ($/kWh) $0.0414 $0.0724 $0.0763 $0.0778 $0.0782 $0.0797 $0.0814 $0.0836 $0.0853 $0.0868 SDIV/0l Average SCE Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.0708 $0.0721 $0.0748 $0.0763 $0.0777 $0.0794 $0.0816 $0.0831 $0.0847 $0.0866 $00882 Total CCE Charges SCE Non-bypassable Charges $1,180,317 $21,065,221 $44,050,294. $44,285,334 $44,260,075 $44,231,547 $27,759,816 $27,341,146 $27,188,763 $27,014,003 $26,774,656 $26,626,898 CCE Revenue Requirement $1,978,498 $116,935,027 $209,740,879 $223,336,149 $230,046,480 $233,581,703 $240,444,772 $247,956,219 $257,300,039 $264,970,422 $272,623,317 $281,305,832 Total CCE Generation Revenue Requirement $3,158,815 $138,000,248 $253,791,173 $267,621,483 $274,306,556 $277,813,250 $268,204,588 $275,297,365 $284,488,802 $291,984,425 $299,397,972 $307,932,729 Bundled SCE Revenues $14,645,671 $261,382,583 $496,123,003 $514,635,004 $530,143,564 $545,933,115 $562,626,036 $581,567,457. $598,848,517 $616,709,587 $635,822,737 $654,666,595 Total CCE Customer Bill Revenues (Power Supply and Delivery) $15,534,634 $277,247,985 $527,107,253 $549,510,013 $565,029,609 $580,825,616 $597,496,398 $616,292,391 $633,635,590 $651,544,644 $670,669,298 $689,598,429 Savings ($888,963) ($15,865,402) ($30,984,250) ($34,875,009) ($34,886,045) ($34,892,501) ($34,870,362) ($34,724,934) ($34,787,073) ($34,835,057) ($34,846,561) ($34,931,835) Percent Savings -6.1% -6.1% -6.2% -6.8% -6.6% -6.4% -6.2% -6.0% -5.8% -5.6% -5.5% -5.3% LA County Community Choice Aggregation Financial Operating Model - RPS Conservative Load Scenario April 17, 2017 2018 2018 CCE Operating Costs Jan - June July - Dec 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Power Supply . $3,686,331 $59,211,244 $111,962,657 $117,976,475 $121,685,591 $125,380,007 $129,488,641 $134,945,200 $139,010,679 $143,244,209 $148,108,678 $152,533,166 Billing & Data Management $12,960 $2,139,523 $4,770,904 $4,334,322 $4,393,056 $4,460,722 $4,552,050 $4,652,473 $4,756,607 $4,867,872 $4,973,415 $5,053,433 SCE Fees $1,021,003 $1,793,163 $1,408,479 $1,421,766 $1,441,030 $1,463,225 $1,493,181 $1,526,119 $1,560,275 $1,596,770 $1,631,388 $1,657,634 Technical Services $665,000 $665,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 Staffing $200,000 $935,000 $2,825,400 $2,881,908 $2,939,546 $2,998,337 $3,058,304 $3,119,470 . $3,181,859 $3,245,496 $3,310,406 $3,376,615 General & Administrative expenses $170,000 $230,000 $356,000 $312,120 $318,362 $324,730 $331,224 $337,849 $344,606 $351,498 $358,528 $365,698 Contribution to Annual Reserves $0 $14,457,363 $9,409,247 $11,817,787 $14,521,143 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 New Programs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,521,143 $16,120,246 $16,765,621 $17,311,420 $17,908,931 $18,514,208 $19,132,746 Debt Service (CCE Bonds & Start-up Costs) $0 $2,091,983 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 Start -Up Capital ($9,295,079) $0 $0 $0 $0 . $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Uncollectibles $34,678 $430,123 $832,763 $861,837 $880,978 $900,097 $847,456 $873,861 $894,539 $916,012 $940,318 $962,674 Total Operating Costs -$3,505,107 $81,953,399 $137,149,416 $145,190,180 $151,763,673 $155,632,227 $161,475,068 $167,804,559 $172,643,952 $177,714,755 $183,420,907 $188,665,931 Other Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total CCE Revenue Requirement -$3,505,107 $81,953,399 $137,149,416 $145,190,180 $151,763,673 $155,632,227 $161,475,068 $167,804,559 $172,643,952 $177,714,755 $183,420,907 $188,665,931 Average CCE Rate ($/kWh) - $0.0304 $0.0526 $0.0551 $0.0570 $0.0579 $0.0595 $0.0612 $0.0623 $0.0635 $0.0649 RDIV/01 Average SCE Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.0708 - $0.0721 • $0.0748 $0.0763 $0.0777 $00794 $0.0816 $0.0831 $0.0847 $0.0866 $0.0882 Total CCE Charges SCE Non-bypassable Charges $1,180,317 $18,958,699 $39,645,264 $39,856,800 $39,834,068 $39,808,393 $24,983,834 $24,607,031 $24,469,887 $24,312,602 $24,097,190 $23,964,208 CCE Revenue Requirement -$3,505,107 $81,953,399 $137,149,416 $145,190,180 $151,763,673 $155,632,227 $161,475,068 $167,804,559 . $172,643,952 $177,714,755 $183,420,907 $188,665,931 Total CCE Generation Revenue Requirement -$2,324,790 $100,912,098 $176,794,681 $185,046,980 $191,597,741 $195,440,619 $186,458,902 $192,411,591 $197,113,839 $202,027,357 $207,518,097 $212,630,139 Bundled SCE Revenues - $14,645,671 $235,244,325 $446,510,703 $463,171,504 $477,129,207 $491,339,804 $506,363,432 $523,410,711 $538,963,666 $555,038,628 $572,240,464 $589,199,935 Total CCE Customer Bill Revenues (Power Supply and Delivery) $13,850,089 $222,465,395 $422,779,153 $438,746,658 $453,248,489 $466,884,556 $480,151,337 $494,854,471 $508,725,722 $523,039,642 $538,219,934 $553,368,594 Savings $795,581 $12,778,929 $23,731,550 $24,424,846 $23,880,719 $24,455,248 $26,212,095 $28,556,240 $30,237,943 $31,998,987 $34,020,530 $35,831,341 Percent Savings . 5.4% 5.4% 5.3% 5.3% 5.0% 5.0% 5.2% 5.5% 5.6% 5.8% 5.9% 6.1% LA County Community Choice Aggregation Financial Operating Model - 50% Conservative Load Scenario April 17, 2017 2018 2018 CCE Operating Costs Jan -June July - Dec 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Power Supply $4,015,169 $64,493,168 $121,665,422 - $124,824,116 $128,149,222 $131,439,525 $135,126,586 $138,809,869 $142,556,052 $146,516,137 $150,547,210 $154,717,876 Billing & Data Management $12,960 $2,139,523 $4,770,904 $4,334,322 $4,393,056 $4,460,722 $4,552,050 $4,652,473 $4,756,607 $4,867,872 $4,973,415 $5,053,433 SCE Fees $1,021,003 $1,793,163 $1,408,479 $1,421,766 $1,441,030 $1,463,225 $1,493,181 $1,526,119 $1,560,275 $1,596,770 $1,631,388 $1,657,634 Technical Services $665,000 $665,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 Staffing $200,000 $935,000 $2,825,400 $2,881,908 $2,939,546 $2,998,337 $3,058,304 $3,119,470 $3,181,859 $3,245,496 $3,310,406 $3,376,615 General & Administrative expenses $170,000 $230,000 $356,000 $312,120 $318,362 $324,730 $331,224 $337,849 $344,606 $351,498 $358,528 $365,698 Contribution to Annual Reserves $0 $12,455,222 $5,061,953 $10,009,758 $13,050,481 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 New Programs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,050,481 $14,168,097 $15,365,813 $17,857,700 $18,904,817 $19,918,553 $21,525,164 Debt Service (CCE Bonds & Start-up Costs) $0 $2,091,903 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 - $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 Start -Up Capital - ($9,295,079) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Uncollectibles $36,322 $456,533 $881,277 $896,075 $913,296 $930,394 $875,646 $893,184 $912,266 $932,372 $952,511 $973,597 Total Operating Costs -$3,174,625 $85,259,592 $142,553,401 $150,264,030 $156,788,960 $160,251,380 $165,189,054 $170,288,744 $176,753,332 $181,998,928 $187,275,977 $193,253,983 Other Revenues 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 So $0 $0 Total CCE Revenue Requirement -$3,174,625 $85,259,592 $142,553,401 $150,264,030 $156,788,960 $160,251,380 $165,189,054 $170,288,744 $176,753,332 $181,998,928 $187,275,977 $193,253,983 Average CCE Rate ($/kWh) $0.0318 $0.0546 50.0570 $0.0589 50.0596 $0.0608 $0.0621 $0.0638 $0.0651 50.0663 8DIV/01 Average SCE Generation Rate ($/kWh) 50.0708 50.0721 50.0748 $0.0763 50.0777 50.0794 50.0816 $0.0831 50.0847 - 50.0866 50.0882 Total CCE Charges SCE Non-bypassable Charges $1,180,317 $18,958,699 $39,645,264 $39,856,800 $39,834,068 $39,808,393 $24,983,834 $24,607,031 $24,469,887 $24,312,602 $24,097,190 $23,964,208 CCE Revenue Requirement -$3,174,625 $85,259,592 $142,553,401 $150,264,030 $156,788,960 $160,251,380 $165,189,054 $170,288,744 $176,753,332 $181,998,928 $187,275,977 $193,253,983 Total CCE Generation Revenue Requirement -$1,994,308 $104,218,291 $182,198,666 $190,120,831 $196,623,028 $200,059,773 $190,172,888 $194,895,776 $201,223,219 $206,311,531 $211,373,167 $217,218,191 Bundled SCE Revenues $14,645,671 $235,244,325 $446,510,703 $463,171,504 $477,129,207 $491,339,804 $506,363,432 $523,410,711 $538,963,666 $555,038,628 $572,240,464 $589,199,935 Total CCE Customer Bill Revenues (Power Supply and Delivery) $14,064,486 $225,909,114 $428,183,138 $443,820,508 $458,273,776 $471,022,222 $484,417,665 $499,284,744 $513,284,708 $527,732,274 $543,063,077 $558,351,556 Savings $581,185 $9,335,211 $18,327,565 $19,350,995 $18,855,432 $20,317,582 $21,945,768 $24,125,967 $25,678,957 $27,306,354 $29,177,386 $30,848,379 Percent Savings 4.0% 4.0% 4.1% 4.2% 4.0% 4.1% 4.3% 4.6% 4.8% 4.9% 5.1% 5.2% LA County Community Choice Aggregation Financial Operating Model - 100% Conservative Load Scenario April 17, 2017 2018 2018 CCE Operating Costs Jan - June July - Dec 2019 2020 2021 2022. 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Power Supply $5,548,178 $89,116,947 $167,471,888 $169,772,886 $173,411,076 $176,428,572 $179,615,223 $182,850,320 $186,044,507 $189,501,325 $192,969,546 $196,532,598 Billing & Data Management $12,960 $2,139,523 $4,770,904 $4,334,322 $4,393,056 $4,460,722 $4,552,050 $4,652,473 $4,756,607 $4,867,872 $4,973,415 $5,053,433 SCE Fees - $1,021,003 $1,793,163 $1,408,479 $1,421,766 $1,441,030 $1,463,225 $1,493,181 $1,526,119 $1,560,275 $1,596,770 $1,631,388 $1,657,634 Technical Services $665,000 $665,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 Staffing $200,000 $935,000 $2,825,400 $2,881,908 $2,939,546 $2,998,337 $3,058,304 $3,119,470 . $3,181,859 $3,245,496 $3,310,406 $3,376,615 General & Administrative expenses $170,000 $230,000 $356,000 $312,120 $318,362 $324,730 $331,224 $337,849 $344,606 $351,498 $358,528 $365,698 Contribution to Annual Reserves $0 $11,104,855 $5,612,533 $15,574,747 $17,815,189 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 New Programs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,815,189 $20,674,937 $23,983,826 $28,975,455 $32,186,242 $35,376,344 $39,430,008 Debt Service (CCE Bonds & Start-up Costs) $0 $2,091,983 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 $4,183,967 - $4,183,967 Start -Up Capital ($9,295,079) • . $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Uncollectibles $43,987 $579,652 $1,110,310 $1,120,819 $1,139,606 $1,155,340 $1,098,089 $1,113,386 $1,129,709 $1,147,298 $1,164,622 $1,182,671 Total Operating Costs -$1,633,950 $108,656,123 $189,139,480 $201,002,534 $207,041,832 $210,230,081 $216,406,974 $223,167,410 $231,576,984 $238,480,468 $245,368,215 $253,182,623 Other Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total CCE Revenue Requirement -$1,633,950 $108,656,123 $189,139,480 $201,002,534 $207,041,832 $210,230,081 $216,406,974 $223,167,410 $231,576,984 $238,480,468 $245,368,215 $253,182,623 Average CCE Rate ($/kWh) - $0.0414 $0.0725 $0.0763 $0.0778 $0.0782 $0.0797 $0.0814 $0.0836 $0.0853 $0.0868 #DIV/01. Average SCE Generation Rate ($/kWh) $0.0708 .$0.0721 $0.0748 $0.0763 $0.0777 $0.0794 $0.0816 $0.0831 $0.0847 $0.0866 $0.0882 Total CCE Charges SCE Non-bypassabie Charges $1,180,317. $18,958,699 $39,645,264 $39,856,800 $39,834,068 $39,808,393 $24,983,834 $24,607,031 $24,469,887 $24,312,602 $24,097,190 $23,964,208 CCE Revenue Requirement -$1,633,950 $108,656,123 $189,139,480 $201,002,534 $207,041,832 $210,230,081 $216,406,974 $223,167,410 $231,576,984 $238,480,468 $245,368,215 $253,182,623 Total CCE Generation Revenue Requirement -$453,633 $127,614,822 $228,784,745 $240,859,334 $246,875,900 $250,038,474 $241,390,809 $247,774,441 $256,046,871 $262,793,070 $269,465,405 $277,146,831 Bundled SCE Revenues. $14,645,671 $235,244,325 $446,510,703 $463,171,504 $477,129,207 $491,339,804 $506,363,432 $523,410,711 $538,963,666 $555,038,628 $572,240,464 $589,199,935 Total CCE Customer Bill Revenues (Power Supply and Delivery) $15,534,634 $249,523,186 $474,769,217 $494,559,012 $508,526,648 $522,743,054 $537,746,758 $554,663,152 $570,272,031 $586,390,179 $603,602,368 $620,638,586 Savings ($888,963) ($14,278,862) ($28,258,514) ($31,387,508) ($31,397,440). ($31,403,251) ($31,383,325) ($31,252,440) ($31,308,366) ($31,351,551) ($31,361,905) ($31,438,651) Percent Savings -6.1% - -6.1% -6.3% -6.8% -6.6% -6.4% -6.2% -6.0% -5.8% -5.6% -5.5% -5.3% COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION GOVERNANCE OPTIONS Item LACCE JPA Regional JPA Individual Ci Expertise County staff is knowledgeable and is supported by a well - qualified team of consultants. Consultant team needs to be identified. . Consultant team to be identified. Startup Cost $10 million covered by County as a 0% loan that is paid back in one year by the LACCE once established. Startup costs are unknown however, they may be entirely borne by a public power service firm hired to operate the CCA, who will recoup their initial cost through CCA revenues. Actual startup costs are unknown and will be paid back to City from CCA revenues once formed however, Lancaster has offered consulting services at a one - time cost of $63K. Implementation Plan Draft completed by BKI and ready to submit to CPUC. Requires preparation by consultant. Requires preparation by consultant. Customer Rates If many cities join, reduced customer rates through economies of scale. Depends on the number of participating cities and their overall electricity load, but will likely be higher than LACCE Rates will be higher than LACCE and Regional JPA however, still lower than SCE. Membership One board member appointed from each city within the County (up to 82) One board member appointed from each city (2-14) Only Culver City. Voting' Will be one vote for each city or if challenged, then a weighted vote based upon each cities use of electricity. May be one vote for each city and/or weighted voting based on each cities use of electricity, their population or a combination of both. The City Council is the CCA Board. Rate Establishment and Program Development Very limited City control. Some City control with like- minded cities. Complete City control. Oversight County takes lead to facilitate everything — including hiring consultants and an Executive Director, interfacing with SCE and the CPUC, program development and marketing, running JPA meetings, etc. Initially requires participating cities to dedicate staff time to establishing, administering and overseeing the CCA operation. Once established, the CCA Executive Director will hire staff to operate it. Initially requires significant City staff time dedicated to establishing, administering and overseeing the CCA operation. Per Lancaster, hire 8 City staff members to operate the CCA as an enterprise fund and as a new Division created beneath an existing City Department. Revenues CCA revenues used to support CCA operations only. CCA revenues used to support CCA operations only. CCA revenues used to support CCA operations and programs and may be used to cover other City staff costs related to supporting those operations Committees Executive, Finance and Community Advisory with Board option to create more as needed. (SBCP recommends) Community Advisory with Board option to create more as needed. TBD (if any). i Following is a chart of electrical use by each of the 14 pilot cities that would become the basis for calculating the percentage of each members "weighted vote" initially for the Regional JPA. (If however, all 56 of the County cities who have expressed an interest in doing so join the LACCE, Culver City's weighted vote by electrical load would be 1.85% and if additional cities join, over time each cities city's voting rights will erode.) SBCP Cities Electric Loads gfifavA 1 Hermosa Beach 20,000 Manhattan Beach 35,000 Redondo Beach 67,000 Torrance 146,000 Santa Monica 90,000 Beverly Hills 35,000 Carson 92,000 Culver City 39,000 Malibu 13,000 West Hollywood 35,000 Lomita 20,000 Palos Verdes Estates 14,000 Rancho Palos Verdes 42,000 Rolling Hills Estates 8,000 14 TOTAL CmES "'660,000 PEOPLE, � �zo�►�L��:�I�r�l �! 80,000 '200,000 300,000 1,580,000 920,000 660,000 1,290,000 440,000 210,000 320,000 60,000 60,000 190,000 60,000 Culver City: Weighted vote -by -population: 39,000/660,000=6% Culver City: Weighted vote -by -electricity: 440,000/6,400,000=7% `6,400 GWh County Business Plan SCE/LACCE Customer Rate Comparisons Indicative Rate Comparison inC/kWh Rate Class SCE Standard LACCE RPS SCE 50% RPS LACCE 50`,o RPS SCE 100% RPS LACCE 100% RPS Residential 17.1 16.2 18.85 16.4 206 18.2 Small Commercial 16-6 15.7 18.35 15.9 20.1 17.7 Medium Commerclai 15.8 15 17.55 15.2 19.3 16.9 Large Commercial 14.5 13 8 16.25 13.9 18 15.5 Small Public Authority 12.6 12 11.35 12.1 16.1 13.4 Large Public. Authority 10.4 9.9 12.15 10 13.4 11.1 Small Industrial 13.1 12.4 14.85 12.6 16.6 14 Med?um Industrial 11.7 11.1 13.45 11.2 15.2 12.5 Large Industrial 7.5 7.1 9.25 7.2 11 8 LACCE Rate Savings Over SCE Standard Rate 5.40% 4.10% -6.30% Savings Over Comparable SCE Rate ` -• 13% 12% • SCE standard rates from 2016 GRC • Rates are taken from the LACCE Business Plan • LACCE rates include considerable financial reserve 10% of existing CCA customers in California sign up for the 100% RPS tier and the remainder select the lower -cost tiers of 50% or the "standard" RPS tier of 33%. SOUtflE IN cALIrorzvia HJE 1ISON II Energy for What's Ahead'' Community Choice aggregation Contract Cities Managers Meeting October 5, 2017 C ) Summary • Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) is a customer choice program that permits local government to buy electricity directly on behalf of its citizens and transmit the power over SCE's lines - The local citizens continue to be SCE customers for the transmission and distribution service, but the CCA provider buys the electricity - SCE does not earn a profit on its energy procurement activity Interest in CCA formation is increasing - Up to 65% of the local governments in SCE's service territory are considering CCA formation • Power contracts signed on behalf of customers while they were on bundled service continue to be their responsibility after their departure - State law requires the remaining customers taking power from SCE be "indifferent" to CCA departures - CCA customers are required to pay the "above market" portion of legacy contracts signed on their behalf, in order to protect remaining customers Community Choice Aggregation has potential to significantly increase departing load 86,440 54,630 GWh 45,440 12,440 11,000 17 Electricity Service Providers Western Riverside Council of Governments Coachella Valley Associated Governments Riverside County Apple Valley Lancaster Cities within LA County Unincorp. LA County & Municipal Accts Hermosa Beach San Jacinto Pico Rivera 0.5% Remaining Bundled 36.5%y' 1 DIRECT ACCESS ACTIVE CCA APPROVED CCA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IN PROGRESS CCA EXPLORING CCA BUNDLED 100% 63% 52% 14% 12% 0% SCE's Existing Portfolio of Renewable Generation Resources and the Existing Departing Load Cost Responsibility Framework 9 8 7 -c 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Average Cost of SCE's Renewable Prevailing Market Price (Composite)* "Above Market" Costs Contracts • As required by the CPUC, SCE has procured over 11,000 MW of renewable resources • SCE's portfolio is more expensive than current market prices • Customers who depart bundled service for CCA service "leave behind their share" of SCE's historical generation portfolio • Any "above market" costs of resources procured prior to a customer's departure are the responsibility of that customer — Cost responsibility is inversely correlated with market conditions *Estimate of market price is based on current assumptions and is subject to change Flaws in the Current Methodology ® Current methodology that assigns "above market" contract costs to departing customers is. flawed - leaving SCE "bundled" customers paying for costs incurred on behalf of departed customers 9 — Benchmarks used to determine the "prevailing 8 market price" are too high, resulting in an under -recovery from CCA customers 7 - "Bundled Service" customers paying for their 6 electricity, plus a portion of departed CCA - customers' share of historical contracts 5 • SCE, PG&E and SDG&E have proposed a reform " 4 methodology that would require departing customers to "take their share" of the historical 3 portfolio with them when they depart - Utility reform methodology is transparent and can be scaled -up if larger populations opt for CCA - Results in all customers contributing the same $/kWh towards the cost recovery of the historical portfolio 2 1 0 3.3C/. Cost Shift to Bundled Service Customers SCE's Average Cost Prevailing Market ❑ "Above Market" Costs :9C/; kWh 7.1C/ kWh Current Methodology CIA Schedule Concurrent Briefs/Reply Briefs .Further Procedural Guidance, if necessary Proposed Decision (if no hearings) Q4 2017 Workshops reviewing the Current PCIA Methodology and a Data - Based Discussion on Going Forward Solutions Rulings regarding schedule for testimony and hearings Opening Testimony Concurrent Rebuttal Testimony Evidentiary Hearing Concurrent Briefs/Reply Briefs and Requests for Oral Argument Proposed Decision December 2017 -January 2018 Late January 2018 90 Days After Briefs Early December 2017 Mid March 2018 Early April 2018 Mid April 2018 Mid -Late May 2018 July 2018 Some forms of departing load* • Direct Access (DA) customers elect to receive energy from a third -party Electric Service Provider (ESP) • Only non-residential customers can switch to DA service • SCE provides distribution and metering; ESP can choose to provide billing • Amount of DA allowed is capped at pre -Energy Crisis peak levels (in GWh) • Current Direct Access load cap is 10,710 GWh or —12% of total SCE load • CCA allows cities, counties to procure electricity for customers in their jurisdiction • SCE provides distribution, metering and billing • Customers are automatically enrolled and can "opt out" if they wish to remain or return to utility procurement service • CCAs are subject to a statutory bond requirement to cover costs of involuntary return of customers to utility procurement service • Two CCAs in SCE territory (Lancaster, Apple Valley), representing —1% of load • Municipal utility buys the IOU's T&D system or builds its own system, provides full electric service, including procurement and T&D service • Significant financial commitment and complexity of operation • Examples include portions of Rancho Cucamonga and Azusa • No new municipal utilities in SCE territory since 2010 (Victorville); recent activity limited to new development areas *Other departing load includes customer generation, and community aggregation under AB 80 The IOUs are seeking to address cost shifting Assernbly Bill 117 (2002) Enabled CCA formation and states that the "implernentatrion of a,CCA program shall not result in a shifting of costs between the customers of the CCA and the bundled service customers. Senate Bill 350 (2015) Stated that the CPUC shall "ensure that bundled retail customers of an electrical corporation do not experience any cost increases as a result of retail customers of an electrical corporation electing to receive service from other providers." Current "indifference" methodology' (sometimes referred to as the PCIA methodology) - Formula -based mechanism that under -recovers costs from customers departing from bundled retail service. For 10 years, CPUC has delayed approval of a statutorily required CCA bond charge to protect bundled service customers Joint utilities' proposal -the Portfolio Allocation Methodology (PAM)— would allocate a prorated share of the vintaged utility portfolios to departing load customers PAM ensures that departing load customers are allocated their share of the market value and the costs of the long-term resources procured by the utility to serve them Utilities are advocating for CCA bond requirements to protect customers from CCA defaults/involuntary return of customers to utility procurement service GI: MlicatV ack-up er4 aYRolla/to qte, fG INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 8-A Mtg. Date: 11-27-17 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YVETTE HALL, INTERIM CITY CLERK/EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER re' SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 7, 2017 SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION RESULTS. DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2017 EXHIBITS: 1) Resolution No. 1219 2) Ordinance No. XXX (Measure C) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1219 reciting the facts of the special municipal election held on November 7, 2017, and declaring the result and such other matters as provided by law. BACKGROUND On November 7, 2017 a Special Municipal Election was conducted in the City of Rolling Hills to consider Measure C, asking whether to repeal Measure B (a ballot initiative approved in March 2013 that changed the City's view preservation law). In accordance with Resolution No. 1210, the Special Municipal Election was consolidated with the School District and Library District Elections that were conducted on the same day by the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's ("LACRR/CC") Office. The ballots were counted and the results canvassed and certified by the LACRR/CC. A copy of the certified election results are attached to this report (see Attachment A of Exhibit 1). The attached resolution must be adopted by the City Council to officially declare the results of the election. A Certificate of the Canvass of the Election Returns was provided by the LACRR/CC. The election results for Measure C are as follows: Page 1 of 2 Measure C - Repeal Measure B The following question (which was designated as Measure C) was submitted to Rolling Hills' registered voters at the November 7, 2017 Special Municipal Election: YES "Shall an ordinance be adopted repealing the March 2013 amendments made to the City's View Preservation Ordinance by Measure B?" NO Answer Yes No Votes Received 441 302 Vote Percentage 59.35% 40.65% Since a majority of the voters passed Measure C, Ordinance No. XXX entitled "An Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills Repealing Measure B by Amending Subsection (E) of Section 17.26.050 and Repealing Section 17.26.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code" (Exhibit 2) shall go into effect. NOTIFICATION The authors of the arguments for and against the measure were informed of this matter on the City Council agenda. YH 11-27-14 Election Resolution StafReport.docx Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 1219 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 7, 2017, DECLARING THE RESULTS AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW. WHEREAS, a Special Municipal Election was held and conducted in the City of Rolling Hills, California, on Tuesday, November 7 , 2017, as required by law; and WHEREAS, notice of the election was given in time, form and manner as provided by law; that a voting precinct was properly established; that election officers were appointed and that in all respects the election was held and conducted and the votes were cast, received and canvassed and the returns made and declared in time, form and manner as required by the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California for the holding of elections in General Law cities; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 1210, the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk canvassed the returns of the election and has certified the results to this City Council, which are attached hereto and made a part herein as "Attachment A." NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the ballot measure submitted to the voters is as follows: YES "Shall an ordinance be adopted repealing the March 2013 amendments made to the City's View Preservation Ordinance by Measure B?" NO SECTION 2. That as a result of the election, a majority of voters voting on Measure C relating to the repeal of Measure B did vote in favor of it, and that the measure was carried, and shall be deemed adopted andratified. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall enter on the records of the City of Rolling Hilts a statement of the result of the election, showing: (1) The whole number of ballots cast in the City; (2) The measure voted upon; (3) The number of votes given at each precinct for and against the measure; and (4) The total number of votes given for and against the measure. Page 1 of 6 SECTION 4. The City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and its approval by the City Council and shall cause the same to be listed in the records of the City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON this 27th day of November 2017. JAMES BLACK, M.D. MAYOR ATTEST: YVETTE HALL CITY CLERK Page 2 of 6 The foregoing Resolution No. 1219 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 7, 2017, DECLARING THE RESULTS AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW. Was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 27th day of November 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: YVETTE HALL CITY CLERK Page 3 of 6 ATTACHMENT A .206 eAt Aegatif-C1/16-ACCOleCk/ie/ I, DEAN C. LOGAN, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles, of the State of California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that pursuant to the provisions of Section 15300 et seq. of the California Elections Code, I did canvass the returns of the votes cast for each elective office and/or measure(s) for at the Local and Municipal Consolidated Elections, held on the 7th day of November 2017. I FURTHER CERTIFY that the Statement of Votes Cast, to which this certificate is attached, shows the total number of ballots cast in said jurisdiction, and that the whole number of votes cast for each candidate and/or measure(s) in said jurisdiction in each of the respective precincts therein, and the totals of the respective columns and the totals as shown for each candidate and/or measure(s) are full, true and correct. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this 20th day of November 2017. �CORDEA/C RP�� OLtir cCS ANG�C:•e, Q 6-11,44c,1,6' DEAN C. LOGAN-' Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk County of Los Angeles Pa 4 of Fi COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - LOCAL AND MUNICIPAL CONSOLIDATED ELECTIONS 11/07/17 21.1 - PAGE - 55 of 75 FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST BY PRECINCT ROLLING HILLS MEASURE -ate CITY SPC C .. MUN LOCATION REGIST- RATION BALLOTS CAST ROLLING HILLS - 5700001A VOTE BY MAIL SERIAL 0198 TOTAL 1471 0 1471 355 394 749 210 231 441 145 157 302 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - LOCAL AND MUNICIPAL CONSOLIDATED ELECTIONS 11/07/17 21.2 - PAGE - 56 of 75 FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST BY PRECINCT ROLLING HILLS MEASURE 5 s,' CITY SPC C .2 - MUN LOCATION REGIST- RATION BALLOTS CAST PRECINCT TOTAL VBM TOTAL GROUP TOTAL 1471 0 0 355 394 0 210 231 0 145 157 0 GRAND TOTAL 1471 749 441 302 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REPEALING MEASURE B BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (E) OF SECTION 17.26.050 AND REPEALING SECTION 17.26.090 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE The People of the City of Rolling Hills do ordain as follows: Section 1. Subsection (E) of Section 17.26.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows : 17.26.050 — Hearing procedure and findings. E. Action. If the Committee makes finding subsection (D)(3) of this section, it shall order such restorative action as is necessary to abate the view impairment and to restore the complainant's view, including, but not limited to, removal, pruning, topping, thinning or similar alteration of the vegetation. 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 unreasonably detract from the privacy or enjoyment of the property on which the objectionable vegetation is located. Section 2. Section 17.26.090 ("Preservation of views defined") is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by vote of the electorate this 27th day of November, 2017. JAMES BLACK, M.D. MAYOR ATTEST: YVETTE HALL CITY CLERK Page 1 of 1 NOV 2 8 2017 City of Rolling Hills By ® Monitoring Program and Key Results/Issues • Pollution Control Measures ® Regional Projects • Implementation - Next Steps/Decisions ® Current Stormwater Expenditures and Agreements for Monitoring Stormwater Program Update 'rStormwater ;Program Update Customizes' monitoring rogram f t i a Peninsula: 6 Achieves primary objectives articulated in Permit 6 Includes certain required elements 6 Incorporates ongoing TMDL monitoring 6 Provides for cost -sharing on a watershed basis 11/27/17 4 Stormwater Program Update 1. Pollutant loads in storm water discharges 2. Whether water quality standards are met in discharge and in receiving waters 3. Chemical, physical, and biological impacts on receiving waters from discharges 4. Effectiveness of pollutant controls, and possible sources of pollutants in discharges 11/27/17 5 Stormwater Program Update Figure 1. Regional Drainage of Rolling Hills 1=1.eity Boundary • = Streets Storm hi a1nSDLayer' n LA Harbor W atershed Q Machado Lake, Watershed Open Coast Watershed 11/L// 1/ Continuation, of RH Drairiage to'ihe Coast _Portuguese Bend #1 �.I Portuguese, Bend #2,:. t__jPortuguese Bend #3 EMTrump,Goff.Co'urse; RH'DrainageTo the Coast Portuguese;' Bend'#1 Portuguese 'Bend #2. F._ ." i Podugue0,Bend'#3' Trump'©olf.,Course• 7 S orrnwater Program Update' eceiving water monitoring: Wet weather - 3x per year Dry weather - 2x per year 6 Storm Water Outfall monitoring: Wet weather - 3x per year At outfalls representative of each watershed 6 T Monitoring 6 Non -storm Water Outfall Screening r Monitoring Systematic screening for non - storm water flows Track to identify source and 6 eliminate or 6 monitor 4x per year 11/27/17 8 Stormwater Program Update Santa Mond a Bair Bacteria- 6 Weekly sampling, year-round 6 5 beaches on the Peninsula 6 3 types of indicator bacteria 6 11/27/17 Machado Lake TMDLs 6 4 locations 6 Monthly: Nitrogen & Phosphorus 6 Three storm events: Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Pesticides and PCBs Greater Los Angeles Harbor Toxic TMDL 22 water sample locations, during 2 wet and 1 dry weather events per year 6 Sediment 2x/5 years, 6 Fish tissue every 2 years 6 For Metals, I esticides & PCBs Stormwater Program Update PolntVlcnfallente Llghthouse "9Ral Gauge', Legend • Rainfall Gauges — Open Channels — Storm Drains City Boundary El Equivalent HUG 12 Watershed Boundary Natural Drainage Monitoring Locations A Receiving Water Monitoring L MS4 Outfall Monitoring* • SMBBB TMDL CSMP Monitoring Q Harbor Water and Sediment Monitoring O Harbor Water, Sediment, and Fish Monitoring Q Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL Monitoring Land Use [11 j Agriculture 1,.,..,_s Commercial Education j Industrial MF Residential ] SF Residential Li Transportation L__} Open Space r` a Rancho Pa/os,Verdes Figure 3 TMDL and MS4 Monitoring Locations Peninsula Cities CIMP April 2016 1 0.5 0 1 Miles I= M 1 Stormwater Program Update 6 Santa Monica Bay Bacteria shoreline monitoring during dry weather is meeting the final TMDL targets 6 Shoreline monitoring during wet weather meets targets in most years (this past winter there were several stations with exceedances above targets likely due to wet year) 1St year screening of nearshore receiving water quality analyzed for 140 pollutants in Santa Monica Bay during dry and wet weather Bacteria were only exceedances during wet weather 6 Harbor sediment and fish sampling being evaluated through multiple lines of evidence Sediment Quality Objectives 11/27/17 12 Stormwater Program Update 6 Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL monthly interim limits generally met during dry months, however final limits not yet met 6 Preliminary 1St year results with new method of sampling for suspended sediment suggests Chlordane and DDE may be above TMDL target for Machado Lake (compliance is based on 3 -year average) 6 Bacteria elevated in stormwater discharges (common for municipal stormwater) 6 Total Suspended Solids in stormwater discharge from Lariat and Valmonte sites exceeded municipal action level (MAL) 11/27/17 13 Stormwater Program Update 6 Non-Stormwater Canyon Screening and Investigation Natural flows, no illicit discharges identified 6 Trash monitoring Zero discharge of trash waste load allocations met Approval to use same monitoring data for Santa Monica Bay TMDL as for Machado Lake Multiple requests to cease monitoring based on zero trash (latest request with Permit renewal application in June 2017) 11/27/17 14 Stormwater Program Update 6 Machado Lake -Nutrient rTMDL final compliance deadline is September 2018 Time schedule order (for time extension) needs to be requested at least 90 days prior to final compliance deadline 6 Machado Lake Pesticides & PCBs TMDL final compliance deadline is September 2019 Could request combined Time Schedule Order for both Machado Lake TMDLs 6. City must submit an action plan for sediments; no permit violation so long as plan is approved and implemented 11/27/17 15 Stormwater Program Update Stormwater Program Update Pubs Stormwater Controls 6 Earth Day stormwater booth 6 Info. on City's website & newsletter 6 Webpages on Sustainable Gardening & Landscaping with integrated pest management on South Bay COG http://www.southbaycities.org/ programs / environmentally -friendly - landscaping -gardening -and -pest -control 6 Small construction site brochure 6 Water efficient landscape ordinance 6 Condition new/redevelopment for low impact and track benefits 6 Review construction plans and enforce erosion and sediment control 6 Inventory and assess public facilities for stormwater controls and improvements 6 Identify and respond to illicit discharges, require prompt cleanup 11/27/17 17 Stormwater Program Update Ih.$)sh:aplcu-_vi.r 6 Brush and fire control 6 Green waste and manure collection, requirements Encourage native and drought - tolerant landscaping 6 Permeable stable access -ways 6 Development of design standards for stables 6 City Hall parking lot retrofit 6 Increased erosion and sediment controls: Equestrian areas and trails Small construction sites Construction sites 1 acre or greater under Construction General Permit Other areas? 11/27/17 18 Stormwater Program Update i)ThtU1 Irk Stormwater ;Program Update 6 Capture Peninsula-runoff-to^Machado Lake (and Wilmington Drain) j, Uncertain whether it could capture the 85th percentile/24-hour storm (design storm) Preliminary estimated cost for construction if sized up to capture Peninsula runoff from design storm is —$38-50 million Torrance received Prop 1 Storm Water Grant for project design ($500K) 6 Could serve as regulatory solution for both Nutrients and Pesticide/PCB TMDLs and Wilmington Drain: especially if it can be sized to capture design storm 11/27/17 20 Stormwater Program Update 11/27/17 21 Stormw atcr Pr ogram Updatc QUAD: TORRANCE 1-H1-03 REDONDO 1-H1-04 BEACH 6 Counter - Prop 1 Coastal Conservancy grant application D LA County may still pursue the project but time frame is uncertain 11/27/17 22 Stormwater Program Update 6 Would require dual -track negotiations with City of LA and Regional Board staff to establish terms 6 Would allow Rolling Hills' compliance point to be in the lake rather than in discharge 6 City of Los Angeles would require significant commitment of funds 6 Peninsula group meeting with City of LA staff to discuss - Nov 30 11/27/17 23 Stormwater Program Update Stormwater Program Update itet-tilig (ad 6 Provides for up to 5 additional years to attain TMDL targets 6 TSO commits to specific implementation actions on a specific schedule with milestones 6 Requires public comment and hearing before the Regional Board 6 Must be requested no later than 90 days prior to TMDL deadline (June 11, 2018 for Nutrient TMDL) 6 Could be individual TSO or a group TSO (e.g., for regional project implementation) 6 Could address both Machado Lake Nutrients and Pest/PCBs 11/27/17 25 Stormwater Program Update (ca -7/ ft",Yd iM2 a 1 ti Stormwater Program Update w/ council, Annual report; coordination & communication staff, permit -wide; regulatory tracking; project mgmt. Public outreach and education Staff training/assistance on development & construction Public facilities and services stormwater requirements Illicit discharge investigation support & training 8,099 '06'3 $920 $2,266 $731 $14,508 $3,744. $2,496 $3, 744 $2,808 Capital costs: (City Hall parking lot retrofit pre -design) - $15,000 Peninsula CIMP: Harbor Toxics Rolling Hills trash and non-stormwater Total Monitoring: Watershed'; group cooed. and TMDL Permit Fee • TOTAL. $39,710 $16,536 $6,130 $62,376 $39,710 $16,536 $9,500 $65,746 lemen mp Cation $14,203 $12,168 $5,986 ' $7 $107,644 000 $127,',214 Stormwater Program Update Cosh:-sh r GCLIeral TercirnS 6 5 -year term (effective 5/3/16) 6 Rancho Palos Verdes administers for 5% fee 6 10% contingency 6 Not to exceed $382,432 annually 6 Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) 5% share of cost 6 All other parties share based on % land area and 011 tasks/ scope elements they are participating 6 Rolling Hills' share not to exceed $39,710 annually 11/27/17 29 Stormwater Program Update General Ter n Cost -share 6 5 -year term (effective 6/12/2014) 6 Administered by Gateway JPA for 3% fee 6 Average annual cost is $445,018 6 Los Angeles County Flood Control District flat 10% share 6 All other parties have base cost plus share based on % land area (30:60 base:area) 6 Rolling Hills' share —$16,536 invoiced annually by Gateway 6 Industrial facilities (non -voting): $12,300/yr. reduces overall cost 11/27/17 30 Stormwater Program Update Fri r to July 6 Performed by Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Weekly monitoring at 5 sites (plus 3 in San Pedro) 6 Required by the NPDES Permit for the Joint Plant Wastewater Treatment Plant 6 At no cost to Peninsula Permittees (est. LACSD cost is $2,312/wk or $120,224/yr for all 8 sites) 11/27/17 July 1, 2010 6 Peninsula Permittees must assume responsibility, no longer required by LACSD Joint Plant WWTP NPDES Permit 6 Need to amend CIMP MOU to cover the additional cost 6 Group will issue RFP to obtain additional quotes City & County interested in cost - sharing for San Pedro sites 31 Storrnwater Program Update ito - a e V 611, 6 Screening of major canyons 6 Investigation of source of significant flows 6 May be required to repeat periodically 6 Conducted by John L Hunter & Associates (JLHA) through direct contract Trash TEIDL Monitori 6 For Machado Lake TMDL and Santa Monica Bay 6 Frequency has been reduced to 2x per year at foot of 7 canyons Conducted by JLHA through direct contract 11/27/17 32 Stormwater Program Update Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 2:09:43 PM Pacific Standard Time Subject: FW: corrected ppt for Council Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 2:04:09 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Yvette Hall <yhall@cityofrh.net> To: Ewa Nikodem <enikodem@cityofrh.net> Here is the presentation. Could you please make copies for the Council to be included in their weekly packets? Thank you very much. Yvette Yvette Hall, Interim City Clerk/Executive Assistant 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. Forwarded Message From: Ray Cruz <rcruz@ cityofrh.net> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 10:26:24 -0800 To: Yvette Hall <vhall@cityofrh.net> Subject: FW: corrected ppt for Council Make a weekly item for this issue. 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. From: Kathleen McGowan <KathleenPmcgowan.consulting> Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:27 AM To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net>, Raymond Cruz <rcruzPcityofrh.net> Subject: corrected ppt for Council Yolanta and Ray, Mayor Black asked for copies of the ppt. Attached is the corrected version for distribution to them. Kathleen McGowan Kathleen@ McGowan.Consulting 310-213-4979 This communication may contain confidential information that may not be released or disclosed to entities other than the intended recipient without prior authorization by the sender or sender's client. End of Forwarded Message s. ® Monitoring Program and Key Results/Issues ® Pollution Control Measures • Regional Projects • Implementation - Next Steps/Decisions Current Stormwater Expenditures and Agreements for Monitoring 2 Stormwater Program Update +fe Stormwater Program Update Custo r ized t e Penins << a unit g program for 6 Achieves primary objectives articulated in Permit 6 Includes certain required elements 6 Incorporates ongoing TMDL monitoring 6 Provides for cost -sharing on a watershed basis 11/27/17 4 Stormwater Program Update 1. Pollutant loads in storm water discharges 2. Whether water quality standards are met in discharge_ and in receiving waters 3. Chemical; physical, and biological impacts on receiving waters from discharges 4. Effectiveness of pollutant controls, and possible sources of pollutants in discharges 11/27/ 17 5 Stormwater Program Update 0 Figure 1. Regional . Drainage of Rolling Hills DCitp Boundary COntiniiatiorr of RH Drainage to "the Coast Streets L"__;.Portuguese Bend #1 StoritiM ainS[T_Layer r- �• Portuguese Bend #2.'. nLA-HarborWatershhed .L —:Por`tuguese Bend#3 n Machado Laka, WatersBed n Open Coast Watershed Truinp OoltCourse • RH DrainageTo the Coast Portuguese- Bend "#1 Portuguese Bend #2 Ems+ Portuguese Bend #3' Trump Golf Course 11/U lr Yin. Blue 7 Skoririwater Program Update' ' eceiving water monitoring: 1 Wet weather - 3x per year Dry weather 2x per year Storm Water Outfall monitoring: Wet weather - 3x per year At outfalls representative of each watershed 6 TMDL Monitoring Non -storm Water Outfall Screening Monitoring Systematic screening for non- storm water flows Track to identify source and eliminate or 6 monitor 4x per year t9 11/27/17 8 Stormwater Program Update Santa Modica Ba Bacteria 6 Weekly sampling, year-round 6 5 beaches on the Peninsula 6 3 types of indicator bacteria 6 11/27/17 Machado Lake TMDLs 6 4 locations 6 Monthly: Nitrogen & Phosphorus Three storm events: Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Pesticides and PCBs Greater Los Angeles Harbor Toxic TMDL 22 water sample locations, during 2 wet and 1 dry weather events per year 6 Sediment 2x/5 years, 6 Fish tissue every 2 years 6 For Metals, Pesticides & PCBs stormwater Program Update Peninsula-RW1 SM691k Peninsula -SDI Point Vicente, Lighthouse. Rainfall Gauge Santa Monica`Bay` Legend 3 Rainfall Gauges — Open Channels — Storm Drains City Boundary QEquivalent HUC 12 Watershed Boundary Natural Drainage Monitoring Locations A Receiving Water Monitoring Q MS4 Outfall Monitoring* • SMBBB TMDL CSMP Monitoring O Harbor Water and Sediment Monitoring O Harbor Water, Sediment, and Fish Monitoring • Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL Monitoring RHECity Halle ¢;Rolling Hiil s Rainfall Gauge - Land Use — ` Agriculture Commercial uEducation Industrial MF Residential SF Residential Transportation `I Open Space Figure 3 TMDL and MS4 Monitoring Locations Peninsula Cities CIMP April 2016 1 0.5 0 1 Miles 6 Santa Monica Bay Bacteria shoreline monitoring during dry weather is meeting the final TMDL targets Shoreline monitoring during wet weather meets targets in most years (this past winter there were several stations with exceedances above targets likely due to wet year) 1St year screening of nearshore receiving water quality analyzed for 140 pollutants in Santa Monica Bay during dry and wet weather Bacteria were only exceedances during wet weather 6 Harbor sediment and fish sampling being evaluated through multiple lines of evidence Sediment Quality Objectives 11/27/17. 12 Stormwater Program Update Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL monthly interim limits generally met during dry months, however final limits not yet met 6 Preliminary 1St year results with new method of sampling for' suspended sediment suggests Chlordane and DDE may be above TMDL target for Machado Lake (compliance is based on 3 -year average) Bacteria elevated in stormwater discharges (common for municipal stormwater) 6 Total Suspended Solids in stormwater discharge from Lariat and Valmonte sites exceeded municipal action level (MAL) 11/27/17 13 Stormwater Program Update Non-Stormwater Canyon Screening and Investigation Natural flows, no illicit discharges identified Trash monitoring Zero discharge of trash waste load allocations met Approval to use same monitoring data for Santa Monica Bay TMDL as for Machado Lake Multiple requests to cease monitoring based on zero trash (latest request with Permit renewal application in June 2017) 11/27/17 14 Stormwater Program Update 6 Machado Lake-NutrientT1VIDL final compliance deadline is September 2018 Time schedule order (for time extension) needs to be requested at least 90 days prior to final compliance deadline 6 Machado Lake Pesticides & PCBs TMDL final compliance deadline is September 2019 Could request combined Time Schedule Order for both Machado Lake TMDLs 6 City must submit an action plan for sediments; no permit violation so long as plan is approved and implemented 11/27/17 15 Stormwater Program Update Stormwater Program Update Public Editiat Earth Day stormwater booth Info. on City's website & newsletter 6 Webpages on Sustainable Gardening & Landscaping with integrated pest management on South Say COG http://www.southbaycities.org/ programs / environmentally -friendly - landscaping -gardening -and -pest -control 6 Small construction site brochure 6 Water efficient landscape ordinance Stormwater C o tw 5 6 Condition new/redevelopment for low impact and track benefits 6 Review construction plans and enforce erosion and sediment control 6 Inventory and assess public facilities for stormwater controls and improvements 6 Identify and respond to illicit discharges, require prompt cleanup 11/27/17 17 stormwater Program Update 6 Green waste and manure collection, requirements 6 Encourage native and drought - tolerant landscaping 6 Permeable stable access -ways 6 Development of design standards for stables 6 City Hall parking lot retrofit estiddde , PCBs, Met is 6 Brush and fire control 6 Increased erosion and sediment controls: Equestrian areas and trails Small construction sites Construction sites 1 acre or greater under Construction General Permit Other areas? 11/27/17 18 Stormwater Program Update Capture Penins-ula-runoff to 1VIachado Lake (and Wilmington Drain) Uncertain whether it could capture the 85th percentile/24-hour storm (design storm) Preliminary estimated cost for construction if sized up to capture Peninsula runoff from design storm is —$20 million Torrance received Prop 1 Storm Water Grant for project design ($500K) 6 Could serve as regulatory solution for both Nutrients and Pesticide/PCB TMDLs and Wilmington Drain: especially if it can be sized to capture design storm 11/27/17 20 Stormwater Program Update Machado-take-Nutrient-TMDL final compliance deadline is September 2018 Time schedule order (for time extension) needs to be requested at least 90 days prior to final compliance deadline 6 Machado Lake Pesticides & PCBs TMDL final compliance deadline is September 2019 Could request combined Time Schedule Order for both Machado Lake TMDLs 6 City must submit an action plan for sediments; no permit violation so long as plan is approved and implemented 11/27/17 15 Stormwater Program Update Stormwater Program Update 11/27/17 21 Stormwatcr Program Updatc QUAD: TORRANCE 1-H1-03 REDONDO 1-H1-04 BEACH 6 County - Prop 1 Coastal Conservancy grant application LA County may still pursue the project but time frame is uncertain 11/27/17 22 Stormwater Program Update 6 Would require dual -track negotiations with City of LA and Regional Board staff to establish terms 6 Would allow Rolling Hills' compliance point to be in the lake rather than in discharge 6 City of Los Angeles would require significant commitment of funds 6 Peninsula group meeting with City of LA staff to discuss - Nov 30 11/27/17 23 Stormwater Program Update Stormwater Program Update d Provides for up to 5 additional years to attain TMDL targets 6 TSO commits to specific implementation actions on a specific schedule with milestones 6 Requires public comment and hearing before the Regional Board 6 Must be requested no later than 90 days prior to TMDL deadline (June 11, 2019 for Nutrient TMDL) 6 Could be individual TSO or a group TSO (e.g., for regional project implementation) 6 Could address both Machado Lake Nutrients and Pest/PCBs 11/27/17 25 Stormwater Program Update Stormwater Program Update Watershed group coord. and TMDL implementation. Permit Fee TOTAL Annual report; coordination & communication w/ council, staff, permit -wide; regulatory tracking; project mgmt. Public .`outreach and education Staff training/assistance on development & construction Public facilities and services stormwater requirements Illicit discharge investigation support & training Capital costs: (City Hall g lot retrofit pre -design parking p -design $920- $2,266 $731 Peninsula CIMP: $39,710 Harbor Toxics $16,536 Rolling Hills trash and non-stormwater $6,130 Total Monitoring: $62,376 $14,203 $14,508, $2,496 $3, 744 $2,808 $15,000 $39,710 $16,536 $9,500 $65,746 $12,168' $7,000 $107,644 $127,214 $5,986 Stormwater Program Update C o st-share Genera Terms 6 5 -year term (effective 5/3/16) 6 Rancho Palos Verdes administers for 5% fee 6 10% contingency 6 Not to exceed $382,432 annually 6 Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) 5% share of cost 6 All other parties share based on % land area and on tasks/ scope elements they are participating 6 Rolling Hills' share not to exceed $39,710 annually 11/27/17 29 Stormwater Program Update General Taurus Cost sh r 6 5 -year term (effective 6/12/2014) 6 Administered by Gateway JPA for 3% fee 6 Average annual cost is $445,018 6 Los Angeles County Flood Control District flat 10% share All other parties have base cost plus share based on % land area (30:60 base:area) 6 Rolling Hills' share —$16,536 invoiced annually by Gateway 6 Industrial facilities (non -voting): $12,300/yr. reduces overall cost 11/27/17 30 Stormwater Program Update 'ii 6 Performed by Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 6 Weekly monitoring at 5 sites (plus 3 in San Pedro) a Required by the NPDES Permit for the Joint Plant Wastewater Treatment Plant 6 At no cost to Peninsula Permittees (est. LACSD cost is $2,312/wk or $120,224/yr for all 8 sites) 11/27/17 iiiinin Jul ,2 111 JI% Peninsula Permittees must assume responsibility, no longer required by LACSD Joint Plant WWTP NPDES Permit 6 Need to amend CIMP MOU to cover the additional cost 6 Group will issue RFP to obtain additional quotes 6 City & County interested in cost - sharing for San Pedro sites 31 Stormwater Program Update Screening of major canyons Investigation of source of significant flows 6 May be required to repeat periodically Conducted by John L Hunter & Associates (JLHA) through direct contract 11/27/17 Trash Tik D1 1Vionitoring 6 For Machado Lake TMDL and Santa Monica Bay Frequency has been reduced to 2x per year at foot of 7 canyons 6 Conducted by JLHA through direct contract 32 Stormwater Program Update ' CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION - CONFIDENTIAL Agenda Item No.: 12-A Mtg. Date: 11/27/2017 JENKINS HOGIN, LLP A LAW PARTNERSHIP MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ROLLING HILLS CC: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER FROM: MICHAEL JENKINS, CITY ATTORNEY NATALIE C. KARPELES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2017 RE: CLOSED SESSION RE: BKK LANDFILL — WEST COVINA; THREATENED LITIGATION & TOLLING AGREEMENT CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY - ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. This memorandum is in preparation for the closed session on Monday, November 27, 2017. I. BACKGROUND. BKK Corporation is the owner and operator of the West Covina landfill located at 2210 South Azusa Avenue, West Covina, CA. (Hereinafter referred to as "WC Site.") The WC Site contains a closed Class I hazardous waste landfill; a closed Class III municipal waste landfill; an operating leachate treatment plant; and other related facilities. Of particular note is the Class I portion of the WC Site. (Hereinafter referred to as the "Class I Landfill.") In the late 1980's, BKK closed the Class I Landfill under a closure plan approved by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the US Environmental Protection Agency.' Subject to this closure, BKK is required to When a hazardous waste site stops receiving waste at the end of its active life, it must be cleaned up, closed, monitored, and maintained in accordance with applicable statutes, regulations, and local ordinances in effect at the time. All hazardous waste management sites are subject to closure and post -closure care requirements. JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP NOVEMBER 21, 2017 PAGE 2 CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY - CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY -ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. monitor and perform post -closure environmental care of the Class I Landfill — which is regulated by the DTSC. In October 2004, BKK notified the DTSC that — for financial reasons — it could no longer continue post -closure care of the Class I Landfill. As a result, the DTSC hired a contractor to perform emergency response actions. In so doing, the DTSC determined that the types and amounts of hazardous substances deposited in the Class I Landfill presented an imminent and substantial danger to the public health/welfare and/or to the environment. So, in December 2004, the DTSC issued an "Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Determination and Order and Remedial Action Order" ("ISE Order") to BKK and 50 other responsible parties -.2 In response, BKK and several of the responsible parties joined together to create the `BKK Working Group"3 in order to try and investigate and treat the groundwater contamination below the WC Site as well as the groundwater remediation connected with the Class I Landfill. It is the hope of the BKK Working Group that if it performs these investigations and pays for certain projects and operations at the Class I Landfill, the DTSC will release it from certain response costs and may dismiss the ISE Order against the BKK Working Group members. 2 Including: American Honda Motor Company, Inc.; Appliance Industries, Inc.; Appropriate Technologies II, Inc.; Atlantic Richfield Corp.; Boeing Co.; Brady Investment Co.; California Department of Transportation; Chemical Waste Management, Inc.; Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Clean -Steel, Inc.; Ducommon AeroStructures, Inc.; Energy Merchant Corp.; Enthone, Inc.; ExxonMobil (Oil) Corp.; Federal Reserve Bank; Gemini Industries, Inc.; General Motors Corp.; Golden West Refining Co.; Honeywell International, Corp.; International Light Metals, Corp.; Kaiser Ventures, LLC; Laidlaw International, Inc.; Lockheed Martin, Corp.; Los Angeles Department of Water, and Power; Martin Marietta Carbon, Inc.; National Steel and Shipbuilding Co.; Pacific Coast Drum; P.W. Stevens, Inc.; Quemetco, Inc.; Raytheon Co.; RME Petroleum Co.; Robertson-Ceco; Rohr, Inc.; Scovill, Inc.; Shell Oil Co.; Southern California Edison; Stauffer Management Co., LLC; Texaco Exploration and Production; Texaco, Inc.; Thums Long Beach Co.; Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp.; Union Oil Co. of California; United States Navy; U.S. Filter Recovery Services (California); Washington Mutual Bank; Waymire Drum and Container Co., Inc.; Western Oil and Refining Co.; Western Waste Industries; and Xerox Corp. 3 An unaffiliated association of 63 entities JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP NOVEMBER 21, 2017 PAGE 3 CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY - CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY -ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. In its September 25, 2017 letter to the City (included herewith as Attachment 1), the BKK Working Group is alleging that from 1962.1987 the City of Rolling Hills (among others) may have contributed to the hazardous waste at the Class I Landfill. The BKK Working Group further alleges that because it been reimbursing DTSC oversight costs at the landfill since 2005 (and continues to do so under the current consent decree) it also has a claim against the City for the recovery of response costs. While the BKK Working Group investigates the full scope of the contamination, it is asking the City to enter into a Tolling Agreement to toll the statute of limitations (that BKK has against the City or the City has against BKK) regarding claims related to the response activities at the WC Site for the earlier of three (3) years or 15 days from notice of termination by either party. (A copy of the Tolling Agreement is enclosed herewith as Attachment 2.) II. DISCUSSION. A. Threatened Litigation Based on the information provided by the BKK Working Group's attorney, it is not possible to fully evaluate the City's potential liability, if any at all: "[T] he BKK Working Group possesses claims against [the City] for the recovery of response costs pursuant to CERCLA, the HSAA, and California common law." See Attachment 2, p. 3. While the City has been unable to locate any documents evidencing the fact that the City contributed waste to the WC Site, this circumstance has less to do with the City's culpability than it does with the fact that any documents between 1962 and 1987 would have long been destroyed pursuant to the City's record retention policy. The BKK Working Group has yet to provide the City with any substantial evidence (weight tickets, etc.) to include the City in its threatened litigation. With that said, below is a detailed analysis of the issues related to defending against BKK Working Group's alleged claims. JENIINNS & HOGIN, LLP NOVEMBER 21, 2017 PAGE 4 CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY - CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY -ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides a Federal "Superfund" to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous -waste sites as well as accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. Through CERCLA, the EPA was given power to seek out those parties responsible for any release and assure their cooperation in the cleanup through orders, consent decrees, and other small party settlements. The EPA also recovers costs from financially viable individuals and companies once a response action has been completed. Lawsuits brought under CERCLA involve extensive factual discovery and analysis and are generally very costly to defend. Additionally, liability for contamination under CERCLA is very broad, extending to a number of individuals or groups it terms "potentially responsible parties" (PRPs). These include: (1) the owner and operator of ... a facility, (2) any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned or operated any facility at which such hazardous substances were disposed of, (3) any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person..., and (4) any person who accepts or accepted any hazardous substances for transport to disposal or treatment facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (a) (emphasis added). CERCLA liability is strict, meaning it does not require intent or negligence or a specified amount of precaution on the part of the potentially responsible party. If the PRP is within one of the categories established by the CERCLA, that party can be held strictly liable for all costs associated with an environmental cleanup of the site. Also, liability for the cleanup may be "joint and several;" meaning that all of the PRPs can be liable as a group or that each contributor can be individually liable for the entire harm at the site. In other words, a defendant's accountability for costs incurred to clean up the site may not be proportional to the defendant's contamination of the site. While a defendant may be exempt from joint liability by JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP NOVEMBER 21, 2017 PAGE 5 CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY- CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY -ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. showing that the harm is capable of apportionment, such a showing is costly to prove and would fall on the defendant to prove, not the party bringing the lawsuit. California's Hazardous Substance Account Act ("HSAA") is modeled to some degree on the CERCLA. Generally speaking, if hazardous substances are found on private property, the HSAA permits a private party to seek contribution from other responsible parties, even absent a prior enforcement action. Unlike the CERCLA, the HSAA allows "[a]ny person who has incurred removal or remedial action costs in accordance with this chapter or [CERCLA]" to seek contribution or indemnity from any person liable under the HSAA, with certain exceptions. See California Health and Safety Code § 25363 (c). B. Tolling Agreement A tolling agreement is an agreement between a potential plaintiff and a potential defendant, by which the defendant agrees to extend the statute of limitations period on the plaintiff's claim — usually so that both parties will have more time to assess and determine the legitimacy and viability of their claims and/or the amount of their damages without litigation. A tolling agreement does not constitute any admission of fact or liability. If executed by the City, the Tolling Agreement would provide the City, the BKK Working Group and all participating PRPs an additional three years to continue investigation and response activities, and to consider settlement options. However, if the City rejects the Tolling Agreement, the BKK Working Group may file a lawsuit against the City to recover response costs for which the BKK Working Group alleges the City is responsible. Regardless of whether BKK's claim has factual and legal merit, it will be costly to investigate and defend. (See discussion of Threatened Litigation under subheading A, above.) /1/ JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP NOVEMBER 21, 2017 PAGE 6 III. ALTERNA'ITVES. CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY - CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY -ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. Whether or not the City should sign the Tolling Agreement depends in large part on whether the City has a way of identifying where it took its waste between 1962 and 1987. To complicate matters, the Palos Verdes Landfill (located at 25680 Hawthorne Blvd., Rolling Hills Estates, CA) was also a Class I landfill responsible for accepting Group 1 waste (albeit between 1964 and 1980, until its closure in or about 1981); therefore, there is a possibility that the City contributed to either/both the PV Landfill or/and the WC Site during the time period in question. At this time, the City Council may approve the Tolling Agreement and authorize the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City, or the City Council may determine to reject the Tolling Agreement and direct the City Attorney to so notify BKK. Alternatively, the City Council may request an extension to continue investigation of potential liability. Attachments: 1) Letter from BKK Working Group 2) (Proposed) Tolling Agreement Morgan Lewis Denise Gail Fellers Associate +1.213.680.6427 deniseJellers@morganlewis.com September 25, 2017 VIA REGULAR MAIL Michael Jenkins City Attorney City of Rolling Hills Jenkins 8t Hogin LLP 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 110 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Re: BKK Landfill, West Covina, CA Dear City Attorney Jenkins: This firm represents the BKK Working Group, an unaffiliated association of entities that has entered into a series of judicially -approved consent decrees with the California. Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") to take certain limited actions at the Class I Landfill portion ("Class I Landfill") of the BKK Corporation Landfill Facility in West Covina, CA (the "Site"). The BKK Working Group has recently discovered information suggesting that City of Rolling Hills (hereinafter referred to as "you") disposed of waste at the Class I Landfill and may therefore be liable for necessary response actions and other costs incurred by the BKK Working Group under § 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), and California Health and Safety Code § 25323.5. Enclosed with this letter is a Tolling Agreement relating to potential claims the BKK Working Group may have against you based on its work at the Class I Landfill. The BKK Landfill and Response Actions The BKK Site is an approximately 583 -acre facility located at 2210 South Azusa Avenue, West Covina, California. The Site contains a closed hazardous waste Class I landfill, a closed Class III municipal solid waste landfill, and related facilities including a leachate treatment plant and a landfill gas collection system. The Class I Landfill is approximately 190 acres in size and accepted waste from roughly 1962 to 1987. In total, the Class I Landfill accepted approximately five million tons of liquid and solid hazardous wastes together with substantially greater amounts of municipal and commercial wastes. BKK Corporation is the owner and operator of the Class I and Class III landfills. In October 2004, BKK Corporation announced that it could not continue to conduct post -closure care for the Class I Landfill after November 17, 2004. Consequently, DTSC engaged a contractor to Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty -Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 United States DB3/ 201611838.1 O +1.213.612.2500 0 +1.213.612.2501 , September 25, 2017 Page 2 conduct emergency response activities and to operate and maintain the Class I Landfill's critical equipment and systems. In December 2004, DTSC issued an "Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Determination and Order and Remedial Action Order" ("ISE Order") to BKK Corporation and 50 other respondents, including former customers, who were alleged to be potentially responsible for conditions at the BKK Landfill. Some of these respondents are now members of the BKK Working Group. The ISE Order required the respondents to conduct operation and maintenance activities at the Class I Landfill and the leachate treatment plant. In 2005, pursuant to several interim settlement agreements, the BKK Working Group began reimbursing DTSC for a portion of its response costs. In October 2005, the BKK Working Group and DTSC lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the Federal District Court for the Central District of California. That Consent Decree provided for the BKK Working Group to complete certain projects and perform operations at the BKK Class I Landfill and to pay for, and be released from, certain of DTSC's response costs. It also provided for DTSC to dismiss, without prejudice, the ISE Order against the BKK Working Group members. The Court entered the Consent Decree on March 6, 2006. The BKK Working Group and DTSC next agreed to a Second Consent Decree, which was entered by the Court on August 10, 2010. The Second Consent Decree required the BKK Working Group to conduct additional investigation activities at the Class I Landfill. Finally, the BKK Working Group and DTSC agreed to a Third Consent Decree, which requires the BKK Working Group to conduct certain investigation activities at the Class I Landfill related to groundwater. The Federal District Court entered the Third Consent Decree on July 24, 2015 and the First Amended Third Partial Consent Decree on October 18, 2016. DTSC may conduct or compel additional actions at the BKK Class I Landfill, including actions to address groundwater contamination. Additional information about the BKK Site may be found at: https://dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/BKK.cfm and http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile reoort.asp?global id=19490005 Notice of Potential Liability DTSC has documented the release or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at the Class I Landfill. DTSC spent and will spend public funds, and the BKK Working Group spent and will spend its funds, on actions to investigate and control such releases or threatened releases at the Class I Landfill. Under provisions of California's Hazardous Substance Account Act ("HSAA"), Health and Safety Code sections 25300 et seq., including sections 25355.5(a) and 25358.3(a), DTSC may order potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") to perform response actions deemed necessary by DTSC to protect the public health, welfare or the environment. Also, under the HSAA and CERCLA, PRPs may be compelled to compensate DTSC or other parties, including but not limited to the BKK Working Group, for costs incurred in responding to any release or threatened release at the Class I Landfill. Such actions and costs may include, but are not limited to, expenditures for conducting daily maintenance of the Class I Landfill and associated systems, necessary repair work, monitoring and other post -closure activities, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analyses, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies, Remedial Design/Remedial Actions, groundwater cleanup and other investigative, planning, response oversight and enforcement activities. In addition, PRPs may be required to pay damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, including the cost of assessing such damages. DB3/ 201611838.1 September 25, 2017 Page 3 Shipping records maintained by DTSC and the BKK Corporation, as well as other business records maintained by the BKK Corporation, identify generators who arranged for the disposal of waste at the Class I landfill. Based on this information, the BKK Working Group believes that you are one of the generators that disposed of waste at the Class I landfill and therefore a PRP with respect to the Facility. Tolling Agreement The BKK Working Group has incurred response costs related to the BKK Class I Landfill, including but not limited to costs incurred pursuant to the three Consent Decrees. As a result, the BKK Working Group possesses claims against you for the recovery of response costs pursuant to CERCLA, the HSAA, and California common law. The BKK Working Group strongly prefers that any litigation be deferred until such time as a long-term settlement and enforcement approach has been developed for the Class I Landfill and that you and the other entities who arranged for the disposal of wastes have had the opportunity to participate in such a settlement. The BKK Working Group is working with DTSC on such an approach. The enclosed Tolling Agreement would toll, or stop, any statute of limitations applicable to potential claims that the BKK Working Group has against you —or that you have against the BKK Working Group —relating to the Site from the effective date of the Tolling Agreement through 60 days following the termination of the Tolling Agreement. The Tolling Agreement terminates on September 25, 2020. The Tolling Agreement also includes a "standstill" clause that will prohibit either the BKK Working Group or City of Rolling Hills from initiating litigation against the other for claims related to the Site for the duration of the Agreement. The Tolling Agreement does not constitute an admission of fact or of liability. It is simply intended to provide the parties with additional time to consider settlement options. Please give these matters your immediate attention. Information to Assist Responsible Parties Please sign and return both originals of the Tolling Agreement to the following address no later than November 17, 2017: Marina Rodriguez Senior Paralegal Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 marina.rodriguez@morganlewis.com Following receipt of both signed originals of the Tolling Agreement, the BKK Working Group will sign both originals and return one fully executed original to you at the above address or any other address you so designate. D33/ 201611838.1 September 25, 2017 Page 4 Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 680-6427 or denise.fellers(amorganlewis.com. Sincerely, Denise Gail Fellers DGF Enclosure DB3/ 201611838.1 TOLLING AGREEMENT This Tolling Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the BKK Working Group and City of Rolling Hills. The BKK Working Group is an unincorporated association of the entities identified in Exhibit A. Hereinafter, the BKK Working Group and City.of Rolling Hills are singularly referred to as a "Party" and collectively referred to as the "Parties." Recitals A. The BKK Working Group has incurred environmental response costs in connection with the BKK Landfills in West Covina, California (the "Facility") pursuant to three judicially -approved Consent Decrees and six Interim Settlement Agreements between the BKK Working Group and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC"). B. The BKK Working Group has notified City of Rolling Hills that it may have legal liability based upon the disposal of waste material at the Facility under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, et seq.), the California Hazardous Substances Account Act (Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 25300, et seq.), and/or common law. City of Rolling Hills denies such liability for purposes of this Agreement. C. The Parties desire to toll any applicable statute of limitations governing claims that the Parties could assert against each other relating to the Facility in the manner set forth below. Terms and Conditions 1. Tolled Claims. The Parties agree that all statutes of limitations and any other statute, law, rule or principle of equity of similar effect, including provisions under the California Government Claims Act, California Gov't Code §§ 900-960.8 (collectively, "Statute of Limitations") applicable to any rights, claims, causes of action, counterclaims, crossclaims defenses, and claims act presentation regarding, based upon, or arising out of the disposal of waste material at the Facility, or the ownership or operation of the Facility which the BKK Working Group could assert against City of Rolling Hills, or which City of Rolling Hills could assert against the BKK Working Group as of the Effective Date ("Claims"), shall be tolled for the period between the Effective Date and the Termination Date, and this tolling period shall be excluded from all computations of any applicable period of limitations. 2. Waiver of Time -Related Defense. The Parties agree that they shall waive and shall not plead, assert, or otherwise raise any Statute of Limitations or any other time -related defense otherwise applicable to the Claims, to the extent such limitations period or other time-' related defense is tolled by this Agreement, as a bar to or other limitation on any Claim. 3. Standstill. The BKK Working Group and City of Rolling Hills agree not to initiate litigation concerning the investigation, remediation, or the recovery of costs relating to the Facility against the other Party between the Effective Date and the Termination Date. However, this provision shall not preclude any Party from seeking information pursuant to the California Public Records Act ("PRA"), California Gov't Code §§ 6250-6276.48 from another Party or a third Party relating to waste disposed at or liability associated with the Facility or from enforcing rights to such information under the PRA. DB3/ 201611862.1 4. Authorization. Each of the undersigned certifies that he or she is fully authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to legally bind such party to all terms and conditions of this document. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties, their successors and any additional entities who may join the BKK Working Group after execution of this Agreement. 5. No Admission. By entering into this Agreement, the Parties do not admit any fact nor assume any liability of any kind. Moreover, this Agreement may not be offered as evidence of an admission of such responsibility or liability in any court, administrative, alternative dispute resolution proceeding or legal proceeding, except as to enforce the standstill agreement and as to the issue of the tolling of any Statute of Limitations or any other time - related defense. 6. No Resurrection of Claims. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall not apply to any third party and shall not revive any rights, claims, causes of actions, counterclaims, crossclaims or defenses that are already barred by an applicable provision of law as of the Effective Date. Notwithstanding the above, this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon, any and all legal successors to or assigns of the Parties. Nothing expressed or implied in this Agreement is intended to confer on any person other than the Parties and their legal successors or assigns any rights or obligations under this Agreement. 7. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts by one or more of the Parties, and those counterparts when taken together shall have the same force and effect as if a single, original document had been signed by all the Parties. 8. Termination. The Termination Date of this Agreement shall be the earlier of: (a) three (3) years from the Effective Date or, (b) fifteen (15) days after any Party, in its sole discretion, gives written notification of termination to the other Party. Notwithstanding the termination of this Agreement, the Statute of Limitations shall remain tolled for an additional sixty (60) days following the Termination Date. This provision shall survive the termination of the Agreement. 9. Preservation of Records. The Parties shall preserve and maintain, during the term of the tolling period, and for a minimum of 90 days after termination of the tolling period, at least one legible copy of all documents and other materials subject to discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and relating to waste disposal at the Facility, regardless of any document retention policy to the contrary. 10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties, and no statement, promise, or inducement made by any Party to this Agreement that is not set forth in this Agreement shall be valid or binding, nor shall it be used in construing the terms of the Agreement as set forth herein. 11. Modifications. Any modifications to this Agreement must be in writing and signed by all Parties. The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement may be extended for such period of time as the Parties agree in writing. 12. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be September 25, 2017. DB3/201611862.1 2 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the dates set forth below. BKK Working Group By: Date: Name: James J. Dragna, Esq. Title: Attorney for the BKK Working Group City of Rolling Hills By: Date: Print Name: Title: CONTACT INFORMATION FOR CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Name: Title: Company: Address: Phone: Email: DB3/ 201611862.1 3 Exhibit A • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. • Ameron International Corp. • Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC • Ashland Chemical Company • Atlantic Richfield Company • Azusa Land Reclamation, Inc. • Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. • Baker Petrolite LLC • Bayer Cropscience Inc. • Big Heart Pet Brands • The Boeing Company • Chemical Waste Management, Inc. • Chevron Environmental Management Company • Chevron Marine LLC • City Of Los Angeles, Acting By And Through The Los Angeles Department Of Water • And Power • ConocoPhillips Company • Crosby & Overton, Inc. • The Dow Chemical Company • Ducommun Aerostructures, Inc. • Essex Chemical Corporation • ExxonMobil Corporation • Filtrol Corporation • Gemini Industries, Inc. • General Dynamics Corporation • General Latex and Chemical Corporation • Hewlett-Packard Company • Honeywell International Inc. • Hugo Neu-Proler • Huntington Beach Company • Kal Kan Foods Inc. • Lockheed Martin Corporation • Mars, Inc. • Montrose Chemical Corp. of California • Mortell Company • Morton International, Inc. • National Steel And Shipbuilding Company • Northrop Grumman Corporation • Quemetco, Inc. • Raytheon Company • Rockwell Automation, Inc. • Rohm & Hass Company • Rohr, Inc. • San Diego Gas & Electric Company • Shell Oil Company • Southern California Edison Company • Southern California Gas Company • The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company • THUMS Long Beach Company DB3/ 201611862.1 • Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp. • Union Carbide Corporation • Union Pacific Railroad / Southern Pacific Transportation Company • Unisys Corporation • United States Steel Corporation • United Technologies Corporation • Univar USA, Inc. • USA Waste of California, Inc. • Van Waters & Rogers • Vigor Shipyards, Inc. • Waste Management Collection And Recycling, inc. • Waste Management of California, Inc. • Waste Management Recycling and Disposal Services of California, Inc. • Western Waste Industries • Xerox Corporation DB3/ 201611862.1 Morgan Lewis Denise Gail Fellers Associate +1.213.680.6427 denise.fellers@morganiewis.com September 25, 2017 VIA REGULAR MAIL Michael Jenkins City Attorney City of Rolling Hills Jenkins & Hogin LLP 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 110 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Re: BKK Landfill, West Covina, CA Dear City Attorney Jenkins: This firm represents the BKK Working Group, an unaffiliated association of entities that has entered into a series of judicially -approved consent decrees with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") to take certain limited actions at the Class I Landfill portion ("Class I Landfill") of the BKK Corporation Landfill Facility in West Covina, CA (the "Site"). The BKK Working Group has recently discovered information suggesting that City of Rolling Hills (hereinafter referred to as "you") disposed of waste at the Class I Landfill and may therefore be liable for necessary response actions and other costs incurred by the BKK Working Group under § 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), and California Health and Safety Code §.25323.5. Enclosed with this letter is a Tolling Agreement relating to potential claims the BKK Working Group may have against you based on its work at the Class I Landfill. The BKK Landfill and Response Actions The BKK Site is an approximately 583 -acre facility located at 2210 South Azusa Avenue, West Covina, California. The Site contains a closed hazardous waste Class I landfill, a closed Class III municipal solid waste landfill, and related facilities including a leachate treatment plant and a landfill gas collection system. The Class I Landfill is approximately 190 acres in size and accepted waste from roughly 1962 to 1987. In total, the Class I Landfill accepted approximately five million tons of liquid and solid hazardous wastes together with substantially greater amounts of municipal and commercial wastes. BKK Corporation is the owner and operator of the Class I and Class III landfills. In October 2004, BKK Corporation announced that it could not continue to conduct post -closure care for the Class I Landfill after November 17, 2004. Consequently, DTSC engaged a contractor to DB3/ 20161 1 838.1 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty -Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 United States 0 +1.213.612.2500 Q +1.213.612.2501 7/15 September 25, 2017 Page 2 conduct emergency response activities and to operate and maintain the Class I Landfill's critical equipment and systems. In December 2004, DTSC issued an "Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Determination and Order and Remedial Action Order" ("ISE Order") to BKK Corporation and 50 other respondents, including former customers, who were alleged to be potentially responsible for conditions at the BKK Landfill. Some of these respondents are now members of the BKK Working Group. The ISE Order required the respondents to conduct operation and maintenance activities at the Class I Landfill and the leachate treatment plant. In 2005, pursuant to several interim settlement agreements, the BKK Working Group began reimbursing DTSC for a portion of its response costs. In October 2005, the BKK Working Group and DTSC lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the Federal District Court for the Central District of California. That Consent Decree provided for the BKK Working Group to complete certain projects and perform operations at the BKK Class I Landfill and to pay for, and be released from, certain of DTSC's response costs. It also provided for DTSC to dismiss, without prejudice, the ISE Order against the BKK Working Group members. The Court entered the Consent Decree on March 6, 2006. The BKK Working Group and DTSC next agreed to a Second Consent Decree, which was entered by the Court on August 10, 2010. The Second Consent Decree required the BKK Working Group to conduct additional investigation activities at the Class I Landfill. Finally, the BKK Working Group and DTSC agreed to a Third Consent Decree, which requires the BKK Working Group to conduct certain investigation activities at the Class I Landfill related to groundwater. The Federal District Court entered the Third Consent Decree on July 24, 2015 and the First Amended Third Partial Consent Decree on October 18, 2016. DTSC may conduct or compel additional actions at the BKK Class I Landfill, including actions to address groundwater contamination. Additional information about the BKK Site may be found at: https://dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Projects/BKK.cfm and http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile report.aso?global id=19490005 Notice of Potential Liability DTSC has documented the release or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at the Class I Landfill. DTSC spent and will spend public funds, and the BKK Working Group spent and will spend its funds, on actions to investigate and control such releases or threatened releases at the Class I Landfill. Under provisions of California's Hazardous Substance Account Act ("HSAA"), Health and Safety Code sections 25300 et seq., including sections 25355.5(a) and 25358.3(a), DTSC may order potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") to perform response actions deemed necessary by DTSC to protect the public health, welfare or the environment. Also, under the HSAA and CERCLA, PRPs may be compelled to compensate DTSC or other parties, including but not limited to the BKK Working Group, for costs incurred in responding to any release or threatened release at the Class I Landfill. Such actions and costs may include, but are not limited to, expenditures for conducting daily maintenance of the Class I Landfill and associated systems, necessary repair work, monitoring and other post -closure activities, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analyses, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies, Remedial Design/Remedial Actions, groundwater cleanup and other investigative, planning, response oversight and enforcement activities. In addition, PRPs may be required to pay damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, including the cost of assessing such damages. DB3/ 201611838.1 8/15 September 25, 2017 Page 3 Shipping records maintained by DTSC and the BKK Corporation, as well as other business records maintained by the BKK Corporation, identify generators who arranged for the disposal of waste at the Class I landfill. Based on this information, the BKK Working Group believes that you are one of the generators that disposed of waste at the Class I landfill and therefore a PRP with respect to the Facility. Tolling Agreement The BKK Working Group has incurred response costs related to the BKK Class I Landfill, including but not limited to costs incurred pursuant to the three Consent Decrees. As a result, the BKK Working Group possesses claims against you for the recovery of response costs pursuant to CERCLA, the HSAA, and .California common law. The BKK Working Group strongly prefers that any litigation be deferred until such time as a long-term settlement and enforcement approach has been developed for the Class_I Landfill and that you and the other entities who arranged for the disposal of wastes have had the opportunity to participate in such a settlement. The BKK Working Group is working with DTSC on such an approach. The enclosed Tolling Agreement would toll, or stop, any statute of limitations applicable to potential claims that the BKK Working Group has - against you —or that you have against the BKK Working Group —relating to the Site from the effective date of the Tolling Agreement through 60 days following the termination of'the Tolling Agreement. The Tolling Agreement terminates on September 25, 2020. The Tolling Agreement also includes a "standstill" clause that will prohibit either the BKK Working Group or City of Rolling Hills from initiating litigation against the other for claims related to the Site for the duration of the Agreement. The Tolling Agreement does not constitute an admission of fact or of liability. It is simply intended to provide the parties with additional time to consider settlement options. Please give these matters your immediate attention. Information to Assist Responsible Parties Please sign and return both originals of the Tolling Agreement to the following address no later than. November 17, 2017: Marina Rodriguez Senior Paralegal Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 marina.rodriguez@morganlewis.com f=ollowing receipt of both signed originals of the Tolling Agreement, the BKK Working Group will sign both originals and return one fully executed original to you at the above address or any other address you so designate. 1)63/201611838.1 9/15 September 25, 2017 Page 4 Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 680-6427 or denise.fellers o marganiewis.com. Sincerely, Denise Gail Fellers DGF Enclosure DB3/ 201611838.1 10/15