The URL can be used to link to this page

Council Meeting Agenda 05-30-20174 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, MAY 22, 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: Councilmembers Absent: Others Present: Dieringer, Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Black. Pieper (excused). Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Captain Dan Beringer, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. Rod Uyeda, Retired Law Enforcement Officer. Diana Nuccion, 18 Portuguese Bend Road. Howard Weinberg, Attorney. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME None. Mayor Black stated that item 8A Under Old Business pertaining to Ordinance No. 352 will be taken out of order. OLD BUSINESS ORDINANCE NO. 352 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.58 (SOCIAL HOST LIABILITY FOR PARTIES AT WHICH UNDERAGE DRINKING OCCURS) TO ARTICLE VII (OFFENSES BY OR AGAINST MINORS) OF TITLE 9 (PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE) OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPOSE LIABILITY ON PERSONS WHO FACILITATE OR ALLOW THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BY MINORS AT ANY PARTY, GATHERING OR EVENT AT A PRIVATE RESIDENCE; AND AMENDING SECTION 1.08.010 AND ADDING SECTIONS 1.08.030 THROUGH 1.08.090 TO CHAPTER 1.08 (GENERAL PENALTY) TO TITLE 1 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION PROCESS FOR CODE VIOLATIONS. RECOMMENDATION: Second reading of Ordinance, waive full reading and adopt Ordinance. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff' comments. City Manager Cruz presented the staff report stating that first reading of this Ordinancewas held at last meeting of the City Council and the Ordinance is presented for second reading and adoption. Following brief discussion concerning the penalties associated with violations of the Ordinance and comments from Captain Dan Beringer in support of the proposed ordinance and confirming that the Sheriff's Dept. can enforce the ordinance, Mayor Black called for public comment. Rod Ueda, Rancho Palos Verdes resident and retired law enforcement officer addressed the City Council in support of the ordinance. Following brief discussion and clarification on matters in the administrative citation process portion of the Ordinance, Councilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 352 as presented. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson seconded the motion. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she is opposed to underage drinking and she supports educational -1- • i efforts to create awareness of the problem, but she does not believe enacting an arguably difficult ordinance to enforce is the answer, given that providing for underage drinking is already illegal. She commented that it is the parent's responsibility and she does not believe the City can legislate behavior. Following brief discussion, the motion carried with Councilmember Mirsch opposed. 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 May 8, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Financial Statement for the Month of April 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. D. Republic Services Recycling Tonnage Report for February, March and April 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Councilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as amended to correct a typographical error in the minutes. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. COMMISSION ITEMS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. NEW BUSINESS RESOLUTION NO. 1206 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING AND MODIFYING ROLLING HILLS FEES BY REDUCING CERTAIN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT RELATED FEES, ELIMINATING ONE GENERAL ADMINISTRATION PROCESSING FEE AND ADDING FINES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS; AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 1149. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson commented that he didn't realize when this matter was discussed previously that the fees pertaining to preparation of Environmental Impact Reports was proposed to be reduced and he is not in favor of reducing such fees given that there is a significant amount of staff time involved in those matters. Councilmember Dieringer concurred. Councilmember Mirsch and Mayor Black explained their reasoning for suggesting the fee be reduced. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson suggested that the fee for Environmental Impact Reports (Item P) be changed back to Consultant Fee plus 20%. Councilmember Mirsch suggested amending it to plus 10% instead of 20%. Further discussion ensued concerning the fee for Environmental Review Preparation of a Negative Declaration or MND for View Impairment Cases with Councilmember Dieringer suggesting that the fee be put back to $1,000 instead of reduced to $50. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson commented that he would not be in favor of eliminating that fee reduction. Further discussion ensued concerning the fee for a preparation of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) with Councilmember Dieringer suggesting that the fee also not be reduced. Following discussion, Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1206 establishing and modifying Rolling Hills fees by reducing certain planning and development related fees, eliminating one general administration fee and adding fines for administrative citations and rescinding Resolution No. 1149 as amended with Item P Environmental Impact Reports being changed to Consultant Fee plus 10% . Mayor Pro Tem Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Minutes City Council Meeting 05-22-17 -2- 1 • • MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO FORMALLY OPPOSE AB 1250 (JONES - SAWYER) CONCERNING COUNTIES AND CITIES: CONTRACTS FOR PERSONAL SERVICES (ORAL) Councilmember Dieringer reported that there is pending legislation before the State legislature that would prohibit cites like Rolling Hills' from contracting for services and could have a significant financial impact and burdensome requirements on cities like ours. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council formally oppose AB 1250. Councilmember Dieringer seconded the motion which carried without objection. The City Council directed staff to prepare a letter of formal opposition to AB 1250 and to contact Assembly Member Muratsuchi's office to express the City's opposition. UPDATE ON THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA REGIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMIII'bE MEETING HELD ON MAY 11, 2017. (ORAL REPORT) Councilmember Dieringer provided a report on the discussion from the Palos Verdes Regional Law Enforcement Committee meeting held on May 11, 2017 stating that a new motor deputy, Governor Davis, has been assigned to the Lomita Station for traffic enforcement. She noted that according to Captain Beringer, there has been an uptick in burglaries in Southern California and a recent arrest was made in Monrovia of suspects from a burglary that occurred on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. She distributed a brochure regarding camera systems that was prepared by the Sheriff's Dept. and mentioned a device called Ring Pro that allows residents to answer their door remotely via intercom. OTHER MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Black reported that he brought up the coyote issue at the recent Peninsula Mayor's lunch and suggested coordinating a regional approach to coyote control but the other cites are comfortable with their current efforts and didn't appear interested in a more regional approach. Councilmember Dieringer reported on her attendance at the Contract Cities Annual Municipal Seminar and distributed some handouts from the meeting for the City Council's information. MATTERS FROM STAFF REPORT ON MATTERS DESCRIBED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2017 RELATED TO RESOLUTION NO. 1196 PERTAINING TO A DECISION IN A VIEW IMPAIRMENT COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD REGARDING TREES LOCATED AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz presented the staff report stating that this matter was agendized at the request of the City Council in response to an inquiry from Dr. Stephen Nuccion (18 Portuguese Bend Road) at the last City Council meeting pertaining to enforcement of Resolution No. 1196 relating to a view impairment complaint filed by the property owners of 18 Portuguese Bend Road regarding trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road. She reviewed the issues raised by Dr. Nuccion which included: recordation of the resolution, his inquiries concerning enforcement of the resolution being referred to the City Attorney through his attorney and his request for reimbursement for those expenses; and that the restorative action was not done completely, specifically regarding two items in the Resolution. Planning Director Schwartz explained that the resolution was not recorded because the restorative action had not yet taken place and the photos to be attached to the Resolution had not been taken; but since the last meeting, the photos were taken, subsequent to the restorative action, and the resolution has since been recorded. She further explained the circumstances surrounding why it was suggested that Dr. Nuccion have his attorney contact the City Attorney directly for questions regarding the code enforcement efforts pertaining to compliance with the Resolution. Lastly, regarding the restorative action not being done completely, Ms. Schwartz commented that the Pepper tree in question was not included in the list of trees requiring restorative action in the Resolution and thus, is not subject to any restorative action. Regarding, Minutes City Council Meeting 05-22-17 -3- other two trees in question (Tree #5 and Tree #7), she stated that the contractor that completed the work indicated that all the work was done according to the contract and provided an e-mail statement to that effect. Discussion ensued concerning the exact finished height of the Eucalyptus tree (Tree #7) that was supposed to have been be trimmed to 46 ft. in height. Diana Nuccion, 18 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the City Council to further explain their concerns regarding enforcement of the Resolution. She commented that the Pepper tree was intended to be included in the restorative action because it was originally included in a group of other trees (labeled Tree #4) that were subject to restorative action. She reiterated that they do not believe the Olive tree (Tree #7) along the front was cut to the "old cuts," nor was the Eucalyptus tree (Tree #5) cut to 46 ft. per the Resolution. Howard Weinberg, Attorney addressed the City Council to further explain why he and his client believe the Hassoldts are in violation of the Resolution. He distributed a correspondence outlining specific areas of concern and explained those concerns, specifically that Tree #4, Tree #5 and Tree #7 are not in compliance with the requirements set forth in the Resolution. He asked that the City Council take action to address the issues raised in the letter. In response to Mrs. Nuccion's inquiry, it was clarified per the Resolution that subsequent maintenance shall be performed by March of every odd year. Following brief discussion, the report was received and filed. The City Council directed staff to schedule an inspection to ensure that the work on Tree #5 and Tree #7 was done according to the specifications set forth in Resolution No. 1196. CLOSED SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Black adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Tuesday, May 30, 2017 beginning at 7:00 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a site visit to 5 Pine Tree Lane. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, June 12, 2017 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Approved, Patric son Mayor Pro Tem Minutes City Council Meeting 05-22-17 Heidi Luce City Clerk -4- CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within proceeding; my business address is 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. On the 19th day of May, 2017, I serve the within City Council Meeting 05/22/2017 Regular Meeting a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, and the person, or persons, named below were emailed or mailed the agenda: E -MAILED MAILED DropBox Interested RH Web site listSery Parties Interested parties City Attorney CouncilMembers Dieringer, Pieper, Black, Mirsch and Wilson DELIVERED City Manager City Council Also posted at City Hall, at www.Rolling-Hills.org and PDF's in DropBox. I declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 19th day of May, 2017 at Rolling Hills, California. Ewa Nikodem Administrative Assistant 5/22/17 CC Notification List Z.C. NAME email: Address 7A Social Host Ordinance - also posted on the website, e -Notify ready for 3:45 pm on Friday agenda + staff report sliagenda + staff report agenda + staff report agenda + staff report agenda + staff report v A V A VA 1 - Rod Uyeda Captain Beringer Malcolm Sharp Linda Reid Beth Myerhoff Jim Aichele Mitzi Cress, Principal, Peninsula High School Janet Westergaard 10A - Nuccion View Case - mailed only Nuccion Hassoldt via email only SR - staff report A - agenda relaxinrod@gmail.com dpbering@lasd.org sharpm@pvpusd.net reidl@pvpusd.net pvptacouncilpresident@yahoo.com nem pia/tot up 8,- 1:ppyn City 14 Crest Rd West 27118 Silver Spur Rd, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 21 Caballeros Rd Public:2017 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS:05-22-17 City Council Agenda:Notification List.xlsx . ,"0 Reiff, get4 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, MAY 22, 2017 7:00 P.M. Next Resolution No. 1206 Next Ordinance No. 352 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding the items on the consent calendar or items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of May 8, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Financial Statement for the Month of April 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. D. Republic Services Recycling Tonnage Report for February, March and April 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 5. COMMISSION ITEMS NONE. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE. Page 1 of 3 7. OLD BUSINESS A. ORDINANCE NO. 352 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.58 (SOCIAL HOST LIABILITY FOR PARTIES AT WHICH UNDERAGE DRINKING OCCURS) TO ARTICLE VII (OFFENSES BY OR AGAINST MINORS) OF TITLE 9 (PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE) OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPOSE LIABILITY ON PERSONS WHO FACILITATE OR ALLOW THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BY MINORS AT ANY PARTY, GATHERING OR EVENT AT A PRIVATE RESIDENCE; AND AMENDING SECTION 1.08.010 AND ADDING SECTIONS 1.08.030 THROUGH 1.08.090 TO CHAPTER 1.08 (GENERAL PENALTY) TO TITLE 1 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE AN ADMINIS !NATIVE CITATION PROCESS FOR CODE VIOLATIONS. RECOMMENDATION: Second reading of Ordinance, waive full reading and adopt Ordinance. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. RESOLUTION NO. 1206 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING AND MODIFYING ROLLING HILLS FEES BY REDUCING CERTAIN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT RELATED FEES, ELIMINATING ONE GENERAL ADMINISTRATION PROCESSING FEE AND ADDING FINES FOR ADMINIS 1RATIVE CITATIONS; AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 1149. 9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS A. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO FORMALLY OPPOSE AB 1250 (JONES -SAWYER) CONCERNING COUNTIES AND CITIES: CONTRACTS FOR PERSONAL SERVICES (ORAL) B. UPDATE ON THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA REGIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON MAY 11, 2017. (ORAL REPORT) 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF A. REPORT ON MATTERS DESCRIBED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 8, 2017 RELATED TO RESOLUTION NO. 1196 PERTAINING TO A DECISION IN A VIEW IMPAIRMENT COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD REGARDING TREES LOCATED AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD. 11. CLOSED SESSION NONE. City Council Agenda 05/22/17 Page 2 of 3 12. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Monday, June 12, 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 05/22/17 Page 3 of 3 DRAFT Agenda Item No. 4-A Meeting Date: 05/22/17 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, MAY 8, 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. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Julia Stewart, Assistant Planner. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Steve & Diana Nuccion, 18 Portuguese Bend Road. Mary Hazelrigg, 33 Chuckwagon Road. James Aichele, 14 Crest Road West. Janet Westergaard, 21 Caballeros Road. Beth Myerhoff, President, Palos Verdes Peninsula Council of PTAs. Linda Reid, Board Member, Palos Verdes Peninsula U.S.D. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME Steve Nuccion, 18 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the City Council concerning enforcement and other matters relating to the resolution setting forth the required restorative action in a view impairment complaint between the properties at 15 Portuguese Bend Road and 18 Portuguese Bend Road. Following brief discussion concerning the issues raised by Dr. Nuccion, the City Council directed staff to record the resolution and agendize a report on the status of the restorative action at the next meeting of the City Council. Mary Hazelrigg, 33 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Council to express concern regarding the prevalence of coyotes in the community and the dangers they pose to pets, other animals and humans. She urged the City Council to do something to control the population. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council to also express concern regarding coyotes in the community. O DRAFT CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of April 24, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills - (1) April 24,2017 (Revised); and (2) May 8, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as presented. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Recognizing that there were members of the public present to address Item 8A regarding consideration of a Social Host Ordinance; and hearing no objection, Mayor Black stated that this item will be taken out of order. NEW BUSINESS ORDINANCE NO. 352 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.58 (SOCIAL HOST LIABILITY FOR PARTIES AT WHICH UNDERAGE DRINKING OCCURS) TO ARTICLE VII (OFFENSES BY OR AGAINST MINORS) OF TITLE 9 (PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE) OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPOSE LIABILITY ON PERSONS WHO FACILITATE OR ALLOW THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BY MINORS AT ANY PARTY, GATHERING OR EVENT AT A PRIVATE RESIDENCE; AND AMENDING SECTION 1.08.010 AND ADDING SECTIONS 1.08.030 THROUGH 1.08.090 TO CHAPTER 1.08 (GENERAL PENALTY) TO TITLE 1 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION PROCESS FOR CODE VIOLATIONS. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz presented the staff report stating that at the direction of the City Council in response to an urging from the Palos Verdes Council of PTA's in an effort to reduce underage drinking at parties held at private homes, staff has prepared a DRAFT Social Host Ordinance for the City Council's consideration. He reviewed the proposed ordinance, stating that it is designed to protect the safety and welfare of residents by placing a civil fine on persons responsible for gatherings where alcohol is made accessible to underage persons through an administrative citation process. He further reviewed the administration citation process and stated that the Ordinance has been reviewed by Lomita Sheriff's Station Captain Dan Beringer and he indicated that his personnel can enforce the proposed ordinance as proposed. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Wilson's concern related to defmition of "responsible person" including a landlord, City Attorney Jenkins stated these are fact specific cases made on a case by case basis and a landlord would only be issued a citation if there was evidence that he landlord knew or should have know about the behavior. In response to Councilmember Dieringer regarding the amount that will be set for fines reference in the Minutes City Council Meeting 05-08-17 0 DRAFT staff report, City Attorney Jenkins stated that fines are set by resolution and that resolution will be brought back with second reading of the ordinance. Also in response to Councilmember Dieringer regarding the increase fines for successive violations, City Attorney Jenkins stated that State Law requires that the increased fines for successive violations must be within the same year. In response to Councilmember Mirsch regarding post fact enforcement of the ordinance, City Attorney Jenkins stated that the ordinance can be enforced post fact if there is evidence to support the issuance of a citation. Mayor Black called for public comment. Janet Westergaard, 21 Caballeros Road addressed the CityCouncil expressing concern that the proposed ordinance is meddlesome and does not provide an option for responsible drinking. Beth Myerhoff, President, Palos Verdes Peninsula Council of PTAs addressed the City Council in support of the ordinance and urged the City Council to adopt the ordinance. Linda Reid, Board Member, Palos Verdes Peninsula U.S.D. addressed the City Council in support of the ordinance and urged the City Council to adopt the ordinance. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 352 for first reading, waive full reading of the ordinance and schedule second reading at the May 22, 2017 City Council meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. COMMISSION ITEMS RESOLUTION NO. 2017-03 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR A RESIDENCE ADDITION, BASEMENT, VARIOUS WALLS, AND GRADING; WIDEN ONE OF THE TWO RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS AND TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT SETBACK WITH PORTIONS OF THE ADDITIONS, BASEMENT AND GARAGE IN ZONING CASE NO. 915 AT 1 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH, (PARTS OF LOTS 15, 16, 17 -MR), (CIPOLLA). AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE WIDENING OF AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY APRON AT 1 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request for an addition to the existing residence and other improvements on the property including widening an existing driveway apron in Zoning Case No. 915 at 1 Middleridge Lane North. She stated that he Planning Commission approved the project on a 4-1 vote with Commissioner Cardenas recused due to proximity. She stated that variances are requested for encroachment into the front setback and a conditional use permit is requested to retain an existing double driveway. She stated that the Traffic Minutes City Council Meeting 05-08-17 DRAFT Commission reviewed the request for widening the driveway apron and recommended approval. She stated that the development standards are within the code requirements. She commented that the original request also included a large stable and in response to concerns raised by the neighbors, the applicant withdrew the request for a stable and asked for it to be considered separately. She further reviewed the current code enforcement case that staff is enforcing related to a path that was created to access the rear part of the lot and stated that this matter will be further addressed and legalized as part of consideration of the proposed stable when it comes back before the Planning Commission in the near future. Mayor Black called for comments from the public. Hearing none, he asked for comments or a motion from the City Council. Mayor Black expressed concern regarding the limited amount of usable space behind the home and the fact that there may not be room for a pool. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2017-03 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 915 at 1 Middleridge Lane North and per the Traffic Commission's recommendation, approve the widening of the existing driveway apron a 1 Middleridge Lane North. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-04 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE ADDITION WITH A BASEMENT, DETACHED GARAGE, COVERED PORCHES, SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA, PATIO TRELLIS, TENNIS COURT, NEW SECOND DRIVEWAY, STABLE AND CORRAL; TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED GRADING AND GRADED AREA FOR THE TENNIS COURT AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 917 AT 5 PINE TREE LANE, (LOT 94-RH), (SHARNG). AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO APPROVE A NEW DRIVEWAY APRON FOR A SECOND DRIVEWAY AND A NEW PATHWAY APRON FOR ACCESS TO THE STABLE AT 5 PINE TREE LANE. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Assistant Planner Stewart reviewed the applicant's request to construct an addition to existing residence and other improvements including a basement, detached garage, pool, spa, stable, corral and tennis court along with a new second driveway on the property in Zoning Case No. 917 at 5 Pine Tree Lane. She stated that staff prepared a summary comparison table of this project compared to previous approvals at the request of Councilmember Dieringer and that table has been placed on the dais. She further reviewed the request stating that the existing residence will remain with only the wall providing access to the new wing being demolished. She stated that the applicant proposes to retain the existing driveway, which provides access to the existing garage; and to add a second driveway for access to the new detached garage as well as adding an access pathway to the stable. She stated that both of the new aprons have been reviewed by the Traffic Commission and recommended for approval with a condition that the pathway apron be revised to the Traffic Engineer's satisfaction, which has been achieved. Ms. Stewart further reviewed the project stating that variances are requested to exceed the maximum Minutes City Council Meeting 05-08-17 DRAFT allowed disturbance with disturbance proposed at 47.22% and to exceed the maximum allowed grading as well as graded surface for the tennis court. She stated that at the suggestion of the Planning Commission, the applicant investigated the option to import dirt in order to reduce the amount of grading required, but determined doing so was not feasible due to an exponential increase in truck traffic. She further reviewed the comparison of the new proposed project with the previous approval. In response to Councilmember Dieringer concerning the proposed second driveway with Ms. Stewart explained that the new second driveway was approved through a Conditional Use Permit and will provide access to the front of the property and the new detached garage where the existing driveway serves the existing garage as well as the neighboring property at 3 Pine Tree Lane. Mayor Black called for public comment. Hearing none, he expressed concern regarding the grading associated with the project as well as the appearance of the project resulting in two separate houses with a walkway in-between. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she visited the site during the Planning Commission's site visit to this property. Following brief discussion, Mayor Black moved that the City Council take the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 917 at 5 Pine Tree Lane, including the new driveway apron for a second driveway and a new pathway apron for access to the stable under jurisdiction. Councilmember Dieringer seconded the motion, which carried without objection. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-05 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DRESSAGE ARENA, STABLE, RESIDENCE AND GARAGE ADDITION, VARIOUS RETAINING WALLS, SWIMMING POOL AND RELATED PATIOS, DECKS; TO LOCATE A PORTION OF THE EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT, TO RETAIN, BUT REDUCE IN SIZE AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE, TO LOCATE A NOT TO EXCEED 5' HIGH RETAINING WALL IN THE SIDE SETBACK AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 896 - MODIFICATION (M) AT 11 SADDLEBACK ROAD, (WARREN). Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Assistant Planner Stewart reviewed the applicant's request for a major modification to a previously approved project in Zoning Case No. 896 - Modification at 11 Saddleback Road. She stated that the modifications include moving the stable closer to the dressage arena, modifying the residence to allow for the minimum distance required between stable and residential uses and a new infmity pool. She stated that the proposed changes result in a larger residence, smaller pool and slightly larger stable; which further results in less disturbance and grading, as well as fewer retaining walls. Ms. Stewart further reviewed the applicant's request including the variances requested and the comparison between the current project and the previously approved project. Mayor Black called for public comment. Hearing none, he asked for comments or a motion from the City Council. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2017-05 granting approval of the applicant's request to modify the original request in Zoning Case No. Minutes City Council Meeting 05-08-17 DRAFT 896-M at 11 Saddleback Road. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-06 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR A 1,000 SQUARE FOOT POOL/SPA, POOL EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE, AND TO LOCATE THE STRUCTURES IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 919 AT 7 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH, (LOT 249-A-UR), (MCCARTHY/CHENG). Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Assistant Planner Stewart reviewed the applicant's request to construct a new pool and pool equipment in the front yard area in Zoning Case No. 919 at 7 Middleridge Lane South. She stated that the Planning Commission asked that the pool equipment be fully enclosed with the doors opening to the interior of the property to reduce any noise impact on the neighbors. Mayor Black called for public comment. Hearing none, he asked for comments or a motion from the City Council. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2017-06 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 919 at 7 Middleridge Lane South. Councilmember Dieringer seconded the motion, which carried without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. OLD BUSINESS FINAL STATUS REPORT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1203 CONCERNING AZUL, THE DOG OWNED BY DR. JEFFREY OSTRIKER AT 27 CABALLEROS ROAD WITH REGARD TO THE CONFINEMENT RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON AZUL. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz presented the staff report stating that the conditions imposed by the resolution have been meet and the City has received no further complaints regarding the dog. Following brief discussion, the report was received and filed. No further action was taken. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPING AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE DRONES IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz stated that at a previous meeting the City Council directed staff to agenize a discussion for consideration of developing an ordinance to regulate drones in the City of Rolling Hills. He stated that the staff report contains a copy of a Minutes City Council Meeting 05-08-17 DRAFT draft ordinance which is a modified version of the Hermosa Beach ordinance changed to be more specific to Rolling Hills and if the City Council wishes to pursue this matter further, staff could be directed to bring an ordinance back for first reading. Discussion ensued concerning the provisions in the draft ordinance and the difficulty involved in enforcing such an ordinance. It was noted that there have been relatively few complaints regarding drones in the City. Mayor Black called for public comment. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council in support of adopting provisions regulating drones and suggesting the drones be allowed only on the drone operator's property. Following further discussion, the report was received and filed. No further action was taken at this time. NEW BUSINESS (continued) CONSIDERATION OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANING (MOU) BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AND THE CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY (CJPIA) FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUTHORIZING WORK RELATED TO CJPIA'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) ASSISTANCE PROGRAM INVOLVING WORK PERFORMED BY DISABILITY ACCESS CONSULTANTS (DAC) INCLUDING CONDUCTING AN ADA SELF -EVALUATION AND DEVELOPING AN ADA TRANSITION PLAN. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz presented the staff report requesting the City Council's approval to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) for the purpose of authorizing work related to the CJPIA's ADA compliance assistance program involving work performed by Disability Access Consultants including an ADA Self -Evaluation and developing an ADA Transition plan as required by the American's with Disabilities Act. He stated that based on the MOU, this work would be done at no cost to the City, but at an estimated value of $14,800. Mayor Black expressed concern that the plan would require the City to track its compliance until all identified barriers are removed and the City may not be able or willing to remove the barriers. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Wilson regarding the potential exposure this may create, City Attorney Jenkins commented that the ADA requirement is for the City to create accessibility when it engages in projects and doing the survey would not create a new obligation to make changes absent a project. Discussion ensued concerning the requirements and the benefits of moving forward with ADA compliance. Following further discussion, Councilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council approve and direct the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Rolling Hills and the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority for the purpose of authorizing work related to the CJPIA's Americans with Disabilities Act assistance program involving work performed by Disability Access Consultants (DAC) including conducting and ADA Self -Evaluation and developing an ADA transition plan. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried with Mayor Pro Tem Wilson and Mayor Black opposed. Minutes City Council Meeting 05-08-17 0 DRAFT MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DT ECTION CONCERNING THE CIVIC CENTER CAMPUS LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. (ORAL REPORT) Councilmember Pieper reported that he and the RHCA Board President are investigating the possibility of having the RHCA be responsible for the City Hall campus area and tennis court landscape design and installation of new plant material with the City being responsible for weekly maintenance as a response to the poor condition the tennis court landscape maintenance was in when the Tennis Club held its most recent social event. Following brief discussion, staff was directed to work with the current landscape maintenance provider to ensure that the provisions in the landscape maintenance agreement are being met. MATTERS FROM STAFF None. CLOSED SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Black adjourned the meeting at 9:14 p.m. in memory of long time resident Frances Price. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, May 22, 2017 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, James Black, M.D. Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 05-08-17 CHECK CHECK NO. DATE C1tyo�,�etn9�a.�r, PAYEE 05/22/2017 - CHECK RUN 24813 05/11/2017 CALPERS 24814 05/22/2017 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES 24815 05/22/2017 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO. 24816 05/22/2017 CHANDLER'S AIR CONDITIONING 24817 VOID CHECK 24818 05/22/2017 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 24819 05/22/2017 COMPUTER PALACE 24820 05/22/2017 COX COMMUNICATIONS 24821 05/22/2017 DAILY BREEZE 24822 05/22/2017 FOUNTAINHEAD CONSULTING INC. 24823 05/22/2017 HASLER 24824 05/22/2017 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP 24825 05/22/2017 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS 24826 05/22/2017 LA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 24827 05/22/2017 MAILFINANCE 24828 05/22/2017 MANERI SIGN CO., INC. 24829 05/22/2017 OPUS BANK 24830 05/22/2017 PACIFIC COAST LANDSCAPE 24831 05/22/2017 PETTY CASH-EWA NIKODEM 24832 05/22/2017 REMOTE SATELLITE SYS INT'L 24833 05/22/2017 ROGERS, ANDERSON, MALODY & SCOTT, LLP 24834 05/22/2017 SOUTH BAY CITIES COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 24835 05/22/2017 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24836 05/22/2017 THE GAS COMPANY 24837 05/22/2017 TRAVERS TREE SERVICE, INC. 24838 05/22/2017 USCM 24839 05/22/2017 VANTAGEPOINT 24840 05/22/2017 WILLDAN INC. 24841 05/22/2017 XEROX CORPORATION * PR LINK 4/28/2017 PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING * PR LINK 4/28/2017 PR LINK - PAYROLL 10 & PR TAXES DESCRIPTION Agenda Item No: 4-B Mtg. Date: 05/22/17 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 RETIREMENT APRIL 2017 CRIME RENEWAL 7/1/17 - 7/1/19 WATER SERVICES 3/25/17 - 4/26/17 A/C HEATING PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PRINTER ERROR ALRP CAMERA CONNECTIVITY COSTS & EQUIPMENT MICROSOFT EXCHANGE LICENSE PHONE & INTERNET SERVICE LEGAL PUBLICATIONS IT CONSULTING MAY 2017 POSTAGE APRIL 2017 ATTORNEY SERVICES APRIL 2017 COPIER MAINTENANCE 4/12/17 - 5/11/17 LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES APRIL 2017 FIRST CLASS POSTAGE MACHINE TRAFFIC SIGNS, NEW POST OFFICE SUPPLIES, CCAC CONF, LOCC MEETING LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE MAY 2017 PETTY CASH 05/16/17 SATELLITE PHONES JUNE 2017 ACCOUNTING SERVICES FEB, MAR & APRIL 2017 SBCCOG MEMBERSHIP FY 17/18 ELECTRICITY 3/24/17 - 4/25/17 GAS SERVICE 04/06/17 - 05/05/17 TREE SERVICES, 5/15/17 DEFERRED COMP 05/12/17 DEFERRED COMP 05/12/17 INSPECTION SERVICES MARCH 2017 COPIER LEASE APRIL 2017 PROCESSING FEE PAY PERIOD - APRIL 26, 2017 THROUGH MAY 9, 2017 I, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, California certify that the above demands are accurate and there is available in the General Fund a balance of $132,872.96 for the of above items. Raymond :! Cruz, City Manager * Previously Disbursed AMOUNT 5,775.06 750.00 820.86 86.00 29,961.28 1,294.13 414.48 231.12 516.00 2,000.00 9,576.40 125.28 26,740.35 714.78 156.57 2,135.39 565.00 309.57 97.90 21,461.00 5,574.00 881.15 34.02 635.00 998.00 364.00 2,371.25 37.00 47.45 18,199.92 a 132,872.96 108,850.53 Printed on Recycled Paper CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS BALANCE SHEET April 30, 2017 MUNICIPAL GENERAL & DEPOSIT COPS & COMMUN. SELF- REFUSE TRAFFIC TRANSIT UTILITY CAPITAL FUND FUND CLEEP FACILITIES INSUR. COLLECT. SAFETY PROP A, C, M FUND & TDA ASSETS Cash & Cash Equivalents $ 4,832,743 $ 1,771 $ 134,586 $ 16,258 $ 260,374 $ 504,115 $ (2,682) $ 18,798 $ 1,239,744 Cash & Cash Equivalents - Capital Project Fund - - - - Poppy Trail Grading Bond 305,000 Accounts Receivable - 2,646 Prepaid Expense & Deposits 4,640 TOTAL ASSETS $ 4,837,383 $ 306,771 $ 134,586 $ 16,258 $ 260,374 $ 506,761 $ (2,682) $ 18,798 $ 1,239,744 LIABILITIES FUND BALANCE Accounts & Contract Payable $ 9,001 $ $ $ Employees Benefits Payable - - Deposits 18,852 306,771 Deferred Revenues 14,012 - Employees Benefits Payable 3,796 TOTAL LIABILITIES 45,661 306,771 $ 253,836 $ 253.836 $ $ Unassigned Fund Balance 4,791,722 134,586 16,258 260,374 252,925 (2,682) 18,798 1,239,744 TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE 4,791,722 134,586 16,258 260,374 252,925 (2,682) 18,798 1,239,744 TOTAL UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE & LIABILITIES $ 4,837,383 $ 306,771 $ 134,586 $ 16,258 $ 260,374 $ 506,761 $ (2,682) $ 18,798 $ 1,239,744 COMPOSITION OF CASH Petty Cash $ 1,500 OPUS Bank - Checking Account 20,856 OPUS Bank - Interest Checking Account 1,009,115 OPUS Bank - Money Market 914,681 Calif. State Local Agency Investment Fund 4,564,555 Malaga Bank -Preferred - CD's 495,000 $ 7,005,707 Prepared By Date 3.--g4 7 TerryB a, Finance Director By: Date ta Ra mo . R. Cru, ity anager BEGINNING YTD OF YEAR TOTAL TOTAL $ 7,005,707 $ 6,891,267 305,000 305,000 2,646 185,238 4,640 37,436 $ 7,317,993 $ 7,418,941 262,837 $ 454,364 18,305 325,623 325,574 14,012 14,012 3,796 - 606,268 812,255 6,711,725 6,606,686 6,711,725 6,606,686 $ 7,317,993 $ 7,418,941 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Actual Compared to Annual Budget July 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017 GENERAL Fund Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue CITIZENS' OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue COMMUNITY FACILITIES Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue MUNICIPAL SELF-INSURANCE Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue REFUSE COLLECTION Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TRAFFIC SAFETY Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TRANSIT - PROPOSITION A, C, M & TDA Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue UTILITY FUND Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue TOTAL ALL FUNDS Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue before transfers Transfers in (out) Net Revenue This Year Last Year This Year Better (Worse) Annual Budget & Adj. Remaining Budget $ 1,415,813 $ 1,478,508 $ (62,695) 1,956,600 $ 540,787 1,245,084 1,160,736 (84,348) 1,866,260 621,176 170,729 317,772 (147,043) 90,340 (80,389) 20,000 (13,455) 33,455 (344,050) (364,050) 190,729 304,317 (113,588) (253,710) (444,439) 129,324 114,618 14,706.00 115,125 (14,199) 89,134 85,432 (3,702) 164,000 74,866 40,190 29,186 11,004 (48,875) (89,065) 40,190 29,186 11,004 (48,875) (89,065) - - - 100 100 2,024 354 (1,670) 62,700 60,676 (2,024) (354) (1,670) (62,600) (60,576) - - - 62,600 62,600.00 (2,024) (354) (1,670) - 2,024 - 235 235 6,000 6,000.00 - (235) 235 (6,000) (6,000.00) - (235) 235 (6,000) (6,000.00) 651,001 647,882 3,119 771,900 120,899 634,590 629,983 (4,607) 761,508 126,918 16,411 17,899 (1,488) 10,392 (6,019) (20,000) (20,000) - (24,000) (4,000) (3,589) (2,101) (1,488) (13,608) (10,019) 32,932 - 32,932 50 (32,882) 35,614 35,652 38 55,500 19,886 (2,682) (35,652) 32,970 (55,450) (52,768) - 33,455 (33,455) 55,450 55,450 (2,682) (2,197) (485) - 2,682 69,949 68,718 1,231 85,786 15,837 190,770 - (190,770) 190,000 (770.00) (120,821) 68,718 (189,539) (104,214) 16,607 (120,821) 68,718 (189,539) (104,214) 16,607 53,237 - 53,237 - (53,237.00) 50,000 33,799 (16,201) 150,000 100,000.00 3,237 (33,799) 37,036 (150,000) (153,237.00) - 250,000 250,000.00 3,237 (33,799) 37,036 100,000 96,763.00 2,352,256 2,309,726 42,530 2,929,561 577,305 2,247,216 1,946,191 (301,025) 3,255,968 1,008,752 105,040 363,535 (258,495) (326,407) (431,447) $ 105,040 $ - 363,535 $ (258,495) $ (326,407) $ (431,447) CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL ALLIED WASTE RECYCLE NOW REPORT Report Date: 2017 MONTH 2017 January February March April May June July August September October November December Year to Date Totals: RECYCLED (tons) 51.34 GREEN WASTE (tons) 83.67 45.87 66.88 97.21 Average Monthly Totals: 2017 48.61 150.55 75.27 C&D Recycled C&D Disposed Disposal Diversion Tonnage 94 29.80 6.62 133.36 54.07% 6.37 2.13 115.88 50.24% - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% 36.18 18.09 8.74 249.25 304.80 237.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.39% 4.37 124.62 52% MONTHLY TOTALS (tons) 541.93 270.97 tv� APR 2 4 2017 City of Rolling Hills By U Vd CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL ALLIED WASTE RECYCLE NOW REPORT Report Date: 2017 MONTH 2017 January February March April May June July August September October November December Year to Date Totals: RECYCLED (tons) 51.34 GREEN WASTE (tons) 83.67 45.87 66.88 52.00 75.56 149.21 Average Monthly Totals: 2017 49.74 226.11 75.37 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% - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% 69.16 23.05 19.74 374.90 304.80 237.13 297.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.97% 6.58 124.97 53% MONTHLY TOTALS (tons) 839.12 279.71 EC 1VE APR 2 4 2017 City of Rolling Hills By CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL ALLIED WASTE RECYCLE NOW REPORT Report Date: 2017 MONTH 2017 January February RECYCLED (tons) 51.34 March 45.87 GREEN WASTE (tons) 83.67 C&D Recycled 29.80 C&D Disposed Disposal Diversion Tonnage 94 6.62 133.36 54.07% 66.88 52.00 April 53.62 May MONTHLY TOTALS (tons) 304.80 6.37 2.13 115.88 50.24% 75.56 237.13 32.98 11.00 125.65 54.02% 155.40 June 297.19 61.17 11.21 129.57 65.74% July 410.97 0.00% August 0.00 0.00% September 0.00 0.00% October 0.00 0.00% November 0.00 0.00% December Year to Date Totals: 0.00 0.00% 202.83 Average Monthly Totals: 2017 50.71 0.00 0.00% 381.51 95.38 0.00 130.32 32.58 30.96 0.00% I 504.47 57.17% 7.74 126.12 56% 0.00 1,250.09 312.52 MAY 16 2017 City of Rolling Hills By TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJECT: ge't ailReag9 qlee4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 7-A Mtg. Date: 05/22/17 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 352 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.58 (SOCIAL HOST LIABILITY FOR PARTIES AT WHICH UNDERAGE DRINKING OCCURS) OF ARTICLE VII (OFFENSES BY OR AGAINST MINORS) OF TITLE 9 (PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE) OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPOSE LIABILITY ON PERSONS WHO FACILITATE OR ALLOW THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BY MINORS AT ANY PARTY, GATHERING OR EVENT AT A PRIVATE RESIDENCE; AND AMENDING SECTION 1.08.010 AND ADDING SECTIONS 1.08.030 THROUGH 1.08.090 TO CHAPTER 1.08 (GENERAL PENALTY) TO TITLE 1 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION PROCESS FOR CODE VIOLATIONS DATE: MAY 22, 2017 ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 352 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 352, creating a new Chapter 9.58 to regulate and impose liability on any person hosting a party at which underage drinking occurs and establishing an administrative citation process for violations of Chapter 9.58. BACKGROUND The City Council introduced Ordinance No. 352 for first reading and took public comment at the May 8 2017 meeting; and by 5-0 vote directed staff to schedule second reading of the ordinance. 0 DISCUSSION Social Host Ordinances impose liability on adults in private settings that they own, lease or control for providing alcohol and/or allowing underage drinking among children who are not their own. The California State Parent Teacher Association (PTA) had adopted a Social Host resolution in support of enacting civil laws against property owners on whose premises underage drinking occurs in 2009. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Council of PTAs stated at their Special Meeting on January 31, 2017 that it encourages and supports the creation of Social Host Liability legislation by its local governing cities and has gained the support of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD). The PTA believes that social host laws, public awareness and enforcement are essential in addressing the problem of underage drinking. A comprehensive 2009 study in Ventura County found that after implementation of social host ordinances, the size of underage drinking parties appear to have decreased and the ease of obtaining alcohol also decreased. Social host laws in this study are associated with declines in heavy episodic drinking (3%), driving after drinking (4%) and alcohol -related traffic deaths (5-9%). Another study published in 2014 by the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (enclosed) examined the relationships between Social Host laws and underage drinking for 50 California cities. The study concluded that local Social Host laws that included strict liability and civil penalties that are imposed administratively may be associated with less frequent underage drinking in private settings, particularly among adolescents who have already initiated alcohol use. After the direction by the City Council at their March 13th meeting, staff developed a Social Host Ordinance. The proposed ordinance would do the following: A. Protect the safety and welfare of residents. B. Impose a civil fine on persons responsible for gatherings where alcohol is made accessible to underage persons, defined as any person under the age of 21. C. The responsible party would also be charged the actual cost of law enforcement beyond the initial response by a Sheriff Deputy and for damage to public property and/or injuries to law enforcement personnel incurred during response. D. Prohibit a responsible person from serving alcoholic beverages to underage person, except under the supervision of a parent or a guardian in connection with cultural or religious activity. E. Define responsible person: Responsible person could be a parent, tenant or any person who organizes, supervises, conducts or controls the gathering whether or not the individual is present at the gathering. If an underage person is responsible for the gathering, then both the minor and the parent or legal guardian of the underage person would be the responsible persons. F. Provide for an administrative citation appeals process. As it pertains to the administrative citation fines for a violation for the proposed Social Host Ordinance, the following fee schedule would be imposed: 1. A fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) for the first violation. 2. A fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for a second violation of the same provision within one year. 3. A fine not exceeding seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500.00) for each additional violation of the same provision within one year of the first violation. In addition to the administrative penalties, the responding law enforcement, fire or emergency response providers may issue an order requiring the gathering to be disbanded and may cite and/or arrest any law violators under any other applicable ordinances and state statutes. Lomita Sheriff Station Captain Dan Beringer has analyzed the ordinance and verified that Sheriff Deputies could enforce the ordinance as proposed. Since all three cities that utilize Sheriff law enforcement services on the Palos Verdes peninsula plan to pass a Social Host Ordinance, the Lomita Sheriff Station plan to develop a ticket book that will have all three of the cities on it with all pertinent information related to each city's Social Host Ordinance enforcement procedures. This will allow the violator know exactly what is needed and when to correct the violation. If the citation is not paid for or appealed within 30 days, the City will consider the violator non -compliant and could now transition the administrative citation to a misdemeanor offense. If that occurred, the case could then be enforced as a code enforcement case with the assistance of the City Attorney. FISCAL IMPACT The cost for a third party hearing officer for appeals to a violation of a Social Host Ordinance will typically costs around $150/hour with cost for an individual case being somewhere between $750-$1,500 unless it is appealed to the Superior Court. Therefore, in most cases, the administrative citation fine will cover the cost for these services. NOTIFICATION Notification of this matter was provided to PVPUSD Board Members Malcolm Sharp and Linda Reid; Palos Verdes Council of PTAs President Beth Meyerhoff; and others that previously addressed the City Council regarding this matter. -3- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ORDINANCE NO. 352 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.58 (SOCIAL HOST LIABILITY FOR PARTIES AT WHICH UNDERAGE DRINKING OCCURS) OF ARTICLE VII (OFFENSES BY OR AGAINST MINORS) OF TITLE 9 (PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE) OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPOSE LIABILITY ON PERSONS WHO FACILITATE OR ALLOW THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BY MINORS AT ANY PARTY, GATHERING OR EVENT AT A PRIVATE RESIDENCE; AND AMENDING SECTION 1.08.010 AND ADDING SECTIONS 1.08.030 THROUGH 1.08.090 TO CHAPTER 1.08 (GENERAL PENALTY) TO TITLE 1 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION PROCESS FOR CODE VIOLATIONS The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. A new Chapter 9.58 (Social Host Liability for Parties at which Underage Drinking Occurs) of Article VII (Offenses By Or Against Minors) of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and Welfare) is hereby added to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 9.58 Social Host Liability for Parties at which Underage Drinking Occurs Sections 9.58.010 Purpose and Intent 9.58.020 Definitions 9.58.030 Social host liability for parties at which underage drinking occurs 9.58.040 Exceptions 9.58.050 Notice to responsible person 9.58.060 Cost reimbursement to the City 9.58.070. Penalties. 9.58.010. Purpose and intent. The City Council finds and determines that minors sometimes obtain alcoholic beverages at parties held at private premises. The purposes of this chapter are as follows: A. Protect the public health, safety and general welfare; B. Discourage and decrease underage drinking by imposing a civil fine on persons responsible for gatherings where alcohol is consumed by or served to underage persons; and C. Facilitate the enforcement of laws prohibiting the service to and consumption of alcoholic beverages by underage persons. Ordinance No. 352 1 9.58.020. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: A. "Alcoholic beverage" means and includes alcohol, spirits, liquor, wine, beer and every liquid or solid containing alcohol, spirits, wine or beer, and which contains one-half (%2) of one percent (1 %) or more of alcohol by volume and which is fit for beverage purposes either alone or when diluted, mixed or combined with other substances. B. "Residence or other private property" shall mean a home, yard or other dwelling unit, or a guesthouse, pool house, barn or other similar accessory structure whether occupied on a temporary or permanent basis, whether occupied as a dwelling, party or other social function venue, and whether owned, leased, rented or used with or without compensation. C. "Responsible person" includes the following persons, whether or not present at a gathering in violation of this chapter: 1. A person or persons with a right of possession of the residence or other private property at which a gathering is conducted; 2. Each person who has an ownership interest in the premises. In the event the property is rented, the landlord shall qualify as a Responsible Person where the landlord knew or reasonably should have known of a prior gathering at the same premises; 3. Each person who, although not an owner, nevertheless occupies or has a legal right or legal obligation to exercise possession or control over the premises 4. Any person who organizes, supervises, officiates, conducts or controls the gathering or any other person(s) accepting responsibility for such a gathering; or 5. The parent or legal guardian of an underage person, where the underage person is the host of a gathering in violation of this chapter. D. "Underage person" is any person under the age of twenty-one (21). 9.58.030. Social host liability for parties at which underage drinking occurs. It shall be a violation of this chapter, and a public nuisance constituting an immediate threat to public health and safety warranting summary abatement, for any responsible person to conduct or allow in a residence or other private property any party, gathering or event at which an underage person consumes alcoholic beverages, where the responsible party knows or reasonably should know that an underage person has obtained or may consume an alcoholic beverage. Prior knowledge of the gathering is not pre -requisite to a finding that any specific individual is a responsible person as defined by this section. In the event the responsible person is an underage person, then the underage person, and their parents or legal guardian, shall be jointly and severally liable for any penalties incurred pursuant to this chapter. Ordinance No. 352 2 to, 9.58.040. Exceptions This chapter shall not apply to possession or consumption of an alcoholic beverage under the supervision of a parent or guardian in connection with a cultural or religious activity. 9.58.050. Notice to responsible person. When a law enforcement officer makes an initial response to a party, gathering or event at which underage consumption of alcoholic beverages occurs, the officer shall provide a written notice to all identified responsible persons at the time of the initial response. This notice shall include the following information: A. The official has determined that a party, gathering or event at which underage consumption of alcoholic beverages exists; B. The responsible person(s) will be fined for a violation of this chapter, pursuant to Section 9.58.070; C. If the condition is not abated and an additional response is required of law enforcement or emergency service providers, such as emergency personnel or fire, to abate the nuisance, the responsible persons(s) will be billed for any response costs incurred, pursuant to Section 9.58.060; and D. The responsible person(s) are entitled to request a hearing to appeal the fine and response costs pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 1.08.090(H) for appealing administrative citations. 9.58.060 Cost reimbursement to the City. A. The person or persons responsible for any party, gathering or event described in Section 9.58.030 or on whose property the gathering is held, or if such person is a minor then the parents or legal guardians of the minor, shall be jointly and severally liable for the following costs attributable to the event: 1. The actual cost to the City of law enforcement services beyond the initial response by a Sheriffs deputy necessary to abate the conditions described in Section 9.58.030; 2. Damage to public property resulting from such law enforcement response; and 3. Injuries to law enforcement personnel incurred in such law enforcement response. B. The Sheriff's Department shall accurately compute the cost of providing such services in accordance with the schedule of rates and charges for personnel and equipment contained in the law enforcement services agreement with the City and advise the City Manager of such costs, as well as any other costs of damage to public property or injuries to personnel resulting from the law enforcement response. The person responsible for the Ordinance No. 352 3 event as above described shall be billed for these costs by the City Manager upon notice of the charges from the Sheriff and payment shall be due and payable within fifteen days (15) of the billing date. Should the amount due not be paid, the City may collect the debt, as well as any costs incurred in collecting the debt due to nonpayment, pursuant to any available provision of law. 9.58.070. Penalties. A. The city council shall establish a schedule of administrative fines for any violation of this chapter. B. In addition to the administrative fines described in this chapter, the responding law enforcement officer, may issue an order requiring the gathering to be disbanded and may cite and/or arrest any law violators under any other applicable ordinances and state statutes. Section 2. The following Sections are hereby added to Chapter 1.08 (General Penalty) of Title 1 (General Provisions) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code to read as follows: 1.08.030 Violation — Subject to administrative citation when. Any person violating any provision or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of Chapter 9.58, shall be subject to the administrative penalty provisions of this Chapter. 1.08.040 Administrative Penalty. An administrative penalty shall be assessed by means of an administrative citation issued by an enforcement officer and shall be payable directly to the City. Penalties shall be set forth in a penalty schedule established by resolution of the City Council. A portion of each penalty shall constitute reimbursement for the City's administrative expenses in issuing and processing the citation. Penalties shall be collected in accordance with the procedures specified in this chapter. Payment of a penalty shall not excuse the failure to correct the violation nor shall it bar further enforcement by the City. In the case of violations of the building, plumbing, mechanical or electrical codes, an administrative citation shall not be issued until after the responsible party has been provided a notice and a reasonable opportunity to correct the violation, and has failed to do so. 1.08.050 Service procedures for issuing administrative citations. An administrative citation may be issued to a responsible party by an enforcement officer for violation of those sections set forth in Section 1.08.030 as follows: A. By Personal Service. The person on whom the citation is served is required to confirm receipt by signing a copy of the citation, but his or her failure to do so shall have no effect on the citation's validity or enforceability; or B. By Regular First -Class Mail. Service shall be deemed effective when the citation is deposited in the United States mail; or Ordinance No. 352 4 (� J C. By Posting on Property. If the enforcement officer is unable to serve the citation under subsections (A) or (B) above, by posting a copy of the citation on any real property within the City in which the City has knowledge that the responsible party has a legal interest. Service under this subsection shall be deemed effective on the date when the notice is posted; or D. By Publication. If the enforcement officer cannot serve the citation by any of the above methods, the enforcement officer may publish the citation in a newspaper likely to give actual notice to the party subject to the citation. The publication shall be once a week for four successive weeks in a newspaper published at least once a week. 1.08.060 Contents of administrative citation. Administrative citations shall contain all of the following information: A. The date and the location of the violation and the approximate time the violation occurred; B. The code section violated and a description of how the section was violated; C. The action required to correct the violation; D. The consequences of failing to correct the violation; E. The amount of penalty imposed for the violation; F. The procedure to contest the citation; G. The signature of the enforcement officer and the signature of the responsible party, if that person can be located and will sign the citation, as set forth in Section 1.08.050. 1.08.070 Satisfaction of administrative citation. Upon receipt of a citation, the responsible party must do one of the following: A. Pay the Penalty. Pay the Penalty. Pay the fine to the City within thirty (30) days from the date of the citation. All fines assessed shall be payable to the City. Payment of a fine shall not excuse or discharge a failure to correct continuing violations nor shall it bar further enforcement action by the City. Payment of the penalty waives the responsible party's right to the administrative hearing and appeal process pursuant to Section 1.08.090; or B. Remedy the Violation. If the violation is a first-time correctable offense, is deemed by the enforcement officer not to create an immediate threat to health and safety, and the responsible party remedies it within the time indicated on the citation; or C. Request an Administrative Hearing. If the responsible party chooses to contest the citation, the party shall do so no later than thirty (30) days after service of the citation. The request shall be submitted in writing as directed on the citation and shall include a statement of reasons why the citation is being contested. The request shall be accompanied by a deposit in the full amount of the penalty or written proof of Ordinance No. 352 financial hardship, which at a minimum must include tax returns, financial statements, bank account records, salary records, or similar documentation demonstrating that the responsible party is unable to deposit the penalty. A hearing will not be scheduled until a full amount of the penalty is deposited, or the City finds the responsible party financially unable to do so and waives the deposit requirement. In the event the responsible party fails or refuses to select and satisfy any of the alternatives set forth in subsection (A), (B) or (C) above, then the penalty shall be immediately due and owing to the City and may be collected in any manner allowed by law for collection of a debt. Commencement of an action to collect the delinquent penalty shall not preclude issuance of additional citations to the responsible party should the violations persist. 1.08.080 Issuing permits or licenses. If an enforcement officer issues an Administrative Citation because the responsible person lacks a required permit or license required by this code and the fine is delinquent, the City shall not issue the permit or license until the delinquent fine, and any applicable penalties and interest, are paid. Similarly, no permit or license shall be renewed until any and all outstanding administrative citations have been paid in full, regardless of the violation that triggered the administrative citation. 1.08.090 Administrative hearings and appeal process. A. Prehearing Dismissal of Citation. The City Manager may dismiss an administrative citation at any time in the interest of justice or if the citation is determined to have been issued in error, in which event any deposit made shall be refunded. Alternatively, the City Manager and the individual may voluntarily enter into a compliance agreement whereby the individual agrees to adhere to the requirements for compliance specified in the agreement and the City agrees to dismiss the citation upon satisfactory correction. B. Time for Administrative Hearing. The administrative hearing shall be scheduled no later than ninety (90) days after receipt of the request for a hearing to contest the citation. The responsible party will be notified in writing at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing by first class mail of the date and time of the hearing. C. Appointment of Administrative Hearing Officer. The hearing shall be conducted by an administrative hearing officer appointed by the City Manager to perform such hearings. D. Request for Continuance of Hearing. The responsible party may request one continuance of the hearing, but in no event may the hearing begin later than ninety (90) days after receipt of the request for hearing from the responsible party. E. Failure to Attend Administrative Hearing. The individual to whom an administrative citation is issued, or that person's representative, may attend the hearing in person, or in lieu of attending may submit an Appearance by Written Declaration on a form provided by the City for that purpose. 1. If the cited individual or his or her representative fails to attend the scheduled hearing, or fails to submit an Appearance by Written Declaration on the form provided by the City Ordinance No. 352 6 �� for that purpose, he or she shall be deemed to have waived his or her right to an administrative hearing. Under these circumstances, the administrative hearing officer shall dismiss the challenge to the administrative citation, and shall issue a written notice to that effect. An individual whose challenge to an administrative citation is dismissed under this section shall be deemed not to have availed himself or herself of the right to an administrative hearing as provided in this chapter. 2. An individual who has been issued an administrative citation and who has requested an administrative hearing to challenge the citation as provided in this chapter may request in writing that his or her challenge to the citation be dismissed and the hearing cancelled. Upon receipt of such request, the administrative hearing officer shall dismiss the challenge to the administrative citation, cancel the pending hearing, and issue a written notice to that effect. Any individual who requests the dismissal of a challenge to an administrative citation under this section shall be deemed never to have availed himself or herself of the right to an administrative hearing as provided in this chapter. F. Procedures at Administrative Hearing. Administrative hearings are informal, and formal rules of evidence and discovery do not apply. Each party shall have the opportunity to present evidence in support of his or her case and to cross-examine witnesses. The City bears the burden of proof at an administrative hearing to establish a violation. The citation is prima facie evidence of the violation and the enforcement officer who issued the citation is not required to participate in the hearing. The administrative hearing officer shall use preponderance of the evidence as the standard of evidence in deciding the issues. Evidence shall be submitted under penalty of perjury. G. Decision of an Administrative Hearing Officer. At the conclusion of the hearing or within fifteen 15 days thereafter, the administrative hearing officer shall render a decision as follows: 1. Determine that the violation for which the citation was issued occurred, and impose a fine in the amount set forth in the penalty schedule, and if the violation has not been corrected as of the date of the hearing, order correction of the violation; or 2. Determine that the violation for which the citation was issued occurred, but that the responsible party has introduced credible evidence of mitigating circumstances warranting imposition of a lesser penalty than that prescribed in the penalty schedule, or no penalty at all, and imposing such lesser fine, if any, and if the violation has not been corrected as of the date of the hearing, ordering that the violation be corrected; or 3. Determine that the violation for which the citation was issued did not occur or that the condition did not constitute a violation of the code. The administrative hearing officer shall issue a written decision entitled "Administrative Order" no later than fifteen (15) days after the date on which the administrative hearing concludes. The Administrative Order shall be served upon the responsible party by first class mail, or if that method fails, by any of the other methods set forth in Section 1.08.050. The Administrative Order shall become final on the date of mailing or other service, and shall notify the responsible party of his or her right to appeal as provided in subsection (H) of this section. The Administrative Order shall also: (i) either set a deadline for compliance Ordinance No. 352 7 with its terms, in the event that the responsible person fails to file an appeal, in no event less than twenty (20) days from the date of mailing or other service; or (ii) if the hearing officer determines as described in subsection (G)(2) or (G)(3) immediately above, and the responsible party has deposited the penalty with the City, order a partial or full refund of the deposit. If the violation is a continuing violation of the City's building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical or zoning code, the Administrative Order shall provide that the responsible person has not more than thirty (30) days from mailing or other service of the Administrative Order to correct the violation. H. Appeal the Administrative Order. If an administrative order is rendered in favor of the City, the responsible person may seek judicial review of the administrative order in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, by filing an appeal of the administrative order pursuant to, and paying the fee required by, Government Code § 53069.4 within twenty (20) days after service of the administrative order. Pursuant to Government Code § 53069.4, the appealing party must serve a copy of the notice of appeal in person, or by first-class mail upon the City Clerk. If no notice of appeal is filed within the twenty (20) Day period, the administrative hearing officer's decision is final. I. Failure to Comply with Administrative Order. In the absence of a timely appeal to the Superior Court, failure to comply with a fmal administrative order directing the abatement of a continuing violation by the date specified in the order shall be a misdemeanor for each day thereafter, or any portion thereof, that the violation is maintained or permitted. In the event of a timely appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to subsection (H) of this section, and provided the City prevails thereon each day, or any portion thereof, that a continuing violation is maintained or permitted after a court -ordered abatement date shall be a misdemeanor. Filing a misdemeanor action does not preclude the City from pursuing any other remedies to gain compliance provided in this Code or under state law. For purposes of this subsection (I), a "continuing violation" shall mean a single, ongoing condition or activity in Violation of the Municipal Code. Section 3. Section 1.08.010 (Violation — Misdemeanor when) of Chapter 1.08 (General Penalty) of Title 1 (General Provisions) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 1.08.010 - Violation —Misdemeanor when. A. Any person violating any provision or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of the ordinances of the City shall be charged with a misdemeanor, unless the violation is made an infraction by ordinance. B. Any person who violates the same provision, or fails to comply with the same requirement, of the sections of this code set forth in Section 1.08.030 more than three times within a twelve month period shall be charged with a misdemeanor for each violation committed thereafter within that same twelve month period. Any person who violates or fails to comply with the sections of this code set forth in Section 1.08.030 and who possesses no photo identification or refuses to identify him or herself to an enforcement officer, making it impossible to issue an administrative citation, shall be charged with a misdemeanor. Ordinance No. 352 8 Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its passage; and prior to fifteen (15) days after its passage, the City Clerk shall cause a copy of this ordinance to be published in accordance with the provisions of the law. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable. Section 6. Certification and Posting. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2017. JAMES BLACK MAYOR ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Ordinance No. 352 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 352 entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.58 (SOCIAL HOST LIABILITY FOR PARTIES AT WHICH UNDERAGE DRINKING OCCURS) OF ARTICLE VII (OFFENSES BY OR AGAINST MINORS) OF TITLE 9 (PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE) OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPOSE LIABILITY ON PERSONS WHO FACILITATE OR ALLOW THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BY MINORS AT ANY PARTY, GATHERING OR EVENT AT A PRIVATE RESIDENCE; AND AMENDING SECTION 1.08.010 AND ADDING SECTIONS 1.08.030 THROUGH 1.08.090 TO CHAPTER 1.08 (GENERAL PENALTY) TO TITLE 1 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION PROCESS FOR CODE VIOLATIONS 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. HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Ordinance No. 352 10 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: • J gee4 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: 05/22/17 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER RESOLUTION NO. 1206 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING AND MODIFYING ROLLING HILLS FEES BY REDUCING CERTAIN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT RELATED FEES, ELIMINATING ONE GENERAL ADMINISTRATION PROCESSING FEE, ESTABLISHING FINES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS; AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 1149. MAY 22, 2017 ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 1206 Summary Chart of Proposed Changes FY 2016/2017 Consolidated Tax and Fee Schedule RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council consider establishing and modifying the fees as described herein and adopt the attached Resolution No. 1206 with the changes agreed upon. The FY 2017/2018 Consolidated Tax and Fee Schedule will be updated accordingly. BACKGROUND At is meeting of March 17, 2017, the City Council Finance / Budget Committee discussed potential updates to the City's Consolidated Tax and Fee Schedule. Subsequently, the City Council took action of "receive and file" of the notes from the meeting at its April 10, 2017 meeting where a number of planning and development related fees were recommended to be reduced. Staff then agendized the proposed fee reductions at the City Council's April 24, 2017 meeting. The City Council reduced six of these fees, but also subsequently had a first reading of the Social Host Ordnance that PagJf 4 •1 i • includes the creation of an administrative citation fine. Furthermore, staff identified a fee associated with audiotape duplication that is not longer valid. Therefore, before the City Council is Resolution No. 1206 in order to consider these proposed changes to the Consolidated Tax and Fee Schedule. DISCUSSION The following describes the recommendations for new and modified fees including where reductions are desired or no longer needed in the Consolidated Tax and Fee Schedule: 1. Lighting Ordinance For the resources necessary in preparation of report to the Planning Commission and City Council for a resident initiated request to deviate from the requirements of the Lighting Ordinance. Current Fee is $750 and is proposed to be reduced to $375. 2. Environmental Review Fees /Preparation of Negative Declaration or MND For staff's review of environmental documents and preparation of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. Almost all of development projects in the City are categorically exempt from CEQA and do not trigger detailed reviews. Therefore, this fee is charged infrequently. Current Fee is $1,000 and is proposed to be reduced to $50. 3. Environmental Impact Reports Fee deposited by an applicant for a mutually agreed upon consultant if EIR for a project is required. (Staff prepares RFPs, reviews responses and monitors compliance & mitigation measures throughout the project review and construction process). Almost all of development projects in the City are categorically exempt from CEQA and do not trigger detailed reviews. Therefore, this fee is collected very infrequently. Current fee is consultant fee plus 20% for administrative processing, and is proposed to be reduced to consultant fee only. 4. Zoning and Construction Violation Penalty Penalty as a .disincentive for zoning or construction violation when "as built" or "as graded" or other illegal activity is discovered and which requires discretionary review - (Planning Commission & City Council). Current Fee is $2,500 and is proposed to be reduced to $1,500. Pag6f 4 5. Environmental Review Preparation of Negative Declaration or MND for View Impairment Cases For staff's review of environmental documents and preparation of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Neg. Decl., if needed for view impairment cases. Current Fee is $1,000 and is proposed to be reduced to $50. 6. Parks and Recreation For each new residential dwelling (not reconstruction of existing dwellings). This fee assists with offsetting costs associated with maintaining the City's recreation facilities. Current fee is 2% of the first $100,000 of construction valuation, plus 0.5% of such valuation over $100,000 and is proposed to be reduced to 2% of the first $100,000 of construction valuation, plus 0.25% of such valuation over $ 100,000. 7. Audio Tapes of City Council and Planning Commission Meetings The City's Consolidated Tax and Fee Schedule specifies a $25 cost for obtaining an analog audiotape of Planning Commission or City Council proceedings. However, City staff no longer uses audiotapes. Instead, the meetings are recorded digitally. Obtaining a digital copy of the proceedings involves burning a compact disc (CD) and approximately 5 to 15 minutes of time. At this time, there is no cost to the requesting party for obtaining a CD. Current Fee is $25 and is proposed to be eliminated. 8. Administrative Citation Fines Administrative citation for violation of City's Social Host Ordinance and other ordinances, should the City impose such fine on other violations of the Municipal Code. Currently this will be implemented if City adopts the Social Host Ordinance. This is a new fine established with the following amounts: $2,500 for 1St violation $5,000 for 2nd violation within same year $7,500 for any additional violation within same year FISCAL IMPACT Concerning the reductions in the planning and development fees, staff was unable to determine the effect the changes would have on revenues. It is however clear that the City would not be receiving cost recovery of the staff time it takes to do this work. Furthermore, some of these fees were developed with intended policy implications such Pag3)f4 • • as to encourage residents to come forth to either legalize unpermitted activities or have an opportunity to request clarification. The main cost associated with the Social Host Ordinance is for a third party hearing officer for appeals to a violation of the Ordinance and typically costs around $150/hour with cost for an individual case being somewhere between $750-$1,500 unless it is appealed to the Superior Court. Therefore, in most cases, the administrative citation fine will cover the cost for these services. NOTIFICATION The agenda for the City Council meeting specifying the City Council's consideration of a change to the Schedule of Fees and Charges has been printed in the City's newsletter. CONCLUSION The City Council is requested to consider Resolution No. 1206 to modify various fees and add a fine for administrative citations. Following adoption of the Resolution, the new schedule will become effective immediately. • • RESOLUTION NO. 1206 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING AND MODIFYING ROLLING HILLS FEES BY REDUCING CERTAIN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT RELATED FEES, ELIMINATING ONE GENERAL ADMINISTRATION PROCESSING FEE, ESTABLISHING FINES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 1149. 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 deyiation 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 New and amended provisions are in bold Resolution No. 1206 1 • • N. City Council and Planning Commission interpretation 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 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 Q. $ 375 Fee to be credited if results in filing of a formal 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 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. Appeal of Zone Clearance $ 375 Y. Stable Use Permit $ 375 (For stables under 800 sq ft considered by the Planning Commission) New and amended provisions are in bold Resolution No. 1206 2 • , . • Z. Major Remodel Review $375 (For remodels of more than 50% demolition) Section 2. The following fees are established and charged for applications for processing View Impairment and Traffic Commission cases: A. View Impairment 1. Application Fee (includes costs of mediation) $1,000 2. Review by Committee on Trees and Views Processing fee $2,000 3. Environmental Review Fees A. Preparation and Staff Review of Initial Study $200 B. Preparation of Negative Declaration or $50 Mitigated Negative Declaration • B. Traffic Commission Review (plus fee charged by CA Department of Fish and Wildlife, if applicable, as adjusted annually) 1. New driveways or other traffic $ 300 related items Section 3. The following fees are established and charged for General Administration processing: A. General Plan $ 30 B. Zoning Code $ 25 C. Subdivision Code $ 25 D. Budget $ 30 E. Zoning Map $ 3 F. Xeroxed copies, each page $ 0.25 G. False Alarms Fee for 1st incident involving a false alarm is waived 2nd $ 50 3rd $100 New and amended provisions are in bold Resolution No. 1206 3 4th $150 41 • 5th $ 200 6th $ 250 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 Two and one-half times the amount set forth in the Plumbing Code for each fee, table and schedule therein. C. MECHANICAL PERMIT Two and one-half times the amount set forth in the Mechanical Code for each fee, table and schedule therein. D. ELECTRICAL PERMIT Two and one-half times the amount set forth in the Electrical Code for each fee, table and schedule therein. E. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, 0.42% of the valuation of the proposed SITE AND PLAN REVIEW 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: New and amended provisions are in bold Resolution No. 1206 4 (:)X A. BUILDING PERMIT B. PLUMBING PERMIT C. MECHANICAL PERMIT D. ELECTRICAL PERMIT E. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, SI'T'E AND PLAN REVIEW 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 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. New and amended provisions are in bold Resolution No. 1206 5 Section 6. The following fees are established and shall be collected for each permit relating to construction and demolition waste: 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. 1149 is hereby rescinded. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2017. James Black, M.D. Mayor A I EST: Heidi Luce City Clerk New and amended provisions are in bold Resolution No. 1206 6 g • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1206 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING AND MODIFYING ROLLING HILLS FEES BY REDUCING CERTAIN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT RELATED FEES, ELIMINATING ONE GENERAL ADMINISTRATION PROCESSING FEE, ESTABLISHING FINES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 1149. 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: HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK New and amended provisions are in bold Resolution No. 1206 7 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Schedule of Fees and Charges Summary Chart of Proposed Changes Reference Purpose Current Proposed Fee/Penalty Fee/Penalty Section 1. Subsection F - Lighting Ordinance For the resources necessary in preparation for resident initiated request to deviate from the requirements of the Lighting Ordinance; fee is to be consistent with application cost of Planning Commission/City Council interpretation and miscellaneous reviews. $750 $375 Section 1. Subsection 0 - Environmental Review Fees Preparation of Negative Declaration or MND For staffs review of environmental documents and preparation of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Neg. Decl. (The name of the agency is being changed to Fish and Wildlife from Fish and Game) $1,000 $50 Section 1. Subsection P Environmental Impact Reports Fee deposited by an applicant for a mutually agreed upon consultant if EIR for a project is required. (Staff prepares RFPs, reviews responses and monitors compliance & mitigation measures throughout the project review and construction process). Consultant fee plus 20% Consultant fee ` Section 1. Subsection U Zoning and construction violation penalty (for "as built", "as graded" or other illegal activity that requires discretionary review) Penalty as a disincentive for zoning or construction violation, when the violation results in discretionary review. $2,500 $1,500 Section 2. Subsection A - For staffs review of environmental $1,000 $50 Page 1 of 1 Schedule of Fees and Charges Summary Chart of Proposed Changes Reference Purpose Current Fee/Penalty Proposed Fee/Penalty Environmental Review Fees Preparation of Negative Declaration or MND for view impairment cases documents and preparation of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Neg. Decl. for view impairment cases, if needed. (The name of the agency is being changed to Fish and Wildlife from Fish and Game Section 3. Subsection D Meeting Tapes Delete - City no longer provides meeting tapes $25 $0 Section 4. Subsection A. 2 Parks and Recreation For each new residential dwelling (not reconstruction of existing dwellings) 2% of the first $100,000 of construction valuation, plus 0.5% of such valuation over $100,000. 2% of the first $100,000 of construction valuation, plus 0.25% of such valuation over $ 100,000. Add new Section 7. Administrative Citation fines Administrative citation fine for violation of City's Social Host Ordinance or if other code violations are classified under this category NONE $2,500 for 1St violation $5,000 for 2nd violation within same year $7,500 for any additional violation within same year Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CONSOLIDATED TAX and FEE SCHEDULE for FISCAL YEAR 2016/2017 ITEM FEES CODE/RESO NO. DATE ADOPTED TAXES Real Property Transfer Tax Cable Television Franchise BUILDING AND SAFETY PERMITS BUILDING, PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, AND Building Permit Plumbing Permit Mechanical Permit Electrical Permit Park & Recreation Fund Fee Solar and Photovoltaic Systems and Appurtenant Equipment GEOTECHNICAL FEES Property value exceeds $100,000 - a tax at the rate of 27.5 cents for each five hundred dollars or fractional part thereof. 2.50% of gross annual receipts ELECTRICAL PERMITS (LA COUNTY) Two and one half times the amount set forth in the LA County Building Code for each fee. Two and one half times the amount set forth in the LA County Plumbing Code for each fee. Two and one half times the amount set forth in the LA County Mechanical Code for each fee. Two and one half times the amount set forth in the LA County Electrical Code for each fee. New residential dwelling - 2% of the first $100,00 of construction valuation, plus 0.5% of such valuation over $100,000 The amount set forth in the Los Angeles County Bulding and Electrical Codes for each fee, table and schedule therein, plus $60.11 City administrative fee. Ordinance No. 72 December 11, 1967 Resolution No. 823 July 28, 1997 Resolution No. 496 August 23, 1982 Resolution No. 1064 July 13, 2009 0.42% of the valuation of the proposed structure Resolution No. 931 Minimum charge - $525 Maximum charge - $3,588 PERMITTING PROCESS THROUGH A CITY APPROVED CONSULTANT Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical 25% surcharge on Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety fees Solar and Photovoltaic Systems and 25% surcharge on Los Angeles County Appurtenant Equipment Department of Building and Safety fees, plus $60.11 City administrative fee PLANNING, ZONING AND SUBDIVISIONS Conditional Use Permits Site Plan Review Variance Variance, Minor Discretionary Approval Modification Zone Change Zoning Amendment General Plan Amendment Lot Line Adjustment Tentative Parcel Map Tentative Tract Map Appeal Fee Appeal of Zone Clerance Environmental Impact Report Extension of Time Final Parcel or Tract Map County Clerk Processing Fee Multiple Discretionary Reviews 7/1/14 Updated Solid Waste Collection Fee City absorbed CPI increase for 15/1616/17 $1,500 $1,500 $1,250 $750 2/3 of original application fee $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,500 $1,500 and county fees plus 20% $1,500 and county fees plus 20% 2/3 of original application fee $375 City consultant fee + 20% $200 County fees plus 20% County fee Most expensive fee for the first review and 1/2 of the fee for the second review. No fee for third or more reviews Resolution No. 1034 Resolution No. 1064 April 14, 2003 February 11, 2008 July 13, 2009 Resolution No. 691 September 28, 1992 Resolution No. 1149 Resolution No. 1149 Resolution No. 1060 July 22, 2013 July 22, 2013 May 11, 2009 1 of 3 Fees Effective 9/20/13 (Resolution No. 1149) • CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CONSOLIDATED TAX and FEE SCHEDULE for FISCAL YEAR 2016/2017 ITEM FEES CODE/RESO NO. DATE ADOPTED Stable Use Permit $375 Major Remodel Review $375 Lighting Ordinance Modification $750 Outdoor Lighting Audit $150 City Council and Planning Commission $375 - fee to be credited if results in filing of Intrepretation and Misc. Reviews forml application to the Citry Council or Planning Commission Environmental Review fees for Discretionary Permits Preparation and Staff Review of Initial Study $200 Preparation of Negative Declaration or $1,000 plus fee charged by the CA Dept. of Fish Mitigated Negative Declaration and Game, if applicable, as adjusted annually Service Request County fees plus 20% Construction and Demolition Waste Permit $25 single project permit ADDITIONAL PROCESSING FEE Planning & Zoning Applications involving illegal or "as built" structures or grading that require Planning Commission review. Administrative Fee $2,500 Stop Work Order $200 TRAFFIC COMMISSION REVIEW New driveways or other traffic related items $300 VIEW IMPAIRMENT Application Fee (includes costs of mediation) $1,000 Review by Committee on Trees and Views $2,000 Processing fee Environmental Review Fees Preparation and Staff Review of Initial Study Preparation of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration $200 $1,000 plus fee charged by the CA Dept. of Fish and Game, if applicable, as adjusted annually GENERAL ADMINISTRATION - PROCESSING FEES General Plan Zoning Code Budget Meeting Tapes (Audio) Zoning Map Xeroxed Copies, each page FALSE ALARM Fee for 1st incident involving a false alarm is waived 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th $30 $25 $30 $25 $3 $0.25 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 BAIL/FINE SCHEDULE FOR VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS As set forth in Bail/Fine Schedule for Title 10 Violations,. PARKING VIOLATION/CITATION PENALTY SCHEDULE Pursuant to Califomia Vehicle Code Section 40203.5 and 40225 Resolution No. 1149 Resolution No. 1149 Resolution No. 1149 Resolution No. 1119 Resolution No. 1060 Resolution No. 854 Resolution No. 1149 Resolution No. 1060 Resolution No. 691 Resolution No. 1119 Resolution No. 691 Resolution No. 1119 Resolution No. 791 Resolution No. 799 Resolution No. 824 Resolution No. 1072 Resolution No. 1101 Resolution No. 717 Resolution No. 740 Resolution No. 824 July 22, 2013 July 22, 2013 July 22, 2013 April 23, 2012 May 11, 2009 January 25, 1999 July 22, 2013 May 11, 2009 September 28, 1992 April 23, 2012 September 28, 1992 April 23, 2012 August 12, 1996 October 28, 1996 July 28, 1997 September 14, 2009 January 10, 2011 November 22, 1993 May 9, 1994 July 28, 1997 7/1/14 Updated Solid Waste Collection Fee City absorbed CPI increase for 15/1616/17 2 of 3 e Fees Effective 9/20/13 (Resolution No. 1149) CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CONSOLIDATED TAX and FEE SCHEDULE for FISCAL YEAR 2016/2017 ITEM FEES CODE/RESO NO. DATE ADOPTED DOG/CAT LICENSE FEES Dog, unaltered Dog, spayed/neutered with Certificate of Sterility Metallic dog tag Penalty for not renewing license Duplicate dog tag Transfer fee Appeal fee Cat, unaltered, lifetime (optional) Cat, spayed/neutered, lifetime (optional) with Certificate of Sterility QUIMBY ACT FEES FOR SUBDIVISIONS SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FEES $18 $9 $5 $25 $5 $3 $40 $10 $5 Park in -lieu fees and/or dedication of land when subdividing property. FY 2016/17 Annual Fee - $1,100 PERMITS RELATIVE TO EXTRA LARGE VEHICLES ACCESSING THE CITY $75 per vehicle (The City does not collect this fee.) Resolution No. 527 April 23, 1984 Municipal Code March 2005 Section 16.28.150 Resolution No. 1051 Resolution No. 637 January 12, 2009 March 25, 1991 7/1/14 Updated Solid Waste Collection Fee City absorbed CPI increase for 15/1616/17 3 of 3 8 Fees Effective 9/20/13 (Resolution No. 1149) 2 Agenda Item No: 9-A Mtg. Date: 05/22/17 LSE A,G U E GITI ES May 3, 2017 The Honorable Lorena Gonzalez -Fletcher Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee California State Assembly State Capitol Building, Room 2114 Sacramento, CA 95814 1400 K Street, Suite 400 0 Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 www.cacities.org RE: AB 1250 (,Tones -Sawyer). Counties and Cities: Contracts for Personal Services. Notice of Opposition (as amended 04/25/2017) Dear Assembly Member Lorena Gonzalez -Fletcher: The League of California Cities (LOCC) and undersigned must respectfully oppose Assembly Bill (AB) 1250, which effectively eliminates virtually all contracting services for cities and counties. Moreover, the measure would lead to significant cost not only for local agencies, but for the State given the significant number of possible state -reimbursable mandates in the measure. As amended, the undersigned must still oppose AB 1250 as the amendments still do not address our core concerns. Although our concerns are varied from fundamental local control discretion to increased and unnecessary reporting requirements, for purposes of the Assembly Appropriations committee our comments will be focused on fiscal objections. Fiscal Impacts: We have begun to survey member cities that are affected by this measure (approximately 360 general law cities) on the projected costs to adhere to the requirements of this measure. Given the complex nature of calculating projected costs of the mandates set forth and that the measure is being rushed through the legislative process, numbers provided here are snapshots of expected costs. That said, with a just small sample, we can project the cost of the measure to be in the high tens of millions of dollars with many factors unknown that will raise the costs and act as multiplier effect (such as the number of contracts a city has).The very small pool of data already projects compliance costs of over $33.33 million. We expect this number to grow in a more comprehensive report that will be provided in the near future. Non -city Employee Orientations As amended, AB 1250 still requires that the agency provide an orientation to contracted employees. Last year, AB 2835 (Cooper) which mandated that public employers must provide an orientation to their own employees was tagged at $350 million in ongoing costs by the California department of Finance. This year there have been various proposals that would apply prescriptive employer mandates for employee orientations —a guaranteed cost -driver for local governments. Having a local agency provide an additional orientation to non -city employees create significant cost and logistical concerns. Our small sample provides that this will cost a small or medium large city about $15,756 ($5,672,250 statewide) per contract, however this number will be highly volatile based on the number of contracts and associated employees. We expect this number to grow in a more comprehensive report and be larger than projected. Creation of a Fully Searchable Database Further, AB 1250 would require a city to create a new, fully searchable database that must be posted on the city website that includes: • The names, job titles, salary of each contracted employee (and subcontractors). d t • The services of the contract, the name of the agency department or division of the city who manages the contract. • The amount paid to the contract including the total projected cost of the contract for all fiscal years and the funding source. • The total number of"full time equivalent" employees being contracted out. There is no direction in the measure on who must update this information, how often this information must be updated this in itself will create significant costs in staff time and workload. This mandate may costs a medium or small city, based on our small sample, $25,915 a year ($9,329,538 statewide). We expect this number to grow in a more comprehensive report and be larger than projected. Apart from the inherent cost drivers with this provision, our members have expressed privacy concerns about posting full names, job titles and salaries of non -city employees. This will set the scenario whereby a contracted or subcontracted (non -city) employee will have a strong avenue for a right to privacy lawsuit. The costs associated with this type of litigation will be significant. Annual Cost Benefit, Environmental Review and Performance Audit Additionally, this measure would require a city, before entering a contract or renewing a contract, to perform a full cost -benefit analysis which include the potential impacts of outsourcing, including the impact on local businesses if consumer spending power is reduced (among other factors). This mandate may costs a medium or small city, based on our small sample, $13,119 a year per contract ($4,722,923 statewide), however this number will be volatile based on the number of contracts. We expect this number to grow in a more comprehensive report and be larger than projected. AB 1250 mandates a city conduct a full environmental impact analysis caused by contracting for the services. This mandate may costs a medium or small city, based on our small sample, $18,637 a year per contract ($6,709,500 statewide), however this number will be volatile based on the number of contracts. We expect this number to grow in a more comprehensive report and be larger than projected. Further, the measure forces a city to conduct an annual audit of each contract and prohibits a city from renewing or granting a new contract before the report is released and considered by the council. This mandate may costs a medium or small city, based on our small sample, $19,191 a year per contract ($6,909,500 statewide), however this number will be volatile based on the number of contracts. We expect this number to grow in a more comprehensive report and be larger than projected. Although language was taken to pass the cost to the potential contractor and/or the awarded contractor local agencies believe that companies will simply build in these additional costs into their contracts which yields the same result as if the City simply pays for the cost -benefit analysis. Moreover, it is unclear how a local agency could even assess the cost of the cost -benefit analysis to a prospective contractor. This would only create further confusion and create a chilling effect on prospective contractors from bidding for a service. For these reasons, we must OPPOSE AB 1250. Sincerely, Dane Hutchings Legislative Representative The Cities of: Agoura Hills Anderson Arcadia Azusa Avalon Bellflower Blue Lake Irwindale Rancho Palos Verdes Brisbane La Canada Flintridge Red Bluff Burbank La Mirada Reedley Burlingame La Quinta Rialto Calimesa La Verne Rocklin Camarillo Lafayette Rolling Hills Estates Chino Hills Laguna Hills Rosemead Citrus Heights Lake Elsinore San Carlos Claremont Lakeport San Marino Clayton Lakeport Santa Fe Springs Cloverdale Lakewood Santee Clovis Lawndale Selma Danville Livermore Signal Hill Diamond Bar Lodi Temecula Dinuba Los Alamitos Temple City Downey Mammoth Lakes Thousand Oaks Dublin Menifee Torrance Duarte Morgan Hill Vista Eastvale Morro Bay Walnut Creek Elk Grove Murrieta Whittier Encinitas Norco Fremont Norwalk Misc. Organizations: Glendale Ontario California Contract Cities Glendale Orinda Association Hanford Oroville Ventura Council of Huntington Beach Palos Verdes Estates Governments Huntington Park Pico Rivera Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Indian Wells Pleasanton Association Indio Rancho Cordova Industry Rancho Cucamonga Cc: The Honorable Reggie Jones -Sawyer, Assembly District 59 Members, Assembly Appropriations Committee Luke Reidenbach, Consultant, Assembly Appropriations Committee Camille Wagner, Legislative Secretary, Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. The Myths and Facts of AB 1250 (Jones -Sawyer) Myths vs Facts 1. Myth: AB 1250 only applies to new contracts. No existing contracts will be affected. Fact: AB 1250 specifically states this measure covers services "currently or customarily performed by a city or county." This would include potential contracts and/or renewals of existing contracts. Further, the bill states the city/ county shall not renew or extend an existing contract prior to [completing] receiving and considering an annual performance audit. 2. Myth: AB 1250 does not prevent or prohibit contracting for services Fact: AB 1250 establishes impossible standards and costly barriers for procurement of services throughout California without providing enforceable or implementable guidelines for entering into contracts —acting as a prohibition in everything but name. The result: Fewer contracts and public services. 3. Myth: AB 1250 will result in higher quality public services Fact: AB 1250 will likely result in substantial service reductions statewide. The mandated procedures will impair everyday necessary operations without added public benefit. AB 1250's provisions will also likely increase the costs and decrease the quality and accessibility of services. Further, AB 1250 inappropriately requires a public bidding process, which is ordinarily reserved for projects where cost is the only factor. Local government prefers service proposals, which assess experience, qualifications, staffing levels, etc. so they can ensure high quality services for residents. AB 1250 only focuses on costs and sacrifices quality and safety. 4. Myth: Local governments only care about saving money, not their employees Fact: Many local governments do not have the resources or need to retain full time employees. Many would prefer to have employees rather than contract but are financially unable. Furthermore, many cities are struggling to attract qualified candidates for employment, particularly in rural and remote areas. AB 1250 exacerbates the problems by locking many cities into a catch -22 situation. Under AB 1250, they will not be able to afford to procure services and will not be able to hire employees. The result: Reduced service levels and weakened communities. 5. Myth: AB 1250 is a narrowly crafted bill that will improve local government accountability Fact: AB 1250 contains numerous ambiguous terms, unenforceable and implementable requirements, and does little to improve public engagement in local service contracts. Rather, the measure opens locals to violations of privacy, increased litigation, and liabilities without significant public benefit. Local governments are accountable to their residents and this measures injures their relationship. 6. Myth: AB 1250 saves taxpayer dollars and improves local economies Fact: The costs to comply with AB 1250 or pay for new hires (and benefits) will be paid by taxpayers. AB 1250 will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. Proponents' arguments that employees provide greater return on investment (which, in some cases, is true) are void because AB 1250 will largely not result in new hires. Rather, local governments will need to cut services or pay more for contracted services. Furthermore, the disclosures required will likely discourage service providers from bidding or applying for government contracts —resulting in fewer, more costly services and reduced local economic activity. Communities will experience job loss, blight, and lower quality of life. , 5/17/2017 Editorial: California unions trying to limit cities options BREAKING NEWS Former FBI director Robert Mueller to oversee probe of Russian interference in election Opinion > Editorials Editorial: Union bill in California legislature to limit local cities' contracting decisions is an ambiguous mess Garbage services are one of many that cities routinely contract with private companies to provide. (Kristopher Skinner/Bay Area News Group) By MERCURY NEWS EDITORIAL BOARD I Mercury News PUBLISHED: April 21, 2017 at 6:30 am I UPDATED: April 21, 2017 at 6:38 am http://wwwmercurynews.com/2017/04/21 /editorial -union -bill -in -cal ifornia-legislature-to-limit-local-cities-contracting-decisions-is-an-ambiguous-mess/ . 5/17/2017 Editorial: California unions trying to limit cities options Many of California's cities and counties, weighed down by mounting retirement and benefit costs, are barely keeping their heads above water. Now the state Legislature is considering an onerous bill that could push some of them under. AB 1250, introduced by Assemblyman Reginald Byron Jones -Sawyer, D -Los Angeles, aims to stop local governments from contracting out for key services. As written, it is hopelessly ambiguous, but the intent is clear: Increasing the number of public employees, who would be members of unions, rather than looking at outside services that could be more cost-effective. At this point, it is aimed only at cities and counties operating under general state law, not charter cities such as San Jose and a number of others in Silicon Valley or charter counties like Santa Clara. But it would cover 44 the state's 58 counties and 361 of its 482 cities. It would include contracts for everything from engineering and legal services to garbage collection and financial advice. There are lots of reasons cities contract out service or might want to in the future. Most of them already contract with garbage collectors, for example — specialized work with heavy capital investment. Small cities may be better off contracting with a law firm that offers a range of expertise and services rather than hiring its own city attorney with salary and benefits. Jones -Sawyer and the Service Employees International Union, the sponsor of the bill, propose a labyrinth of disclosure rules and vague auditing and performance standards designed to drive up the cost and complexity of contracting for services. To further discourage local governments, the bill would make them liable for the contractors' labor violations or other actions challenged in court. Some cities already have policies for contracting out work. San Jose has what it calls a competition policy that allows city departments to bid on contracts the same as private companies. The rules were passed when there was a powerful labor -backed majority on the council, and they favor public employees for sure. But at least this was a local decision involving compromise and public debate. Local government leaders should be free to find the best services for the best price. They shouldn't have to hire government workers for projects that are temporary or services best provided by the private sector. just as state lawmakers want the Trump administration to stop meddling in their affairs, the Legislature should let local governments run theirs. Don't waste time trying to make sense of the murky AB 1250. Just dump it. SPONSORED CONTENT http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/21/editorial-union-bil l-in-califomia-legislature-to-limit-local-cities-contracting-decisions-is-an-ambiguous-mess/ FRANK V ZERUNYAN Mayor BRTIT HUFF Mayor Pro Tem JUDY MITCHELL Council Afember VELVET"' SCHMITZ Cauncil Mrntbrr STEVEN ZUCKERMAN CouncilMa nbcr DOUGLAS R. PRICHARD City Manager May 4, 2017 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 4045 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH • ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 TELEPHONE 310.377.1577 FAX 310.377A468 RollingHillsEstatesCA.gov The Honorable Lorena S. Gonzalez Fletcher and Members of the California State Assembly Committee on Appropriations California State Assembly Capitol Office, Room 2114 P.O. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249-0080 RE: AB 1250 (Jones -Sawyer). Counties and Cities: Contracts for Personal Services. Notice of Opposition (as amended 04/07/17) Dear Committee Chair Gonzalez Fletcher and Committee Members: The City of Rolling Hills Estates must respectfully oppose Assembly Bill (AB) 1250, which effectively eliminates almost all contracting services for cities and counties. Local governments, especially smaller -sized cities like Rolling Hills Estates, have a long history of addressing service delivery challenges with creativity, self-reliance and innovation. Unique local challenges and limited budgets continue to fuel innovative efforts to obtain expertise and provide high quality services to our residents. While City employees provide many services, others such as refuse collection and tree trimming, as well as such specialized services such as engineering and environmental review analysis, are provided on a contract basis. In Rolling Hills Estates, law enforcement services are also provided via contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the Los Angeles County ; Fire Department, and many public works services are provided by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. As amended, AB 1250 places substantial burdens on local agencies by adding onerous, over prescriptive and unnecessary requirements that impede on local control and have significant impacts on local governance. Specifically AB 1250: Creates Significant Cost and Workload Requirements AB 1250 eliminates local agency hiring discretion by limiting a local agencies' ability to utilize a contract for the sole puipose of cost savings through salaries and benefits. Moreover, AB 1250 requires that the agency provide an orientation to contracted employees. Last year, AB 2835 (Cooper) which mandated that public employers must provide an orientation to their own employees was tagged at $350 ,~pillion in ongoing costs by the California department of Finance. Having a local agency provide an additional orientation to non -city employees create significant cost and logistical concerns. Additionally, there are real and significant privacy concerns about posting full names, job titles and salaries of non -city employees. AB 1250 would require a city to create a new, fully searchable database that must be posted on the city website which will include substantive and sensitive information including the names, job titles, salary of each contracted employee (and subcontractors) and services of the contract, the name of the agency department or division of the city who manages the contract. Creates a series of new and burdensome reporting requirements prior to entering or renewing a contract AB 1250 would require a city, before entering a contract or renewing a contract, to perform a full economic analysis of the potential impacts of outsourcing, including the impact on local businesses if consumer spending power is reduced (among other factors). AB 1250 mandates a city to conduct a full environmental impact analysis caused by contracting for the services. Further, the measure forces a city to conduct an annual audit of each contract and prohibits a city from renewing or granting a new contract before the report is released and considered by the council. Increased Litigation to Local Agencies AB 1250 applies joint and several liability for employment law violations arising from performance of the contractor as well as torts committed by the contractor or any of its subcontractors in the course of providing services under the contract. This would place overly restrictive requirements on cities and potentially open that agency up to litigation. The workload, privacy concerns, costs and litigation created by this measure places an overwhelming and significant burden on nearly every city department and would create a de facto ban on virtually all contracting services. For these reasons the City of Rolling Hills Estates strongly Opposes Assembly Bill 1250. Sincerely, 0 Douglas RJPrichard City Manager cc: Senator Ben Allen, 26th District Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, 66th District Jeffrey Kiernan, Regional Public Affairs Manager, League of California Cities Meg Desmond, League of California Cities Marcel Rodarte, Executive Director, California Contract Cities Association Michael Bolden, Chief Consultant, Assembly Committee Public Employees, Retirement, and Social Security Joshua White, Consultant, Assembly Republican Caucus Camille Wagner, Legislative Secretary, Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. City of Malibu Skylar Peak, Mayor 23825 Stuart Ranch Road • Malibu, California • 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 • Fax (310) 456-3356 • www.malibucity.org May 15, 2017 The Honorable Reginald Jones -Sawyer, Sr. California State Assembly, 22nd District State Capitol Building, Room 2117 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Assembly Bill No. 1250 (AB 1250) — OPPOSED Dear Assembly Member Jones -Sawyer: At the Malibu City Council Regular meeting on May 8, 2017, the Council voted unanimously to join with the California Contract Cities Association and League of California Cities, Los Angeles Division, in opposing AB 1250, which would impose numerous new reporting requirements and liabilities on cities and counties that contract for services, as well as increased financial burdens to achieve those new requirements. Cities and counties often do not have qualified staff able to perform certain services necessary to serve the needs of the community. It is critical that the local government have the option of entering into an agreement with a qualified contractor to provide those services. The City of Malibu has long contracted for specialized services provided by reputable experts, including biologists, geologists and coastal consultants, among others. AB 1250 would mandate the City to perform a full economic analysis of potential impacts of outsourcing for those services, as well as conduct an annual audit of each contract. The bill prohibits a city from renewing or granting a new contract before the report is released and considered by the Council. Cities and counties currently perform due diligence before entering into any contract for outside services, but the numerous new reporting requirements of AB 1250 would make that process extremely onerous and would impose serious financial burdens on any municipality in need of qualified, expert services. The City of Malibu needs the flexibility to provide high quality, necessary services to its residents without adding to already significant tax burdens. We urge you to oppose AB 1250 to ensure that our residents continue to receive the highest level possible for all the services they require. Sincerely, 5I471 Jut IC Skylar Peak Mayor cc: Honorable Members of the Malibu City Council The Honorable Richard Bloom, California State Assembly, 50th District Kristine Guerrero, League of California Cities, Los Angeles Division Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association M:\City Council\Mayor Chron Files\2017\AB 1250-Opposed_170515.docx Recycled Paper THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - 5/18/2017 Bill History t�(f�L�l�t�12ZC( LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites AB -1250 Counties and cities: contracts for personal services. (2017-2018) Date ! Action 05/10/17 In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. 04/27/17 From committee: Do pass and re -refer to Corn. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 1.) (April 27). Re -referred to Corn. on APPR. 04/26/17 Re -referred to Corn. on P.E., R., & S.S. 04/25/17 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re -refer to Corn. on P.E., R., & S.S. Read second time and amended. 04/19/17 In committee: Set, first hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted. . 04/18/17 Re -referred to Com. on P.E., R., & S.S. 04/17/17 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re -refer to Corn. on P.E., R., & S.S. Read second time and amended. 04/05/17 Re -referred to Com. on P.E., R., & S.S. 04/04/17 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re -refer to Corn. on P.E., R., & S.S. Read second time and amended. 04/03/17 Referred to Corn. on P.E., R., & S.S. 02/19/17 From printer. May be heard in committee March 21. 02/17/17 Read first time. To print. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1250 1/1 . 5/18/2017 Bill Status 0](72LCC, LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions I My Favorites AB -1250 Counties and cities: contracts for personal services. (2017-2018) Senate: Assembly: 1st Cmt Bill Status Measure: AB -1250 Lead Authors: Jones -Sawyer (A) Principal Coauthors: - Coauthors: - Topic: Counties and cities: contracts for personal services. 31st Day in Print: 03/21/17 .. . . . . .. . .. Title: An act to add Sections 31000.10, 31000.11, 37103.1, and 37103.2 to the Govemment Code, relating to local government. House Location: Assembly Last Amended Date: 04/25/17 Committee Location: Asm Appropriations Type of Measure Active Bill - In Committee Process Majority Vote Required Non -Appropriation Fiscal Committee State -Mandated Local Program Non -Urgency Non -Tax levy Last 5 History Actions Date ( Action 05/10/17 In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. 04/27/17 From committee: Do pass and re -refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 1.) (April 27). Re -referred to Com. on APPR. 04/26/17 Re -referred to Com. on P.E., R., & S.S. 04/25/17 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re -refer to Com. on P.E., R., & S.S. Read second time and amended. 04/19/17 In committee: Set, first hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB 1250 1/1 AB 1250 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 10, 2017 ASSEMBLY COMMII"I'hE ON APPROPRIATIONS Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair AB 1250 (Jones -Sawyer) — As Amended April 25, 2017 Policy Committee: Public Employees, Retirement/Soc Sec Vote: 4 - 1 Urgency: No SUMMARY: State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes This bill authorizes a county, county agency, city, or city agency to contract for personal services currently or customarily performed by county or city employees when specified conditions are met. Specifically, this bill: 1) Defines the conditions under which a county and city can contract for personal services. These conditions include: a) That the city or county can demonstrated that the contract will result in actual cost savings,' as specified, and that the contract does not cause the displacement of county or city employees or that the contract is awarded through a competitive bidding process. b) That employees of the contractor are provided an orientation by the city or county, which will include a description on the services to be provided and the functions and goals of the public agency responsible for providing the services in the absence of the coutiact. c) That, if the contract annually exceed $100,000, a city or county must conduct a cost - benefit analysis, the cost of which is to be reimbursed by the prospective contractors. 2) Requires counties and cities to maintain a searchable database with specified information on all contracts having an annual value in excess of $5 million. FISCAL EI ECT: 1) Significant, potentially reimbursable, state mandated costs to local agencies in excess of $10 million to comply with the requirement to maintain a searchable database on specified contract information. 2) Additional costs to local agencies, likely in excess of $15 million, to comply with the other provisions of this H. These costs reflect the additional workload and requirements associated with securing contracts for personal services, and aggregate costs to local agencies would depend how often affected cities and counties pursue utilize these contracts. These costs are likely not reimbursable. COMMENTS: 1) Background. Existing law establishes a set of standards around personal service contracts utilized by state agencies. Personal services are allowed to achieve cost savings when certain AB 1250 Page 2 conditions are met, including that the contracting agency demonstrated that the contract will result in overall cost savings, cannot be done within the services, and does not result in the displacement of civil service employees. Other standards include that the contract is awarded through a competitive bidding process, the contract does not adversely affect the state's affirmative action efforts, and the contract includes provisions pertaining to the qualifications of the staif While there are a robust set of standards around personal service contracts at the state level, similar contracts do not necessarily exist at the local level. There are some explicit standards set for various local entities. For example, existing law sets standards around when a local government can enter into a contract to operate a local library. 2) Purpose. According to the author, AB 1250 will ensure cities and counties adhere to due diligence standards when opting to outsource public services. The author states that in recent years, some local governments have sought to outsource critical public services, but this outsourcing has carried hidden costs and has resulted in diminished services. Analysis Prepared by: Luke Reidenbach / APPR / (916) 319-2081 AB 1250 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 27, 2017 ASSEMBLY COMMI1 IEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, RETIREMENT, AND SOCIAL SECURITY Freddie Rodriguez, Chair AB 1250 (Jones -Sawyer) — As Amended April 25, 2017 SUBJECT: Counties and cities: contracts for personal services SUMMARY: Establishes specific standards for the use of personal service contracts by counties and cities, among other provisions. Specifically, this bill: 1) Authorizes a county, county agency, city, or city agency to contract for personal services currently or customarily performed by county or city employees when the following conditions are met: a. The board of supervisors, county agency, city councll, or city agency clearly demonstrate that the proposed contract will result in actual cost savings to the county or city for the duration of the contract as compared with the county's actual costs of providing the same services, provided that, in comparing costs: i Requires that these entities' additional cost of providing the same service as proposed by the contract to be included, and specifies that the required costs to be included are the salaries and benefits of additional staff, space, equipment, and materials needed to perform the function. ii. Indirect overhead costs are not to be included, as specified, and defines "indirect overhead costs" to mean the pro rata share of existing administrative salaries and benefits, rent, equipment costs, utilities, and materials. iii. Requires the cost of a contractor providing a service that would be directly associated with the contracted function to be included, and specifies such costs to include, but not limited to, those for inspection, supervision, and monitoring. b. Requires that proposals to contract out work must not be approved solely on the basis that savings would result from lower contractor pay rates or benefits, and that such proposals must be eligible for approval if the contractor's wages are at the industry's level and do not significantly undercut county or city pay rates. c. The contract does not cause the displacement of county or city employees, and specifies "displacement" to include layog demotion, involuntary transfer to a new location requiring a change of residence, and time base reductions, and not include changes in shifts, days og reassignment to other positions within the same class, and general location. d. The contract does not cause vacant positions in county or city employment to remain unfilled, and does not adversely affect the county's affirmative action efforts. e. The savings must be large enough to ensure against their elimination by private sector and county or city cost fluctuations that could normally be expected during the J• AB 1250 Page 2 contracting period, and the savings clearly justify the size and duration of the contracting agreement. £ The contract is awarded through a publicized, competitive budding process, while granting the county's or city's right to reject bids or proposals, and that the contract includes specific provisions related to the qualifications of the staff that will perform the work under the contract, and assurance as to the contractor's hiring practices, as specified. g. The potential for future economic risk is minimal in relation to rate increases by the potential contractor, and that the contract is with a funs, and defines "firm" to mean a corporation, partnership, nonprofit organization, or sole proprietorship. h. The potential economic advantage of contracting is not outweighed by the public's interest in having a particular function performed directly by county or city government. Specifies that before executing a contract for personal services, the county or city must demonstrate that outsourcing a particular function is in the public interest, addressing the costs o1 and administering the contract, the effect on the quality of services provided to the public, and other relevant circumstances. i. The contract must include provisions for termination, a 30 -day notice prior to termination, at any time by the county for a material breach, without penalty. The contract must provide an orientation to employees of the contractor who will perform the services, and that the orientation include, but not be limited to each of the following: i) a description of services to be provided pursuant to the contract, ii) the functions and goals of the public agency responsible for providing the services in the absence of the contract, and in') any applicable rules governing provision of the services and how the employee may report violations of applicable rules or contractual requirements. k. Specifies that if the contract is for personal services and annually exceeds $100,000, the county or city must require the contractor to disclose specified information as part of its bid, application, or answer to a request for proposal, and that the county or city must conduct a cost -benefit analysis, the cost of which is to be reimbursed to the county or city by prospective contractors, considering specified information, of the potential impact of outsourcing the work covered by the contract, and make it public. The contract must provide that the county or city is entitled to receive records related to the performance of the contractor or subcontractor, subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act, that ordinarily would be maintained by the county or city in performing the same functions. L The county or city must include in the contract specific and measureable performance standards, provisions for an audit, the cost of which is to reimbursed to the countyy or city by the contractor, or independent auditor approved by the county or city for purposes of ensuring that performance standards are met, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. AB 1250 Page 3 Prohibits counties and cities from renewing or extending the contract prior to receiving and considering the audit report, and permits them to adopt more restrictive rules related to contracting of public services. m. Specifies that, in the absence of meeting specified requirements, contracting for personal services is permitted under limited circumstances. Also specifies that all persons who provide service to a county or city under conditions constituting an employment relationship are to be employed directly by the county or city, and applies the merit or civil service system. n. Exempts from its provisions, charter counties and cities formed pursuant to Section 3 of Article XI of the California Constitution, public works projects, as specified, and a contract for public transit services, including paratransit services, if funded by the Federal Transit Administration, as specified. o. Makes these provisions applicable to personal service contracts entered into, renewed or extended on or after January 1, 2018. P. q. Requires counties and cities to maintain on their respective internet websites, a searchable database of all contracts having an annual value in excess of $5 million, and that the database must include, but not be limited to, specified information. Includes a severability clause if any provision of this measure or its application is held invalid, as specified. r. Provides that if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the measure contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts are required, as specified. EXISTING LAW: 1) Authorizes a county board of supervisors to contract for special services on behalf of the county, county officers or departments, and district courts in the county, and requires that the contract be with persons specially trained, experienced, and have expertise and competence to perform the special services, among other provisions. Requires that special services consist of services, advice, education or training for financial, economic, accounting (including the preparation and issuance of payroll checks or warrants), engineering, legal, medical, therapeutic, administrative, architectural, airport or building security matters, laundry services, or linen services. Additional special services may include maintenance or custodial matters if the board finds that the site is remote from available county employees, and contracting better serves the county's economic interests, among other provisions. 2) Authorizes cities to contract with any specially trained and experienced person, lulu or corporation for special services and advice in financial, economic, accounting, engineering, legal, or administrative matters. AB 1250 Page 4 3) Authorizes the legislative body of any public or municipal corporation to contract with, and employ any persons for district special services and advice in financial, economic, accounting, engineering, legal, or administrative matters if such persons are specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services required, among other provisions. 4) Authorizes the state to enter into personal services contracts, and establishes the conditions that must be met when procuring such contracts. 5) Authorizes school districts to enter into personal services contracts, and establishes the conditions to be satisfied when procuring such contracts. 6) Authorizes community college districts to enter into personal service contracts and specifies the conditions for such contracts. 7) Authorizes the board of trustees, common council, or other legislative body of a city or the board of trustees of a hbrary district in which a withdrawal from the county free library system becomes effective on or after January 1, 2012, must comply with specified conditions prior to entering into a contract to operate the city's or district's library or libraries with a private contractor that will employ library staff; FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has been flagged as fiscal by Legislative CounseL COMMENTS: According to the author, "Assembly Bill (AB) 1250 is a common sense measure that will ensure cities and counties adhere to due diligence standards when opting to outsource public services. Current law authorizes county outsourcing when contracting out for `special services', such as: financial and accounting, engineering, legal, medical, architectural, therapeutic, airport or building security matters and laundry services. A county may also outsource maintenance or custodial services if the site is remote from available county employee resources. "In recent years, some cities and counties have sought to outsource critical public services under the guise of saving money. There have been many well -documented instances of how short- sighted decisions to outsource have had negative impacts on taxpayers. While cheaper services and employee layoffs may appear to save dollars in the short term, the savings are often illusory with hidden costs that are not accounted for and diminished services or contractor failures that require cities and counties to ultimately re -hire and/or re-train staff to provide the outsourced service." The author further states, that "[i]n many sectors of government, California requires that due diligence standards be satisfied prior to outsourcing public services. Under current law, for instance, state agencies are required to show how outsourcing will achieve savings, not cause the displacement of civil service employees and ensure that contracts are awarded through a publicized competitive bidding process. "Cities and counties are currently exempt from these types of accountability measures. Given the scarcity of tax dollars and the right of the public to demand and receive quality public services, cities and counties should be held to meaningful standards of due diligence." AB 1250 Page 5 1. Similar Provisions in Existing Law are Applicable to Other Govemmental Sectors With the exception of provisions related to maintaining data, as specified, on county and city websites; counties and cities providing an orientation to employees who will perform under the contract; and provisions related to a cost -benefit analysis prior to entering into a contract, similar provisions in current law exist in Section 19130 of the Government Code related to the state, and Sections 19104.5, 45103.1, and 88003.1 of the Education Code related to county free libraries, school districts and community college districts, respectively. 2. Comments by Supporters According to the California State Council of the Service Employees Internal Union (SEIU), "[t]he ultimate consumer of any government services is the taxpayer and in the case of contracting out, the taxpayer is the third party so government must stand for the interests of the consumer by ensuring that public dollars are used meaningfully and accountably for the best services possible. When public jobs are sold to the highest bidder (or sometimes the only bidder), taxpayers end up having little or no say over decisions made by private contractors. There's no way for taxpayers to vote out executives whose poor judgment hurts public health and safety. And, too often, outsourcing contracts lasts for decades, essentially creating a monopoly run by a single private entity. The private sector often fails to uphold its promise to run public services `better, faster, and cheaper' than the government, sometimes with horrific results." The SEIU and other supporters further add that outsourcing is often undertaken under the auspices of achieving savings. However, in most instances, the anticipated savings are illusory as a result of the associated and hidden costs of outsourcing. 3. Confluents by Opponents The League of California Cities states that, "[1]ocal governments have a long history of addressing service delivery challenges with creativity, self-reliance and innovation. Unique challenges and limited budgets continue to fuel innovative efforts to obtain expertise and provide high quality services. Many services are provided by city employees, while others such as refuse collection and specialized services, are provided on a contract basis. Law enforcement services may also be provided via contract with the sheriff and fire and park services by a special district." The League of California Cities and other opponents state that as amended, "AB 1250 places substantial burdens on local agencies by adding onerous, over prescriptive and unnecessary requirements that impede on local control and have significant impacts on local governance." Finally, many opponents state that the impacts of this bill would a) create significant cost and workload requirements, while taking into consideration unfunded pension liabilities and normal pension costs, including the discount rate recently reduced by the California Public Employees' Retirement System, and creation of a new, fully searchable database posted on the city website, b) create a series of new reporting requirements prior to entering or renewing a contract, and c) increase litigation. AB 1250 Page 6 4. Prior Hearing This measure was heard, famed passage, and granted reconsideration by the Assembly Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security Committee on April 19, 2017. 5. Prior Legislation 2013: Chapter 196 (AB 583, Gomez) related to county free library systems. 2011: Chapter 611 (AB 438, Williams) imposes requirements, until January 1, 2019, on a city or library district that intends to withdraw from a county free library system and operate libraries with a private contractor that will employ library staff to achieve cost savings 2003: SB 906 (Alarcon) faded passage by the Assembly. 2002: Chapter 894 (SB 1419, Alarcon) establishes standards for the use of personal service contracts in school and community college districts. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (Co-sponsor) California State Council of the Service Employees International Union (Sponsor) California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 777 Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 792 Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association Orange County Employees Association Organization of SMUD Employees San Diego County Court Employees Association San Luis Obispo County Employees Association Opposition American Planning Association, California Chapter California Business Properties Association California Chamber of Commerce California State Association of Counties City of Arcadia City of Bellflower City of Brisbane City of Calimesa City of Camarillo City of Chino Hills City of Citrus Heights City of Claremont City of Clayton City of Clovis City of Danville AB 1250 Page 7 City of Diamond Bar City of D nuba City of Downey City of Duarte City of Dublin City of Fastvale City of Elk Grove City of Fremont City of Glendale City of Hanford City of Huntington Park City of Indian Wells City of Industry City of Jurupa Valley City of La Mirada City of La Quinta City of Lakewood City of Lafayette City of Lawndale City of Montclair City of Norco City of Norwalk City of Ontario City of Orovffle City of Palos Verdes City of Pico Rivera City of Pleasanton City of Rancho Cordova City of Rancho Cucamonga City of Palos Verdes City of Piedmont City of Redding City of Rocklin City of Rolling Hills Estates City of San Carlos City of San Marino, Parks and Public Works Department City of Santa Fe Springs City of Santee City of Signal Hill City of Temple City City of Thousand Oaks City of Torrence City of Whittier League of California Cities MuniServices Rural County Representatives of California Urban Counties of California Willdan Group, Inc. AB 1250 Page 8 Analysis Prepared by: Michael Bolden / P.E.,R, & S.S. / (916) 319-3957 TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJECT: 08e:t $04//ra to qeek INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 10-A Mtg. Date: 05/22/17 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER REPORT ON MATTERS DESCRIBED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD RELATED TO RESOLUTION NO. 1196 PERTAINING TO A DECISION IN A VIEW IMPAIRMENT COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD REGARDING TREES LOCATED AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD. DATE: MAY 22, 2017 ATTACHMENT: RESOLUTION NO. 1196 At the May 8, 2017 regular meeting of the City Council, Dr. Stephen Nuccion, property owner at 18 Portuguese Bend Road, addressed the City Council during public comment regarding an item related the implementation of Resolution No. 1196, adopted by the City Council on November 28, 2016 in response to a view complaint. BACKGROUND On April 24, 2014, Dr. and Mrs. Stephen Nuccion, the owners of the property located at 18 Portuguese Bend Road, filed a View Impairment Complaint regarding the" trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road, a property owned by Mr. and Mrs. William Hassoldt. The Complaint alleged that at the time the Nuccions purchased their property in April of 2009 they enjoyed a panoramic view of the Santa Monica Mountains, Mount Baldy and the City lights to the north of Rolling Hills. By 2012, however, the Nuccions' view was significantly impaired due to the fact that the Hassoldts failed to maintain the trees on their property. Pursuant to the Complaint, the Nuccions requested that their view be restored to the condition that it was in April of 2009. 0 • • The Complaint was processed pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code section 17.26.040(B); first through mediation, which was unsuccessful, after which the Nuccions applied to the City's Committee on Trees and Views ("CTV") in order to resolve the Complaint. After several postponements, many public hearings, testimony by the parties, their representatives and the public, and consideration of reports by several certified arborists, the CTV determined that the view from the Nuccions' property is significantly impaired and adopted Resolution No. 2015-03-CTV on October 7, 2015 specifying restorative actions on nine trees and various volunteers located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road. On October 27, 2015, the Hassoldts and the Nuccions filed an appeal to the City Council contesting the CTV's determination. Following a field trip to both properties, several public hearings, consideration of testimony from the parties, their representatives and several specialists in the field of arboriculture and all other evidence, the City Council determined that based on the testamentary evidence provided, coupled with the time and diligence spent on this issue by the CTV, to uphold the CTV decision and on November 28, 2016 adopted Resolution No. 1196 specifying restorative actions of the trees. Resolution No. 1196 is attached. DISCUSSION At the May 8 City Council meeting, Dr. Nuccion addressed the City Council on three issues regarding the restorative actions to abate a view impairment on his property by trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road, specifically Dr. Nuccion was concerned that (1) the Resolution ordering the restorative actions had not been recorded, contrary to Rolling Hills Municipal Code section 17.26.080; (2) his inquiry related to the enforcement of the Hassoldts' perceived inaction under the Resolution was not directly addressed by the City Manager, but rather between Mr. Weinberg (counsel for the Nuccions) and the City Attorney, thereby resulting in the payment of attorney's fees to Mr. Weinberg; and (3) two of the restorative actions required by the Resolution had not been satisfactorily completed. 1. Regarding the Recordation of the Resolution. Dr. Nuccion was concerned that if 15 Portuguese Bend Road were sold between the time the Resolution was to be recorded and the time the work was to be completed, any potential new owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road would not have knowledge of the required restoration and maintenance actions on trees located on that property, as specified in the Resolution. In addressing this concern, the City Attorney stated that there is an inconsistency between Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.080 and what was required in the resolution; specifically, Section 17.26.080 (which relates to the notification of subsequent owners) states: Within 30 days of the final decision of the Committee or the City Council on appeal, a document shall be recorded against the title of the property on which the • offending vegetation exists and the complainants property, on a form provided by the City, which shall run with the land and be binding upon all successors in interest. However, Sections 5(D) and 6 of Resolution 1196 state, respectively, that: An informational covenant shall be recorded against the title of 15 Portuguese Bend Road and shall run with the land, thereby giving notice of this Resolution to all future owners. Upon conclusion of the Initial Restorative Action, the Nuccions shall contact the City and the Hassoldts to schedule a site visit to 18 Portuguese Bend Road, during which City staff shall take photograph(s) from the Designated Viewing Areas to be attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution for the purpose of establishing the level of restorative action for future maintenance. The Hassoldts may attend this site visit as observers only. In summary, Resolution No. 1196 contained requirements which could not have been completed "within 30 days of the final decision of...the City Council on appeal;"1 namely, the completion of the necessary restorative action as well as the requirement that City staff photograph the view from the Designated Viewing Area following the completion of said restorative action. Because the purpose of recording the Resolution would be to permanently and accurately document the Designated Viewing Areas, staff determined that any potential confusion related to recordation could be eliminated by waiting until the photograph(s) were taken so there would only be one recordation (rather than recording the Resolution once 30 days after adoption and then again after the restorative action had been completed). Regarding the concern that 15 Portuguese Bend Road could have been sold to a new owner prior to the recordation of the Resolution, the City Attorney explained that while it could be a potential problem, any concerns regarding the new owners' lack of notice of the Resolution could be eliminated by virtue of the fact that a real estate broker or seller would be obligated by law to provide information of the Resolution to any potential buyer. As an update for the City Council, at 9:00 am on May 10, 2017 staff went to the Nuccion property and took pictures from the viewing area. Mrs. Nuccion was present. The Resolution was recorded on May 17, 2017 and mailed to both parties on May 18, 2017. 2. Regarding Dr. Nuccion's Inquiry to the City Manager. When it became apparent to City staff that the Hassoldts had not completed the required action by the deadline stated in the Resolution, City staff contacted the City Attorney's office regarding enforcement. The City Attorney had drafted a letter to the 1 See Rolling Hills Municipal Code section 17.26.080. O • Hassoldts requesting their immediate compliance with the Resolution. At or about this time, Dr. Nuccion had contacted the City Manager to inquire as to how the City was going to enforce the Hassoldts' inaction under the Resolution; specifically, Dr. Nuccion was of the opinion that the Hassoldts' failure to act required enforcement under Section 17.26.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.2 When Dr. Nuccion presented this position to the City Manager, the City Manager, upon direction from the City Attorney, told Dr. Nuccion to have Mr. Weinberg contact the City Attorney to discuss enforcement for various reasons. Primarily, because the City Attorney was actively enforcing the issue at the time; and (2) Mr. Weinberg had contacted the City Attorney on several occasions during the proceedings regarding technical legal issues. Lastly, at the May 8, 2017 City Council meeting, Dr. Nuccion requested reimbursement from the City for the time Mr. Weinberg spent speaking to the City Attorney on this matter. The City Attorney advises that there is no legal authority establishing the reimbursement of attorneys' fees under such a scenario. 3. Regarding the incomplete restorative action. In conclusion, Dr. Nuccion stated that following the restorative action that was performed by the Hassoldts' on May 5, 2017, a Pepper tree at the Southwestern corner of the Hassoldts' property had not been trimmed and a Eucalyptus tree by the garage (near an old utility pole) had not been trimmed to 43 feet, as required by the Resolution. Dr. Nuccion asserted that the Pepper tree is located in a cluster of vegetation including a Eucalyptus tree mixed in with various volunteers that were required to be lowered to old cuts. He further stated thatif the Pepper Tree was not specifically listed in the cluster of trees, the intent was that it be trimmed to old cuts. Items 4 and 4A of Exhibit A of the Resolution specify which trees are subject to remediation and the level of remediation that is required to be performed in the Southwestern portion of the property. While the Pepper tree was included in the Nuccions' original view impairment application, it had not been mentioned again in any subsequent documents - including the CTV Resolution, the City Council Resolution, and the "tree map" and "tree tables" prepared by Mr. Weinberg which were consistently used during the proceedings in describing the trees and their location. Furthermore, Section 7 of the Resolution states: "There shall be no restorative action required for the remainder of the trees on the property at 15 Portuguese Bend Road not listed in the Initial Restorative Action in this Resolution. However, trees on the property not included in this Resolution shall be maintained at current configuration and any new growth that extends into the view established by this Resolution shall be removed at the same time as the maintenance is conducted for the 2 Specifically, Section 17.26.070 states that "failure or refusal of any person to comply with a final decision under this chapter or to comply with any provision of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars or six months in County Jail, or both." Obstructing Trees, at the sole expense of the Owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road." On May 5, 2017, while the tree trimming pursuant to the Resolution was taking place, Mrs. Nuccion contacted the City Manager to inform him that no restorative action was taking place regarding the Pepper tree. Upon arriving at the job site, the City Manager contacted the superintendent responsible for overseeing the tree trimming work and inquired whether the project was being done per the specifications of the Resolution. The superintendent responded that they are complying with the Resolution and that only the trees listed therein were being trimmed - the Resolution did not specify that any restorative action was to be done regarding the Pepper tree. The City Manager then inquired whether the Pepper tree could be considered a "volunteer," and the Superintendent responded that the Pepper tree was a separate tree and not a volunteer. Based on the Resolution and the statements of the Superintendent, the City concluded that the work was being done in accordance with the terms of the Resolution and that the City cannot compel the Hassoldts to trim the Pepper tree. With regard to the Eucalyptus tree, during the hearing on this issue before the CTV, the CTV directed in its resolution that the Eucalyptus tree be trimmed to the height of the utility pole, which was 43 feet at the time. However, following the CTV hearing and prior to the appeal before the City Council, Edison had coincidentally reduced the height of the utility pole. This situation created confusion as to the appropriate height of the Eucalyptus tree under the provisions of the CTV's resolution. Following the Council's discussion of this issue on appeal, staff confirmed with Edison that the utility pole was 43 feet in height and the Council determined and resolved that the Eucalyptus tree be trimmed to 46 feet due to the slope of the area where the tree is located and based upon concerns expressed by Mr. Hassoldt regarding the health of the tree should it be drastically reduced in height. Therefore, the requirement in the Resolution as adopted by the City Council is to reduce the crown of the tree to a height of 46 feet not 43 feet. There is no reason for the City to believe that the Eucalyptus tree was not trimmed to 46 feet on May 5, 2017. e THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • RESOLUTION NO. 1196 A RESOLUTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEALS OF DR. AND MRS. STEPHEN NUCCION AND MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM HASSOLDT AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS BY DECLARING THAT SPECIFIC TREES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD HAVE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT TO THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND SETTING FORTH RESTORATIVE ACTION TO ABATE THE IMPAIRMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City's View Preservation Ordinance was enacted in June 1988. The ordinance established preservation of views to be of primary value to the community and created a process by which a property owner could seek to restore a view obstructed by landscaping. In March 2013, the Rolling Hills electorate passed an initiative entitled Measure B amending the 1988 View Preservation Ordinance. The principal effect of Measure B was to shift the application of the Ordinance from protecting views that are capable of being enjoyed from a property to views that were actually enjoyed from a property when the property owner first acquired the property. In particular, the initiative amended the View Preservation Ordinance as follows: • Protecting only those views which existed when the current property owner acquired ownership of the property; • Limiting the protection of the ordinance to views obstructed by "maturing" vegetation (thereby excluding views obstructed by trees that were "mature" at the time of the property acquisition); and • Restoring views from "view corridors," and "views through trees." Section 2. On April 24, 2014, Dr. and Mrs. Stephen Nuccion, the owners of the property located at 18 Portuguese Bend Road ("Nuccions"), filed a View Impairment Complaint ("Complaint") regarding the trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road, a property owned by Mr. and Mrs. William Hassoldt ("Hassoldts"). The Complaint alleged that at the time the Nuccions purchased their property in April of 2009 they enjoyed a panoramic view of the Santa Monica Mountains, Mount Baldy and the City lights to the north of Rolling Hills, and that since 2012 the Hassoldts had failed to maintain the trees located upon their property such that the view from 18 Portuguese Bend Road was significantly impaired. Pursuant to the Complaint, the Nuccions requested that their view be restored to the condition that it was in during April of 2009. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code 17.26.040(B), the Complaint was referred to a mediator and both parties engaged in mediation; the mediation was unsuccessful. The Nuccions thereafter applied to the City's Committee on Trees and Views ("CTV") in order to resolve the Complaint. By the end of December 2014, City staff had informed the Nuccions that their application was incomplete and requested additional information; this information was not provided to the City until February 4, 2015. After several postponements, duly noticed public hearings (per Rolling Hills Municipal Code Sections 17.26.040(C) and 17.26.050(A) -(B)) were conducted before the CTV on March 17, 2015, April 21, 2015, May 14, 2015, July 7, 2015, July 21, 2015 and September 22, 2015. Additionally, the CTV attended a duly noticed field trip to both the 15 and 18 Portuguese Bend Road properties on April 21, 2015. M each of the aforementioned meetings, evidence was received from all persons interested in the matter and from members of City staf. The CTV reviewed, analyzed and studied the evidence submitted. At its July 7, 2015 meeting, the CTV determined that it did not have sufficient evidence to determine whether the trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road that are the subject of this Complaint ("Obstructing Trees") were mature in April of 2009 and directed the City to retain a certified arborist to provide an opinion as to the maturity of the Obstructing Trees. The City conducted a request for proposals and selected David de la Torre as the independent arborist. Mr. De La Torre concluded that of the 11 trees at issue, only two (trees #4A and #7) were not mature in 2009 and would therefore be eligible for remediation under Measure B. Notwithstanding the report of Mr. De La Torre, the historical photographs in ROLLING HILLS The Early Years, by A.E. Hanson (1978), in addition to other Resolution No. 1196 -1- substantial evidence in the record, indicated that of the 11 Obstructing Trees, only trees #9 and #9A were mature when the Nuccions acquired their property in 2009, thereby rendering the remaining nine (9) Obstructing Trees eligible for remediation under Measure B. Ultimately, the CTV found that: (1) a view (as defined in the Municipal Code) existed from 18 Portuguese Bend Road when the Nuccions acquired the property in 2009; (2) the view from the Nuccions' property is significantly impaired because 11 trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road impair the view of the City lights flout the Designated Viewing Areas; and (3) restorative action on the nine (9) Obstructing Trees is necessary to abate the view impairment by creating view corridors and views through the trees. To this effect, the CTV adopted Resolution No. 2015-03-CIV on October 7, 2015. On October 27, 2015, the Hassoldts filed an appeal of the CTV's decision to the City Council contesting the CTV's determination that the nine (9) Obstructing Trees were not mature in 2009. Specifically, in their appeal the Hassoldts asserted that: (1) the Nuccions have not established by clear and convincing evidence, or at all, the existence of a protected view over 15 Portuguese Bend Road; (2) there was no view from 18 Portuguese Bend Road prior to April 2009; and (3) each of the trees subject to the Nuccions' complaint are exempt because they were mature on April 22, 2009. Also on October 27, 2015, the Nuccions filed an appeal of the CTV's decision to the City Council contesting the CIT's determination that trees #9 and #9A were mature in 2009 and ineligible for remediation under Measure B; a determination that the Nuccions claim arose out of the CTV's unsupported and unsubstantiated decision to reject one arborist's report over another. Both appeals were timely filed pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code section 17.26.050(G) and the provisions of Chapter 17.54. At the November 23, 2015 City Council meeting, City staff provided an overview of the case and the evidence for the Council's consideration. Thereafter, the Council heard public testimony and concluded the meeting by scheduling a field trip to both properties which, after several postponements, was held on March 21, 2016. At the field trip, the City Council determined that the Nuccions had a view (as defined by Rolling Hills Municipal Code section 17.12220), which could be observed from the living room at the north side of the residence and a patio/pool deck area immediately adjacent thereto along the northern side of the residence. At the April 25, 2016 City Council meeting, the Council was provided with aerial photographs of both properties, a list of the Obstructing Trees, tree measurements and calculations extrapolating the age of the Obstructing Trees and their heights in 2010 (provided by Mr. Howard Weinberg, attorney for the Nuccions), a photometric analysis to determine the height of the trees in 2010 (prepared by Ms. Anastasia Kostiuk, a 3D Engineer, on behalf of the Nuccions), and a declaration provided by Mr. Brandon Gill (an arborist hired on behalf of the Nuccions). The Council also heard testimony from Mr. Ruben Green, a Registered Consulting Arborist (hired by the Hassoldts); Mrs. Diana Nuccion; Mr. Howard Weinberg; and Mr. Hal Light with regard to the maturity of the Obstructing Trees. At the conclusion of the public hearing, and after considerable deliberation, the City Council concluded on the basis of the evidence that the Nuccions had a view when they acquired their property; that only two of the Obstructing Trees were mature in 2009. The City Council then directed staff to return with a resolution declaring that the view from 18 Portuguese Bend Road is significantly impaired by the nine identified immature trees located on 15 Portuguese Bend Road, and setting forth restorative action to abate the impairment. In the course of implementing that direction, the City Attorney and staff determined that it would be beneficial to introduce an intermediate step in the process in order to assure that the findings placed into the resolution were consistent with the Council's direction and with the requirements of the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. Consequently, in anticipation of the June 13, 2016 City Council meeting, staff prepared a report outlining all of the evidence presented to date relating to the extent of the view which existed from the Nuccions' property in April of 2009 and presented three options for the City Council to consider. (1) review the evidence supporting the existence of a view in 2009 and reaffirm its direction from April 25, 2016 and direct staff to return with a resolution upholding the CTV's October 7, 2015 decision; (2) re -open the public hearing after public notice and schedule another hearing; or (3) provide alternative direction to staff. During the course of the June 13, 2016 meeting, the Nuccions proffered additional evidence which had not been submitted during the hearing. This supplementary eleventh -hour evidence demonstrated to the Council that additional evidence existed which the parties had not previously presented to the Council for its consideration; therefore, in an effort to ensure that the entire universe of evidence was adequately being considered, , the Council moved to reopen the public hearing for the limited purpose of considering the issue of whether a view existed at the time the Nuccions' acquired their property. The Council further instructed the Nuccions to submit digital copies (including the metadata) of all photographs that had been submitted in support of the view impairment complaint, and instructed both parties to submit any and all additional evidence for the Council's consideration. Resolution No. 1196 O Section 3. On October 24, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing (Rolling Hills Municipal Code Sections 17.26.040(C) and I7.26.050(A)-(B)) to conclusively determine the extent of the Nuccions' view as it existed in April of 2009. Evidence was presented by all interested persons, including the Complainants; the October 15, 2015 declaration of Mr. Martin Jimenez; email exchanges between the Hassoldts and the Nuccions; the photographs received by the City on April 25, 2016; the arborist reports of Mr. Dane Shota, Mr. William McKinley, and Mr. David De la Torre; the photometric analysis prepared by Ms. Anastasia Kostiuk; the metadata of the photos submitted along with a summary of said photos, provided by Mr. Weinberg; correspondence submitted by Mr. Weinberg including the declarations of Stephen Nuccion, Diana Nuccion, Margaret Schmit, Siwsnne Sussman, Keith Kelley, Karina Santana, Yasmine Ryan, Sean Cardenas, James C. Roberts III, and Lianne Koeberle; and correspondence submitted by Mr. Light, including the declaration of Mr. Ruben M. Green. The Council also heard testimony from Mr. Green, Mrs. Hassoldt, Mrs. Nuccion, Mr. Light, Mr. Weinberg and Dr. Nuccion. This evidence was fully considered by the City Council, whose findings are expressed in further detail below. Section 4. The City Council finds as follows: A. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code section 17.26.090(3) the burden of proof to show that any view is impaired shall be upon the party claiming such impairment, and the standard shall be by "clear and convincing evidence." Evidence shall be weighted in the following order of priority: (1) photographs; (2) expert testimony; and lastly (3) other evidence, which may include testamentary evidence and any documentation (other than photographs). B. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.050 D(3), a view as defined in Section 17.12.220 of the Municipal Code existed from 18 Portuguese Bend Road when the Nuccions acquired the property in 2009. The Council finds, pursuant to the March 21, 2016 field trip to the property located at 18 Portuguese Bend Road, that the viewing area from the Nuccions' property includes a living room at the north side of the residence and a patio/pool deck area immediately adjacent thereto along the northern side of the residence, from the standing perspective of an average height person ("Designated Viewing Areas"). C. The Nuccions provided numerous photographs of their view from the Designated Viewing Areas; four photographs bore handwritten dates claiming that the photographs were taken in either 2010 or 2011. The Council notes that the photographic evidence in this case is further complicated by the fact that the Nuccions had the opportunity to, and in fact did, arrange for the trimming of the trees on 15 Portuguese Bend Road prior to the date that the Hassoldts purchased their property in 2012. Pursuant to a recent request for the production of metadata, the earliest photograph submitted for the Council's consideration was taken during dusk on July 14, 2010; this image is dark and does not adequately/clearly depict the Offending Trees. For these reasons, none of the photographs submitted, including the July 14, 2010 photograph, conclusively establish the view as it existed in from the Nuccions' property in 2009. D. In the absence of clear and convincing testamentary evidence provided by the experts and conclusive photographic evidence, the Council relied heavily upon the declarations of the parties and their witnesses to establish the scope of the view from 18 Portuguese Bend Road. The Council commented on the integrity of the declarants provided by the Nuccions, and found their declarations persuasive. Specifically, the Council found the declaration of Mr. Roberts (whose father sold 15 Portuguese Bend Road to the Hassoldts, and who was personally involved with the care of 15 Portuguese Bend Road from 2005-2011) to be particularly persuasive. Additionally, the Council concluded that the MLS listing from February 2008 established clear and convincing evidence that a view existed from 18 Portuguese Bend Road at or about the time the Nuccions purchased their property. The listing included a description of the view as follows: "Panoramic City Lights and partial ocean views... Pool and spa overlooking views." The Council finds persuasive the testimony provided that the Nuccions relied upon this statement in viewing the home and would not have purchased the home if it did not in fact have the views described in the 2008 MLS listing. E. The only evidence presented by the Hassoldts to rebut the evidence provided by the Nuccions is a report by arborist Ruben Green, who concludes on the basis of historic aerial photographs of some of the Obstructing Trees dated 2008 that a view could not have existed from the Nuccion property in 2009. However, while the aerial photographs show the height and spread of the trees from above, they do not show how the trees affected the view from the Designated Viewing Area on the Nuccion property. Mr. Green argues from the aerial photographs that the Nuccions "could not" have had a view; however, the Council finds this testimony to be speculative because the photographs do not take into account the height differential and viewing angle from the Nuccion residence. Furthermore, Resolution No. 1196 -3- the Hassoldts did not provide any contrary declarations. The Council finds that the overwhelming testamentary evidence of persons who visited the property in 2009 outweighs the speculative conclusions derived from aerial photographs. F. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.12.220 "View Impairment," Section 17.26.050(DX3) and Section 17.26.090 (3), the Council finds that the Nuccions have shown by clear and convincing evidence that the view from the Nuccions' property is significantly impaired because 11 trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road significantly impair the view of the Santa Monica Mountains, Mount Baldy and the City lights from the Designated Viewing Areas. The Nuccions provided an aerial photograph of the Obstructing Trees located at 15 Portuguese Bend Road. The Obstructing Trees have been identified as Tree Number One through Tree Number 9A, looking in a northerly direction from the perspective of 18 Portuguese Bend Road. The aforementioned photograph is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution. G. Further, the Council finds that, while the photographic evidence submitted by the parties was not persuasive with regard to the maturity of the trees, the testamentary evidence provided, coupled with the time and diligence devoted to this issue by the CTV indicates that only two of the Obstructing Trees (#9 and #9A) were mature when the Nuccions acquired their property in 2009 and are therefore ineligible for remediation under Measure B. Therefore, because the remaining nine trees were not mature when the Nuccions acquired their property, the Council hereby orders restorative action set forth below. H. Lastly, the Council determined that nine (9) of the Obstructing Trees were not mature and therefore subject to remediation under sections 17.26.010 and 17.26.090(2) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. On the issue of maturity, the Council considered the following evidence: (1) The June 16, 2015 Consulting Arborist Report prepared by Mr. Dane Shota (retained by the Hassoldts). Mr. Shota observed the Obstructing Trees from the Hassoldts' property; he determined that any conclusions derived from the height of the trees would be inaccurate because the tress have been pruned/manipulated. Mr. Shota provided a list of 20 trees located on the Hassoldt property that he determined were mature; no explanation was provided for this determination. Lastly, Mr. Shota's report contained a statement that "[a] lot of the trees that are mature were planted in 1937;" it is unclear from Mr. Shota's report to whom this unsubstantiated statement is attributed. The CTV determined that the conclusions reached by Mr. Shota were inaccurate because there were virtually no trees in the City of Rolling Hills in 1937. The balancing of this evidence, and the determinations made by the CVT with regard to it, are confirmed by the City Council. (2) The June 17, 2015 Certified Arborist Report prepared by Mr. William McKinley (retained by the Nuccions). Mr. McKinley concluded that all eleven of the Obstructing Trees were "actively growing" and therefore could not have been mature in 2009. Mr. McKinley based his conclusions on visual observations made of the Obstructing Trees from the Nuccions' pool deck area, and what he determined to be "cut lines" and evidence of trimming/regrowth. Based on historical photographic evidence (which depicted virtually no trees planted in the City in 1937 — other than a few olive trees), the CTV agreed with Mr. McKinley that nine of the Obstructing Trees could not have been mature; however, the CTV disagreed with Mr. McKinley's conclusion that the two olive trees planted on the Hassoldt property were maturing (as they had arguably been planted in the City around 1937). The balancing of this evidence, and the determinations made by the CVT with regard to it, are confirmed by the City Council. (3) The September 2, 2015 Certified Arborist Report prepared by Mr. David De La Torre (retained by the City). Mr. De La Torre observed the Obstructing Trees from the Hassoldt property. Using a mathematical equation to determine the age of the trees, Mr. De La Torre explained how he determined their maturity. Mr. De La Torre determined that the average age of the Obstructing Trees was 62 years old (the oldest tree was 141, while the youngest was 15.) Based upon this information, Mr. De La Torre concluded that of the eleven Obstructing Trees, nine (9) were mature and only two (2) were maturing. Based on historical photographic evidence, the CTV disagreed with Mr. De La Torre that nine (9) of the Obstructing Trees were mature; virtually no tress had been planted in the City in 1937 (other than a few olive trees), therefore the nine (9) trees indicated by Mr. De La Torre could not have been mature in 2009. The CTV concluded that except for the two olive trees located on the Hassoldt property, the remaining nine trees were maturing and therefore subject to remediation. The balancing of this evidence, and the determinations made by the CVT with regard to it, are confirmed by the City CounciL (4) The August 28, 2015 Certified Arborist Report prepared by Mr. Kevin Eckert (retained by the Nuccions). Mr. Eckert concluded that all eleven of the Obstructing Trees were maturing; his conclusions were derived from the "2010/2011" photographs that had been submitted by the Nuccions and a "video stream" of the view from the Nuccions' pool deck area. Based on historical photographic evidence (which depicted virtually no trees planted in the City in 1937 — other than a few olive trees), the CTV agreed with Mr. Eckert that nine of the Obstructing Trees could not have been mature; however, the CTV disagreed with Mr. Eckert's conclusion that the two olive trees planted on the Resolution No. 1196 -4- Hassoldt property were maturing (as they had arguably been planted in the City around 1937). Furthermore, the Council had subsequently learned from the metadata presented as evidence in October, that the photographs relied upon by Mr. Eckert had actually been taken between 2011-2012; therefore the Council confirmed that the accuracy of the conclusions reached by Mr. Eckert were questionable. (5) The April 16, 2016 and May 12, 2016 reports prepared by Ms. Anastasia Kostiuk (3D Engineer retained by the Nuccions). Ms. Kostiuk was asked to review photographs provided to her by the Nuccions, which she was told were taken in 2010; as well as aerial photographs of the Hassoldt property taken between 2008-2012. Ms. Kostiuk took these photographs and created 3D renderings of them, from these renderings she mathematically determined the height of each tree based on the length of the shadows they cast. The Council determined that the evidence provided by Ms. Kostiuk was inconclusive as it was later revealed that the dates of the photographs provided by the Nuccions were not taken in 2010, but rather in 2011-2012. Furthermore, the data provided by Ms. Kostiuk revealed conflicting and fluctuating evidence related to the height of the trees over time. (6) The February 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016 declarations of Mr. Ruben Green (certified arborist retained by the Hassoldts). Mr. Green conducted a site inspection at the Hassoldt property to supervise trimming that was being conducted. Mr. Green does not consider Ms. Kostuik's method -to be a reliable way to determine the maturity of the trees. Mr. Green provided his own aerial photographs from 2008 and 2011 to call into question the accuracy of the data Ms. Kostiuk relied upon; specifically, Mr. Green calls attention to the varying height of the utility pole and the evidence of topping in Ms. Kostiuk's photographs. However, the Council determined that in either declaration Mr. Green does not provide an opinion as to whether or not the trees were mature. Ultimately, the Council finds that the weight of the evidence supports a finding that nine (9) of the Obstructing Trees were not mature in 2009 and that restorative action on the nine (9) Obstructing Trees is necessary to abate the view impairment by creating view corridors and views through the trees. I. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.050(E), the Council fords the restorative action set forth below in this Resolution is necessary to abate the view impairment by creating view corridors and views through trees, that the restorative action will not adversely affect the environment, and that the action will not unreasonably detract from the enjoyment or privacy of the property at 15 Portuguese Bend Road. While the record indicates that the Hassoldts hummed unspecified trees in January or February of 2016, the Council nonetheless finds that the restorative action set forth in Section 5 of this Resolution remains appropriate. J. The City reviewed the proposed restorative action's environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA") and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines") and determined the proposed project to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15304 (Minor Alterations of Land) and Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines. The project is exempt because no trees will be removed. Instead, the Obstructing Trees will be cleaned out, shaped and trimmed and a substantial amount of the foliage will remain. No evidence was introduced to suggest that the restorative action will cause an adverse environmental impact. Thus, it can be said with certainty that there will be no environmental impact from the proposed actions. Section 5. The Council orders the following restorative action pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.050(E): A. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.060(A), within thirty (30) calendar days of adoption of this Resolution, the Nuccions are hereby required to obtain and present to the Owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road, a minimum of three (3) bids from licensed qualified contractors for the performance of the Initial Restorative Action set forth in this Resolution as well as a cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. The contractors must provide insurance which protects and indemnifies the City and the Nuccions from damages attributable to negligence or wrongful performance of the work. Any such insurance shall be subject to the approval of the City. B. Pursuant to Section 17.26.060(B), the Owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road may select any licensed and qualified contractor to perform the Initial Restorative Action (defined below) (as long as the insurance requirement of the above paragraph is satisfied), but shall pay for any cost above the amount of the cash deposit. The work for the Initial Restorative Action shall be completed no later than February 14, 2017 or pursuant to an alternative schedule (but no later than March 1, 2017) if the selected contractor determines that the health of the trees would be compromised if the work is performed by February 14, 2017. C. Subsequent maintenance of the subject vegetation shall be performed at the cost and expense of the owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road. All vegetation subject to the restorative action described in this Resolution and any future planting, including replacement trees, shall be maintained so Resolution No. 1196 -5- that the view shown in the photograph to be taken by City staff or designee following the Initial Restorative Action, as detailed below, is preserved. The trees shall be maintained so as to not allow for future view impairments from the Designated Viewing Areas of 18 Portuguese Bend Road. Tree maintenance shall be done in the winter months (December — March) and shall be completed by March 1 of each year in which the work is to be done, as specified in paragraph F of this section of this Resolution. D. An informational covenant shall be recorded against the title of 15 Portuguese Bend Road and shall run with the land, thereby giving notice of this Resolution to all future owners. E. Initial Restorative Action shall be limited to the 9 Obstructing Trees as identified in the table below. F. The Initial Restorative Action shall consist of the following: TYPE OF TREE AND TREE # LOCATION ACTION MAINTENANCE 1 Eucalyptus NO ACTION NO ACTION 2 Eucalyptus- along Roadway easement -front Lace, shape & crown reduce to no higher than the current height of Palm Trees Every two years 3 Washington Fan Palm along N/E side of property Remove the dead fronds Every two years 3-A Washington Fan Palm along N/E side of property Remove the dead fronds Every two years 4 Eucalyptus & various volunteers- S/W comer of lot Lower the canopy and trim to old cuts for city view Every two years 4-A Olive & various volunteers- SIW comer of lot Lower the canopy and trim to old cuts for city view Every two years 5 Eucalyptus- by garage Reduce crown to a height of 46 feet above ground Every two ears y 6 California Pepper- along front Shape & reduce canopy to old cuts Every two ears y 6-A Califomia Pepper -along front Shape & reduce canopy to old cuts Every two years 7 Olive Tree- along front; S/E comer Shape, reduce crown and trim to old cuts for city view Every two years 8 Acacia NO ACTION NO ACTION 9 Olive Tree- lawn area NO ACTION NO ACTION 9-A Olive Tree- lawn area NO ACTION NO ACTION ITOTAL 9 Trees Subject to Initial Restorative Action The locations of the above listed trees are shown on the aerial photograph attached hereto as Exhibit A. G. The actions described above shall be accomplished per ISA industry standards and best arborist practices, and the following definitions shall apply: Crown Reduction: Height reduction to specified height by removing selective branches, deadwood, stems and foliage to reduce the height and spread of a tree. Resolution No. 1196 -6- Lace: Thin out thick areas of the canopy to expose the structure of dominant branches, clean out the crown, shaping and balancing the tree. Section 6. Upon conclusion of the Initial Restorative Action, the Nuccions shall contact the City and the Hassoldts to schedule a site visit. to 18 Portuguese Bend Road, during which City staff shall take photograph(s) from the Designated Viewing Areas to be attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution for the purpose of establishing the level of restorative action for future maintenance. The Hassoldts may attend this site visit as observers only. Section 7. There shall be no restorative action required for the remainder of the trees on the property at 15 Portuguese Bend Road not listed in the Initial Restorative Action in this Resolution. However, trees on the property not included in this Resolution shall be maintained at current configuration and any new growth that extends into the view established by this Resolution shall be removed at the same time as the maintenance is conducted for the Obstructing Trees, at the sole expense of the Owners of 15 Portuguese Bend Road. Section 8. The parties by mutual agreement, if they so desire, may modify the implementation action in this Resolution, as set forth in Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.26.060(D). Any such mutual agreement shall be recorded. Section 9. In the event that any party requests inspection of implementation of Resolution 1196 on grounds that the restorative action or maintenance is not compliant with this Resolution, the City may be required to incur substantial costs in investigating the complaint. Therefore, the City aha11 be entitled to recover its costs from a non -compliant party, for activities including, but not limited to, hiring independent consultants. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by Members of the City Council this 28th day of November 2016. - ATTEST:. 1 Heidi Luce City Clerk Resolution No. 1196 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) SS The foregoing City Council Resolution No. 1196 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEALS OF DR. AND MRS. STEPHEN NUCCION AND MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM HASSOLDT, AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS BY DECLARING THAT SPECIFIC TREES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD HAVE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT VIEW IMPAIRMENT TO THE VIEW FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND SETTING FORTH RESTORATIVE ACTION TO ABATE THE IMPAIRMENT. was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council on November 28, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES:. Councilmembers Black, Mirsch, Pieper and Wilson. NOES: Mayor Dieringer. ABSENT: None. , ABSTAIN: None. LtU) Heidi Luce City Clerk This decision is final and conclusive. Any action challenging this administrative order must be filed with a court of law within the time limits set forth in section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Resolution No. 1196 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. 1196 -9-