Loading...
2018-04-23_CCAgendaPacket City of Rolling Hills INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Page 1 of 3 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2018 7:00 P.M. Next Resolution No. 1222 Next Ordinance No. 359 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 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 Regular Meeting of October 9, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Financial Statement for the Month of March 2018. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. D. Republic Services Recycling Tonnage Report for March 2018. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. PRESENTATION Presentation of the SBCCOG/SCE Energy Leader Partnership Recognition Award Certificate to the City of Rolling Hills for Reaching Gold Tier Level in the Program 5. COMMISSION ITEMS NONE. City Council Agenda 04/23/18 Page 2 of 3 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE. 7. OLD BUSINESS NONE. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. QUARTERLY SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2018. B. FY 2018/2019 BUDGET PREPARATION DOCUMENTS 1) FY 2017/2018 YEAR-END REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS 2) FY 2018/2019 CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (CPI) ADJUSTMENT FOR BUDGET AND FY 2018-2019 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES 9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS A. CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING A COYOTE CONTROL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (ORAL). B. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ON THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT CORE DEPUTY'S SERVICES (COMMUNITY RESOURCE TEAM). 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF A. CONSIDERATION OF PROFESSIONALLY VIDEO RECORDING THE UPCOMING TWO FIRE PREVENTION SEMINARS FOR POSTING ON THE CITY WEBSITE. 11. CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 PROPERTY: CIVIC CENTER AND PARKING AREA, TENNIS COURTS, RIDING RINGS, STORM HILL PARK CITY NEGOTIATOR: CITY MANAGER NEGOTIATING PARTIES: ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION UNDER NEGOTIATION: LEASE PRICE 12. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION (ORAL REPORT). 13. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Monday, May 14, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. City Council Agenda 04/23/18 Page 3 of 3 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. DRAFT -1- Agenda Item No. 4-A Meeting Date: 04/23/18 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 9, 2017 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Black at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Dieringer, Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Black. Councilmembers Absent: None. Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Natalie Karpeles, Assistant City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Yvette Hall, Interim City Clerk. William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane. Arun Bhumitra, 13 Buggy Whip Drive. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West. John Nunn, 1 Crest Road West. Fred Lorig, 1 Spur Lane. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. Roger Hawkins, 37 Crest Road West. John Blazevich, 1 Buggy Whip. Michael Sherman, 33 Crest Road East. Mike Shoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. Elliot Brunner, M.D., 26 Cinchring Road. Monika Malone, 7 Chuckwagon Road. Kathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West. Hank Pickar, 11 Bowie Road. Burt Balch, 6 Hackamore Road. Christine Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road. Daniel Marco, 26 Georgeff Road. V’Etta Virtue, 4 Maverick Lane. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West. Jill Smith, 10 Georgeff Road. Ann Murrell, 6 Packsaddle Road East. Minutes City Council Meeting 10-09-17 -2- OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West, thanked the Planning Commission (PC) for the work they did with the Ad Hoc Committee’s draft of the view preservation ordinance. Mr. Colyear opined that the draft was a good modification to the City’s Municipal Code as it relates to views. Mayor Black informed Mr. Colyear that this section of the agenda was for matters not on the agenda and that Mr. Colyear could comment during the public hearing on the view preservation ordinance. 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. Financial Statements for the Months of July and August 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. COMMISSION ITEMS CONSIDERATION OF AN EQUESTRIAN SERVICE DRIVEWAY APPROACH AT 1 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff’s comments. Planning Director Schwartz presented the staff report stating that the project was a request for a service driveway for equestrian access and equestrian facilities. Planning Director Schwartz indicated that the Traffic Commission and Traffic Engineer reviewed the project. She stated that the Traffic Engineer recommended approval of the project. Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council approve the Traffic Commission’s recommendation in support of the applicant’s request for a service driveway for equestrian access and equestrian facilities as presented. Councilmember Dieringer seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Mayor Black requested that Item 6-C be taken out of order and discussed at this juncture. Hearing no objection, Mayor Black so ordered. PUBLIC HEARINGS WAIVE FULL READING AND INTRODUCE ON FIRST READING ORDINANCE NO. 354 – CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO AMEND THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.12.220 OF CHAPTER 17.12 (DEFINITIONS); AND TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR Minutes City Council Meeting 10-09-17 -3- THE RESTORATION OF VIEWS OBSTRUCTED BY VEGETATION, IN ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2017-01. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff’s comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated this is a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance that City Council requested to be brought back from the September 25, 2017 City Council meeting. She stated that the PC is recommending an ordinance that replaces the existing view preservation ordinance, and in the proposed ordinance from the PC the recommendation is that the role of the City be advisory and not quasi-judicial. She indicated that the revised ordinance, as presented, is recommending that the role of the City be quasi-judicial. She reviewed the additional modifications that were made by the PC as follows: 1) Removal of a disjointed view and addition of a panoramic view; 2) Inclusion of definitions for views; and 3) Definitions of methods of trimming such as lacing, crown reduction and others. Planning Director Schwartz further stated that at the aforementioned meeting the City Council requested that staff bring back the same ordinance that the PC recommended except for the removal of the advisory role of the City and the addition of a quasi-judicial role of the City. Planning Director Schwartz explained that there were two items presented in the staff report, the ordinance that was recommended by the PC with a strike-through of modifications as requested at the last meeting, and a clean version of the same ordinance. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive, commented on a past resident’s view preservation case that occurred on Saddleback Road in 2012. Ms. Schoettle expressed concern for this resident who lost a view preservation case filed against her and subsequently had her trees cut down. She indicated that residents were most concerned with the City’s role in view disputes and were in support of an advisory role for the City. She expressed concern with the financial consequences of lawsuits and the use of residents’ tax monies to give views to other people. Ms. Schoettle commented that a successful compromise was reached between the PC and the residents; therefore, the residents expect the proposed ordinance to be adopted. Ann Murrell, 6 Packsaddle Road East, commented that a view complaint was filed against her by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) and that she has cut many trees in an effort to create a view for her neighbors. She commented on the $500,000 judgment payment that was paid by the RHCA for losing the view complaint lawsuit filed against her. She recommended that the City not get involved financially in any view preservation cases as it affects every taxpayer. Ms. Murrell commented that if there is a City Councilmember who would profit from the City supporting their personal view complaint, the City Councilmember should recuse himself from any City Council support. Roger Hawkins, 37 Crest Road West, commented that he is opposed to the proposed ordinance for the following reasons: 1) It is not fiscally responsible to potentially indebt the community with a huge litigation expense; 2) Residents will be more apt to engage in litigation if the City is paying for it; and 3) Litigation will cause resentment among neighbors and the City. Mr. Hawkins expressed support for the City to adopt an advisory role as recommended by the PC. John Blazevich, 1 Buggy Whip, commented that he reviewed the pamphlets and both opposing arguments and noticed that the acquisition of title was an issue. He commented that the acquisition of title and “mature” need to be more defined. Mr. Blazevich recommended that new residents take photographs on the day they move in and both the owner of the property and the City should keep copies. Mr. Blazevich stated that the photographs will show exactly what is there and from that point on that is what should be Minutes City Council Meeting 10-09-17 -4- kept as a guideline for any tree trimming that needs to be done in the future. Mr. Blazevich stated he is not in favor of litigation. Michael Sherman, 33 Crest Road East, questioned why residents did not complain decades ago about their views. He commented on the importance of preserving the soil supporting trees whose removal would geologically weaken the soil and predispose residents’ property to landslides from rainfall. He commented on his view preservation case and stated that his legal expenses to defend his property between 2014 and 2015 exceeded $100,000. He expressed opposition to allowing an unlimited number of viewpoints in or near his property, various accessory structures and to Measure C. Arun Bhumitra. 13 Buggy Whip Drive, commented that he highly values trees. He commented on his view preservation case and explained that he tried to work with his neighbor; however, he was not successful. Mr. Bhumitra expressed support for the City to take a quasi-judicial approach. Mike Shoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive, commented on values, trust and transparency within the community. He stated that he believed the City Council has taken the side of the view seeker in past cases. He stated that the PC’s recommendation came from an open process and that their proposal takes the City out of the dispute and encourages the affected community members to work it out. Mr. Shoettle expressed support for the City acting in an advisory role. Elliot Brunner, M.D., 26 Cinchring Road, commented on the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ (RPV) view ordinance and indicated that their ordinance is more restrictive than what the City Council is considering. He discussed the differences between the City of RPV’s ordinance and the City of Rolling Hills. He expressed support of the PC’s proposed ordinance with the City acting in an advisory role. Dr. Brunner expressed opposition to Measure C. Monika Malone, 7 Chuckwagon Road, expressed opposition to the ordinance that City Council is considering with the City acting in a quasi-judicial role. Ms. Malone indicated that if the proposed ordinance is adopted and the City bears the cost of having trees trimmed to enhance her view, she is in support of this action. Ms. Malone commented that litigation may be costly for the City. Kathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West, referred to an exhibit in the staff report that discussed a study regarding ninety percent of Cities rejected an enforcement role. She expressed opposition to the City’s consideration of a quasi-judicial role in view preservation cases. Hank Pickar, 11 Bowie Road, commented that his neighbors informed him that some of his trees were blocking their view and he was successful in resolving the matter without further legal action. Mr. Pickar expressed opposition to the City’s consideration of a quasi-judicial role in view preservation cases. Burt Balch, 6 Hackamore Road, expressed opposition to the Measure C. He stated that he believed that the City has sided with viewseekers many times. He commented that trees are an asset to the City. Mr. Balch indicated that he has a sizeable view because all the trees died on his property. He expressed concern with growing his trees because his neighbors may have an issue with the trees blocking their view. Mr. Balch expressed opposition to the City’s consideration of a quasi-judicial role in view preservation cases. Christine Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road, stated that she submitted a letter to the City Council. She Minutes City Council Meeting 10-09-17 -5- read a portion of her letter regarding the reason’s why she feels the City Council would like to continue to pay for litigation and view expenses due to their view that there is a financial disparity among residents. She commented on her and her neighbor’s view case. She commented that if the City takes a quasi- judicial role in view preservation cases this would create an unlevel playing field for residents. Ms. Greenberg expressed opposition to the City’s consideration of a quasi-judicial role in view preservation cases. William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane, commented that he did not support the City Council’s decision to place on a ballot measure on the special election after the Ad Hoc Committee and Planning Commission proposed a plan for improving Measure B that would be equitable to all members of the City. He discussed his view preservation case. Mr. Hassoldt expressed opposition to the City’s consideration of a quasi-judicial role in view preservation cases and Measure C. Daniel Marco, 26 Georgeff Road, commented that if the City Council does not adopt the PC’s recommendation of an advisory role this action demonstrates a lack of leadership and trust in the appointed commissioners. Mr. Marco expressed opposition to the City’s consideration of a quasi-judicial role in view preservation cases. V’Etta Virtue, 4 Maverick Lane, commented on the history of the City beginning with the City’s incorporation. She stated that she has lost most of her view over the years and that history was repeating itself with the proposed ballot measure. Ms. Virtue expressed opposition to giving residents a view from any place in their yard. John Nunn, 1 Crest Road, commented that when the original ordinance was in place, there were virtually no arbitrated settlements because view seekers knew they could get whatever they asked for. He commented on Measure B’s set limits. He expressed opposition to allowing an unlimited number of viewing points. Mr. Nunn expressed support of the City adopting an advisory approach to the view ordinance. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West, expressed opposition to Measure C. He commented that Measure B should be preserved to ensure that view cases are resolved fairly. Fred Lorig, 1 Spur Lane, commented on Councilmember’s Dieringer letter that was mailed to the community. He stated that the letter had an effect on the community and that she requested residents who opposed Measure C and support Measure B to attend the City Council meeting this evening. He commented that there is a lot of misunderstanding of the ordinance that should be clarified. Mr. Lorig discussed the history of the view preservation ordinance. He referenced the General Plan and stated the plan requires preservation of both trees and views. Mr. Lorig stated that Measure B as a matter of law cannot override the City’s General Plan and that the City should not be concerned with lawsuits as they have not occurred for 24 years. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West, commented that the ordinance as written was good. He commented that the proposed ordinance goes further than the original ordinance by allowing views from anywhere on the property. He noted that there are over 19,000 incorporated cities in the United States and very few have any type of view ordinance. Jill Smith, 10 Georgeff Road, concurred with Mr. Lorig’s previous comments. She stated that the Trees & Minutes City Council Meeting 10-09-17 -6- Views Committee agonizes over view preservation decisions for both the viewseeker and tree keeper. She stated that she felt Measure B made it difficult for the Trees & Views Committee to make decisions. Ms. Smith commented that the proposed ordinance is a compromise to satisfy both proponents and opponents of the issue. Ms. Smith asked that the City Council carefully consider the new ordinance. Mayor Black closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Pieper commented that the proposed ordinance is not perfect; however, the majority of the ordinance is placed in the right direction and noted that it can be refined over time. Councilmember Pieper stated that many hours of work and effort were put into the ordinance, as well as several meetings with the PC, community, and Ad Hoc Committee. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 354 amending the Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.12.220 of Chapter 17.12 (Definitions); Repeal and Replace Chapter 17.26 (View Preservation) in Order to Establish a Process for the Restoration of Views Obstructed by Vegetation, in Zoning Text Amendment No. 2017-01; act in an advisory role in view obstruction cases; and if Measure C fails to pass at the Municipal Election on November 7, 2017, this ordinance is null and void and will not take effect. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson seconded the motion. Councilmember Dieringer commented that one of the major issues is whether the City should pay for enforcement costs. She expressed concerns with staffing levels. She would like the ordinance to protect the residents and offer a fair process where residents can come and resolve issues related to views and trees. She indicated support of adopting an advisory role for view cases. She discussed the past legal fees incurred totaling $55,000. She stated that she does not support unlimited viewpoints. She recommended that the City Council extend the view preservation moratorium until the proposed ordinance can be modified further. Councilmember Dieringer noted that other cities have opposed paying for legal costs except for Cities that have an ordinance voted on by the electorate. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson concurred with Councilmember Pieper’s comments regarding the importance of how much work and effort was put into the ordinance. He stated that he believed that a majority of the public comments made were in support of the original document. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson stated that the ordinance is balanced enough and should be passed sooner rather than later due to the upcoming election and that it is only fair to the voters to have something in place that can be relied upon, based on the results of the election. Discussion followed concerning the addition of amendments, view preservation moratorium, number of viewpoints and conducting a cost assessment to hire additional staff. Councilmember Mirsch stated that this ordinance was a complicated issue. She discussed the collaboration process of the Ad Hoc Committee and the PC and that there were comprises on both sides. She stated that she believes there is a majority of residents in support of the final document that was recommended by the PC with the City Council acting in an advisory role. Councilmember Mirsch stated for the record that she never supported the advisory position and she has never changed her opinion. She addressed concerns with the costs associated with an advisory body and stated that the majority of the funds that have been expended by the City were not for enforcement or to defend a position, they were for hearing cases that came before City. She commented that she does not agree that additional staff would be needed based on historical fact. Councilmember Mirsch stated that she had no financial involvement Minutes City Council Meeting 10-09-17 -7- with any of the cases that have come before the City Council and expressed concern with not supporting an ordinance that was recommended by PC. Mayor Black commented on the regulation policy differences between the City and the RHCA. He clarified that the Murrells’ view issue was reviewed by the RHCA. He stated that he believed the City was much less likely to be open to lawsuits versus the RHCA. He indicated that the lawsuits that occurred since the original ordinance went into effect were two lawsuits totaling $55,000 in legal fees. Mayor Black discussed past view preservation cases that came before the City and that a majority were settled in mediation. He indicated that he has observed many views diminish and that he is not aware of a resident creating a view by going to the City and demanding a view. Mayor Black expressed opposition to the City’s role as an advisory body. In response to Councilmember Dieringer’s inquiry, City Attorney Jenkins provided clarification on a resident’s vested right to have a proceeding under an ordinance if the ordinance changes midstream. He stated that if the ordinance changes during a case, the resident would not have a vested right to have their view application adjudicated based on the language in the ordinance that was in place at the time they applied. Discussion ensued concerning the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission and provisions that were stricken from this ordinance. Councilmember Pieper restated his motion. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 354 amending the Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.12.220 of Chapter 17.12 (Definitions); Repeal and Replace Chapter 17.26 (View Preservation) in Order to Establish a Process for the Restoration of Views Obstructed by Vegetation, in Zoning Text Amendment No. 2017-01; act in an advisory role in view obstruction cases; and if Measure C fails to pass at the Municipal Election on November 7, 2017, this ordinance is null and void and will not take effect. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson seconded the motion. The motion was previously seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Wilson. Discussion ensued concerning whether to adopt the PC’s recommended ordinance or to amend the ordinance. Mayor Black called for a roll call vote on the aforementioned motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Dieringer, Pieper, and Wilson. NOES: Councilmember Mirsch and Mayor Black. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. City Attorney Jenkins clarified that this ordinance cannot take effect unless Measure B is repealed and that Measure B can only be repealed if Measure C passes on November 7, 2017. He stated that the reason that this ordinance cannot take effect if Measure C fails is because it is inconsistent with Measure B, and that the City cannot adopt an ordinance that is inconsistent with Measure B because Measure B was adopted by the vote of the people. City Attorney Jenkins advised that a new section would be added to the very end of the ordinance that will state that if Measure C fails this ordinance shall be null and void and not take effect. Minutes City Council Meeting 10-09-17 -8- ORDINANCE NO. 356 - CONSIDERATION OF AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS EXTENDING A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE TO TEMPORARILY PLACE A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE AND/OR PROCESSING OF ANY APPLICATION SOUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATION) OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff’s comments. Planning Director Schwartz presented the staff report and stated this matter is a public hearing to consider extending the moratorium on the acceptance and/or processing of view preservation applications. She indicated that on November 28, 2016 the City Council passed a moratorium because there was a need to adopt a new view preservation ordinance, and further stated that an Ad Hoc Committee was formed. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the moratorium ordinance was approved for 45 days, then on January 9, 2017 the moratorium was approved for an additional ten months and 15 days as allowed per law, and expires on November 28, 2017. She stated that the ordinance as presented provides an opportunity to adopt it again for an extension of one year as allowed by law. Planning Director Schwartz indicated that the moratorium could only be extended two times up to a total of two years, which would extend the moratorium to November 2019 and could be repealed at any time. There were no members of the public who requested to make a public comment. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council take no action on extending the moratorium on the acceptance and/or processing of view preservation applications and not adopt Ordinance No. 356. Mayor Black seconded the motion. Further discussion followed this motion. Councilmember Dieringer recommended that this matter be postponed to the October 23, 2017 City Council meeting to allow time for this issue to be discussed. She expressed concern with the unknown amount of view complaints that could be filed. Councilmember Dieringer recommended that the City evaluate whether additional staff would be needed if a significant number of view complaints are filed. Councilmember Mirsch commented that since 1988 there have not been a significant number of view preservation complaints filed and she does not expect a large amount to be received. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Wilson’s question, Planning Director Schwartz stated that one resident inquired about filing a view impairment case since the moratorium has been in effect. Mayor Black called for a roll call vote on the aforementioned motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Black. NOES: Councilmember Dieringer. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. WAIVE FULL READING AND INTRODUCE ON FIRST READING ORDINANCE NO. 355 – CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE NO. 355 AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 17.29 TO TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS Minutes City Council Meeting 10-09-17 -9- MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES, ALLOW FOR THE DELIVERY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND TO REGULATE THE CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR PERSONAL AND MEDICAL USE WITHIN THE CITY, IN ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2017-02. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staff’s comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated this item is a public hearing to consider the Planning Commission’s (PC) recommendation to adopt an ordinance regarding a new law that passed in June of 2017 allowing the use of marijuana for personal use. She indicated this is a first reading and introduction of Ordinance No. 355. She explained that the law allows cities to develop their own ordinance. She stated that the City needs to be specific when adopting an ordinance and should include items such as whether the City would like to prohibit commercial use and commercial activities such as transportation and mobile delivery. She indicated that the City is required to notify the state what type of ordinance was adopted, otherwise, as of January 1, 2018 the state will be able to issue licenses to residents in the City unless an ordinance is adopted that specifically states that the City does not allow commercial marijuana or transportation of marijuana. Planning Director Schwartz also explained that there are certain provisions that must be allowed and that the PC is recommending an ordinance that would allow the minimum that could be adopted based on state law. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the proposed ordinance as follows: 1) A new Title was added to the Zoning Ordinance on Marijuana Use; 2) Included section that specifies that certain activities are prohibited, which are commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of marijuana related to the commercial aspect of it; 3) Definitions were added and taken directly from the state law; 4) Medical marijuana and personal use are allowed based on state law which states that anyone over 21 years of age or older can possess, process, purchase, transport, and obtain a certain amount of marijuana which is 28.5 grams of un- concentrated and 8 grams of concentrated; 5) Engaging in personal cultivation indoor and outdoor – The state does not dictate whether a City allows indoor or outdoor cultivation; however, this recommendation came about from a previous City Council ordinance that allowed outdoor marijuana; however, the City does not have to allow it; 6) The City must allow a maximum of six plants; 7) The City can limit the area of where the plants are grown as this is allowed by the state. The minimum is 50 square feet; however, the recommendation is for 100 square feet; and 8) The area where the plants are grown should be contiguous. Planning Director Schwartz indicated that the State Water Board is creating their own rules and regulations and one of their regulations will require that the area be contiguous. She stated that this provision is included in the proposed ordinance. She discussed another regulation that is being imposed prohibits planting on slopes that are more than ten percent to mitigate water and runoff. She stated that the recommendation is to allow this only on parcels with residential units and not on vacant lots. She stated that the plants cannot be visible from the easements, trails, or any other property. She stated that another recommendation is to keep the plants in a locked area if they are kept outdoors or if it is kept in an accessory structure that it be locked. Planning Director Schwartz further stated that if the plants are kept outdoors they must be enclosed by a five-foot wall. Councilmember Dieringer commented that she received the legal memo from the City Attorney. She indicated that in the memo the City Attorney made it clear that the City could ban all outdoor cultivation and adopt reasonable regulations. She recommended that a condition be considered for residents to notify the City of indoor or outdoor cultivation and obtain a permit. She stated that a provision could be added to conduct an inspection to ensure the resident is complying with fire, electrical, ventilation, water usage, health and building codes. She recommended that the City place limits on the plant height and width because currently under the statute there is no size limitation to the six plants. Councilmember Dieringer indicated that it would be helpful for the City to have knowledge of which residents have a permit in case Minutes City Council Meeting 10-09-17 -10- a complaint is received. Planning Director Schwartz stated that when this item was brought to the PC staff did include registration; however, the PC did not support this recommendation and felt the provision could not be enforced. Discussion ensued concerning residential structure requirements, number of plants allowed, indoor and outdoor cultivation, plant height, and wall enclosures. There were no members of the public who requested to make a public comment. Following discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council waive full reading, introduce on first reading the ordinance as presented with an amendment to allow cultivation indoors only, and to bring the ordinance, as amended, for a second reading and adoption. Councilmember Dieringer seconded the motion. In response to Mayor Black’s question, City Attorney Jenkins advised that there is no provision in the state law to determine if a person is impaired by marijuana. Mayor Black called for a roll call vote on the aforementioned motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Black. NOES: Mayor Black. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. OLD BUSINESS NONE. NEW BUSINESS NONE. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION ON ALLOWANCE OF CONSTRUCTION FENCING ONLY WHEN REQUIRED OR APPROVED BY THE CITY OR COUNTY BUILDING OFFICIAL. (ORAL) Mayor Black indicated that he requested a discussion on this matter. He expressed concern that there were no regulations for construction fencing, in particular when there is no construction taking place. Planning Director Schwartz recommended that a standard condition be included in the resolutions of approval and not amend the zoning ordinance. Minutes City Council Meeting 10-09-17 -11- Discussion followed concerning construction related fencing versus aesthetic fencing, consideration of adopting a standard condition to not allow construction fencing, except for specific purposes, with Planning Commission approval. Mayor Black opened the public discussion. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West, commented that he concurs with the City Council’s concerns related to construction fencing. He recommended that construction fencing be required around the construction area only not the entire property. Councilmember Dieringer commented that the City should prohibit residents from having a construction fence. She indicated that there could be safety issues, such as a hole in the ground that would require fencing. Councilmember Dieringer stated that prohibition of fencing could create a liability issue for the City. Planning Director Schwartz stated that it would be difficult not to put a fence around the entire property because more room is needed for staging on the property and to prevent storm water runoff. Planning Director Schwartz did not recommend a restriction to allow fencing in the construction area only. Discussion followed concerning the adoption of an ordinance for one property and the process for extending construction permits. By City Council consensus, no action was taken on this matter. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION ON JOINING TAKING BACK OUR COMMUNITY COALITION. (ORAL) Councilmember Dieringer presented information on joining the Taking Back Our Community Coalition organization. She indicated that the coalition is comprised of local governments to provide public education and advocacy related to the unintended adverse public safety impacts of recent changes to California’s criminal law. Councilmember Dieringer indicated that the City would be required to contribute membership dues. Discussion ensued concerning the administration, funding and objectives of the program. Mayor Black moved that the City Council join the Taking Back Our Community Coalition organization and contribute membership dues. Councilmember Dieringer seconded the motion. Mayor Black called for a roll call vote on the aforementioned motion. The motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmember Dieringer and Mayor Black. NOES: Councilmembers Mirsch, Pieper and Wilson. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Minutes City Council Meeting 10-09-17 -12- MATTERS FROM STAFF City Manager Cruz indicated that he would not be in attendance at the next City Council meeting due to his attendance at the International City/County Management Association’s conference. City Manager Cruz provided an update on the City of Rolling Hills vs. California Water Service case. He indicated that a preliminary hearing was held with the Public Utilities Commission and that another hearing was scheduled for December 18, 2017. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Black adjourned the meeting at 9:59 p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, October 23, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, __________________________________________ Yvette Hall City Clerk Approved, _____________________________________ Patrick Wilson Mayor Agenda Item: 4-BMtg. Date: 04-28-18 Agenda Item: 4-CMtg. Date: 04-28-18 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL ALLIED WASTE RECYCLE NOW REPORT Report Date: MONTH RECYCLED GREEN WASTE C&D C&D Disposal Diversion MONTHLY 2018 (tons)(tons)Recycled Disposed Tonnage %TOTALS (tons) January - 107.13 162.43 13.73 174.99 58.82%458.28 February 8.21 91.90 57.55 7.40 150.26 50.00%315.32 March 38.99 86.59 51.87 6.01 171.43 50.00%354.89 April - - - - - 0.00%0.00 May - - - - - 0.00%0.00 June - - - - - 0.00%0.00 July - - - - - 0.00%0.00 August - - - - - 0.00%0.00 September - - - - - 0.00%0.00 October - - - - - 0.00%0.00 November - - - - - 0.00%0.00 December - - - - - 0.00%0.00 Year to Date Totals:47.20 285.62 271.85 27.14 496.68 53.58%1,128.49 Average Monthly Totals: 2018 23.60 95.21 90.62 9.05 165.56 53%376.16 2018 Agenda Item: 4-D Mtg. Date: 04-28-18