Loading...
02-26-2018 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROI.LING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY,FEBRUARY 26,2018 1. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Black at 7:01 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road,Rolling Hills, California. 2. ROLL_CALL Councilmembers Present: Dieringer,Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Black. Councilmembers Absent: None. Others Present: Yolanta Schwartz, Interim City Manager. Crregg Kettles,Assistant City Attorney. Yvette Hall, City Clerk. Julia Stewart,Acting Planning Director. Larry Hall,Attorney. Gina Filippone,Attorney. Allen Rigg, Consultant. Marsha Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. Gene Honbo, 33 Portuguese Bend Road. Jill Smith, 10 Georgeff Road. John Nunn, 1 Crest Road West. Jeff Lewis,Attorney, 24 Cinchring Road. J. Lopez, Los Angeles County Fire Department. Sue Breiholz, 6 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road. John Nunn, 1 Crest Road West. 3. OPEN AGENDA-PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME None. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Republic Services Recycling Tonnage Report for January 2018. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. C. Financial Statement for the Month of January 2018. RECOMNiENDATION: Approve as presented. D. Professional Services Agreement to Prepare a Sanitary Sewer Improvement Feasibility Study for the City of Rolling Hills' Civic Center Complex. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. E. Interim City Manager Agreement. � RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. Councilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented. Councilmember Pieper second�d the motion, which carried without objection by a voice vote as follows: AYES: COLTNCILMEMBERS: Dieringer, Mirsch,Pieper,Wilson and Black. NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSTAIN: COiJNCILMEMBERS: None. -1- 5. COMMISSION ITEMS None. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 7. OLD BUSINESS A. RESOLUTION NO. 1221 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUE�T FOR MODIFICATIONS OF THE HEIGHT AND ROOF TYPE OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ADDITION TO AND MAJOR REMODEL OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 24 CINCHRING ROAD (LOT 18-3-CH), IN ZONING CASE NO. 932, (NAKAMURA). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson introduced the item and asked for the staff report. Interim City Manager Schwartz presented the staff report and stated that this matter is a Resolution denying a request of the Nakamuras to amend their originally approved project at 24 Cinchring Road. She stated that the Planning Commission(PC)held several public hearings for the project and recommended a Resolution of Denial be brought forth to the City Council. She stated that the City Council took the matter under jurisdiction and held a public hearing on January 30, 2018 and February 12, 2018, including a field trip on January 30, 2018. Interim City Manager Schwartz stated that at the previous City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to bring forth a Resolution denying the project with conditions that were adopted by the PC. Mayor Black commented that the City Council should consider whether the Resolution adequately memorializes the intent of the City Council or if the matter should be discussed by reopening the public hearing. Mayor Black stated that Section 7.A. of the Resolution states the following: "Goal 1 and Goa12 of the City's General Plan relating to its Land Use Element set forth policies requiring that development conform with the City's existing low-profile, ranch style architecture and ensure the siting of buildings maintain and preserve viewscapes..." Mayor Black indicated that he believed that at the field trip meeting the City Council found that the project does not obstruct the view of the neighbors at 26 Cinchring Road and that Section 7.A. of the Resolution as he stated is inaccurate. Assistant City Attorney Kettles advised that it would be appropriate at this time to open public comments. In response to Mayor Black's question, Interim City Manager Schwartz clarified that it was the applicant's who stated in several areas of their correspondence to the City Council that the obstxuction of the ridgeline does not obstruct the view of 26 Cinchring Road; however, based on the goals of the General Plan, the City Council made the finding of fact that there is an obstruction of the viewscape from 26 Cinchring Road. Assistant City Attorney Kettles stated that a member of the public could request that a public hearing be reopened at a subsequent meeting. Mayor Black opened public comments. Jeff Lewis, Attorney, 24 Cinchring Road, commented that his clients are requesting that a public hearing be reopened. He stated he and his clients are troubled by some of the findings in the Resolution. Mr. Lewis indicated that a yes vote on this evening's Resolution would include a vote that the proposed modifications do not "preserve viewscapes" as referenced on page 5, Section 7.A., of the Resolution, and that"The proposed Modifications would also be visible from the street and to neighbors" as referenced on page 6, Section 7.B., of the Resolution. Mr. Lewis stated that both of these statements are not supported by substantial evidence. He requested that the public hearing be reopened to decide this matter based on the merits and not based on any statements that an attorney may make later on in a�eposition. Larry Hall, Attorney, 26 Cinchring Road, commented that he believed that the Resolution being considered by the City Council is to affirm the decision made by the PC to deny the application, which is where the language that is being referenced is coming from. Mr. Hall stated that the PC made these determinations. He stated that at the field trip, the City Council had doubts in relation to understanding Minutes City Council Meeting 02-26-18 -2- why the Nakamuras had to stop the constrtiction work as directed in the email from Interim City Manager Schwartz in January 201 b. Gina Filippone, Attorney, 26 Cinchring Road, commented that to reopen a public hearing based on the language in a Resolution that the applicant is challenging seems to be extraordinary. She stated that her clients have been through five work orders, filed a lawsuit, and feel that the Nakamuras will continue to exhaust them. Ms. Filippone stated that the Nakamuras believe the Brunners will eventually give up as it has taken seven years for the process. Allen Rigg, Consultant, 24 Cinchring Road, commented that he and Mr. Lewis provided correspondence to the City Council that states that they both have significant issues with what occurred at the last public hearing. Mr. Rigg stated that he and Mr. Lewis have issues with the findings in particular. He �tated that if the public hearing is reopened, he hopes that the City Council will be able to see the merits of the project, in particular in terms of the Resolution. Mr. Rigg stated that there are a significant number of things that he appreciates, one is that the City does not have a view ordinance in the City. Mr. Rigg commented that at the last public hearing, there were at least two City Councilmembers that stated that there were no view impacts on the project. He stated that the Resolution, as part of the findings, indicates that the reason to deny this project is that it was built bigger than the original home; however, there is no building ordinance or growth ordinance that prohibits making a house bigger. Mr. Rigg stated the proposed 800 square foot addition with an,increase of a few feet of ridge height is minimal. He noted that the way the Resolution is written is that any increase in the height of your home or size of your home will get denied. He stated that it also indicates that his clients did not provide any justification for raising the ridge and that his clients do want the ridge in the middle of the structure, which is typical of a home. He stated that the plate height is eight and a half feet at the front, which is an acceptable plate height, and that his clients want a 4 in 12 feet roof pitch. Mr. Rigg stated this is a typical roof pitch. He stated that he has testimony as to why his clients want to make the improvements. Mr. Rigg commented that he is not in favor of the process of how this project came before the City Council. Mr. Rigg stated that he heard that this process of approving the new home was not based on the findings that are in the City's code but to punish his clients for what they have done. He stated that both parties have incurred many costs such as attorney's fees and consultant fees. Mr. Rigg indicated that he believes the findings are not based on merits but based on setting a precedence to not allow this to occur again. Mr. Rigg requested that the hearing be reopened and apologized for the time spent on the project. Mr. Rigg further stated that he believes there are errors in the Resolution. � Hearing no further comments, Mayor Black closed public comments. Mayor Black thanked Interim City Manager Schwartz for providing the heights of the ridgeline. Mayor Black stated that he would like to reopen the public hearing as he feels there are errors in the Resolution. He stated that he believed that at the field trip, the City Council agreed that there was no view obstruction related to a structure and that the reference to the roofline not exceeding 14 feet on page 6 of the Resolution is an error. Mayor Black moved that the City Council reopen the public hearing to a future date in Zoning Case No, 932 at 24 Cinchring Road. In response to Mayor Black's aforementioned cornment, Interim City Manager Schwartz clarified that the reference to the 14 foot roofline is for the accessory structure that was approved behind the house from a Resolution in 2009. She stated that the 2009 Resolution has a condition that the structure will not exceed 14 feet and it is referenced in the proposed Resolution in relationship to the house as it being compatible with the structures on the property that were approved. In response to Councilmember Dieringer's question, Assistant City Attorney Kettles stated that individuals are interpreting the language in the Resolution related to the proposed modifications not preserving viewscapes from adjacent residences as a finding that there is a view obstruction. He stated that he does not read that interpretation to be the same. Assistant City Attorney Kettles stated that he agrees that the language is susceptible to different interpretations and he does not read it the way some of the commenters read it. Councilmember Dieringer commented that her understanding is that because it is more massive and bulky than what was approved, and that it is higher than what was approved, and that, the extent that this modification is higher, it will not preserve the viewscape of the original proposed approved version. Assistant City Attorney Kettles concurred with Councilmember Dieringer's interpretation as being a fair interpretation. Minutes City Council Meeting 02-26-18 -3- Councilmember Dieringer commented that there were no findings that any Councilmember made in their decision at the last hearing that it was because the City Council never wanted this situation to occur again. Councilmember Dieringer indicated, for the record, that she never heard this statement made by a Councilmember. She indicated that page 12 of Mr. Rigg's letter stated the following: "Councilmember Dieringer expressed that she had difficulties visualizing the proposed home as portrayed by the renderings due to the existing temporary construction. In essence she made her decision on the temporary winterization, exposed footings, and lack of elements of the firiished construction such as planters that would reduce massing." Councilmember Dieringer stated, for the record, that is not what she based her decision on; she based her decision on the entirety of the evidence, attended the field trip, and although there were initial difficulties of visualizing the proposed project, after viewing the placement of the flags and lines that were drawn, the project was able to be understood. She stated that this was why she requested that photographs be taken of the project in order to have a visible presentation of what the City Council viewed at the field trip, to provide guidance at the City Council meeting, and thus there would not be any lack of information and would be as precise as possible. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she felt that both sides received a fair hearing at the last City Council meeting. She stated that it was unfortunate that Mayor Black was ill and not able to attend the meeting. Councilmember Mirsch does not feel the matter should be reopened and believes the City Council did their due diligence. She indicated; however, that she would rather err on the side of taking more time to consider the matter by reopening the hearing, especially since Mayor Black expressed some concern about the Resolution and was not able to express his comments. Councilmember Mirsch stated that she does not like residents feeling that they are not being given a fair hearing. CouncilmerMber Mirsch stated that she supports reopening the hearing if that were the wishes of the City Council. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the aforementioned motion made by Mayor Black. Councilmember Mirsch further stated there is so much that has occurred over the years; however, she feels that she was able to remove all the extraneous matters as Mr. Rigg has asked the City Council not tQ focus on how the project got to this point, but only whether the City Council could make the findings for this project. Councilmember Mirsch indicated that she made an effort to view the project this way. She stated that the finding she could not make is the reference to maintaining views and viewscapes from adjacent neighbors. Councilmember Mirsch stated that when she,visited the site, she never said that there was no view impact; she stated that it was obvious that the neighbors could always see the house that was there at 24 Cinchring Road. Councilmember Mirsch indicated that the reason given by the applicant for the extra height was due to the pitch of the roof and the desire for a loft because the house had a loft before. She feels that this does not justify raising the height up and not because the residents at 26 Cinchring Road said they had a view and could not see the house at 24 Cinchring Road before. She stated that there is nothing that prohibits building a house in front of another property. She stated that the residents of 26 Cinchring Road have an ample view around the side of 24 Cinchring Road and over 24 Cinchring Road; however, raising the house at 24 Cinchring Road up and building it out does impact the massing that can be seen from 26 Cinchring Road. Councilmember Mirsch stated that this is what she was basing her findings on and even though the City does not have height restrictions, the City consistently reviews the height and mass of a project. She stated she would have pushed back on this project as a Planning Commissioner. Councilmember Mirsch indicated that the owners of 2b Cinchring Road made a decision based on plans of what would be built at 24 Cinchring Road, and if any changes were going to be made, they would have had a chance to provide their input before the PC as part of the regular process, instead of seeing an as build structure. Councilmember Mirsch concurred with Councilmember Dieringer's aforementioned comment related to the City Council making decisions on facts and not because they do not want this situation to occur again. Councilmember Pieper stated that he previously served on the PC, that he is the most liberal PC member and treats everyone the same. He stated that this is part of the reason he is serving. Councilmember Pieper stated that if the project started in the PC, it would not have been approved the way it is not because of the way the roof pitches or the height, but because of the way it looks and comes out of the ground. He stated that the project would not have been approved and that the PC would have worked with the applicants all the way through. He stated that he always asks if the project makes sense and that there is no punishment involved. Councilmember Pieper indicated that he read many of the past PC staff reports and minutes to get all the background information on the project. Councilmember Dieringer stated that the City Council has never reopened a hearing in the past due to the absence of a Councilmember and that there is no new information being presented. She stated that the City Council was careful in making a decision based nn the evidence and that it would not be fair to have another hearing. Minutes City Council Meeting 02-26-18 -4- Mayor Pro Tem Wilson clarified that when he was asked to postpone the hearing at the last City Council meeting, there were many people in attendance ready to participate in the hearing. Mayor Pro Tetn Wilson indicated that it seemed appropriate to hold the hearing at that time and that none of the other City Councilmembers expressed an interest in postponing the hearing so that is why the City Council went forward with it. A roll call vote was taken at this time on the aforementioned motion that the City Council reopen the public hearing to a future date in Zoning Case No. 932 at 24 Cinchring Road. The motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: COiJNCILMEMBERS: Mirsch and Black. NOES: COLTNCILMEMBERS: Dieringer,Pieper and Wilson. ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSTAIN: COLTNCILMEMBERS: None. In response to questions by the City Council related to language in the Resolution, Interim City Manager Schwartz clarified that the intent of the language is not to state that there is a view that is being obstructed. She stated that it is not a specific view that the Brunners are losing but a reference to a broad definition to maintain and preserve viewscapes of the City per the General Plan. Councilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1221 in Zoning Case No. 932 at 24 Cinchring Road as presented. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Dieringer, Mirsch, Pieper and Wilson. NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Black. ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSTAIN: COiJNCILMEMBERS: None. B. ADOPTION OF A NON-BINDING CLIMATE ACTION PLAN WHICH INCLUDES ESTABLISHING A GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BASELINE, FORECASTING EMISSION REDUCTIONS, AND ESTABLISHING FUTURE REDUCTION TARGETS. Acting Planning Director Stewart presented a summary of the staff report. She stated the recommendation is to consider the adoption of a non-binding Climate Action Plan (CAP) that was prepared by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG). Acting Planning Director Stewart indicated that a grant was received by the SBCOG to fund the preparation of the CAP and that this is the second phase of the grant. She stated the first phase addressed energy efficiency measures. She indicated that a SBCOG representative,Kim Fuentes,would make a presentation. Kim Fuentes,Deputy Executive Director, SBCCOG, presented a summary of the CAP as follows: 1) The CAP is a visioning document and provides an opportunity to secure funding for the City and subregion; 2) The CAP supports City policies, regulatory requirements, the General Plan, purchasing policies and any strategic plans the City would have in the future; 3) The CAP addresses reduction of green house gases; 4) The structure of the plan has goals, measures and substrategies; 5) The SBCCOG prepared 15 CAPs for all the South Bay Cities; 6) All Cities have approved their CAP except for a few Cities including Roliing Hills; 7) The CAP was drafted in a template addressing the City's specific strategies; 8) At the last City Council meeting there was a question regarding what type of funding might be available; 9) Ms. Fuentes pointed out funding sources in the CAP; 10) If the City adopts the CAP, the SBCCOG will work with other Cities with similar strategies and package them for submission for grant funding; 11) The SBCCOG will also partner with the utility companies to identify projects to bring to the residents such as solar programs, educational tools and newslette'r articles; 12) During the public discussion at the previaus City Council meeting,residents wanted to see a stronger plan; however, Ms. Fuentes stated this is not the intent of this document; this document is meant to be a broad document; and 13) A stronger CAP could be prepared later. Councilmember Dieringer expressed concern with the CAP stating that the City will have to implement all of the goals and that there is limited staff�to execute them. She inquired if receiving this document as a policy guidance document and using it to assess and prioritize future projects in the City would prevent the City from partnering with the SBCCOG for grants. Ms. Fuentes responded that if the CAP was adopted by the City Council it would allow the SBCCOG to report to the state that all cities in its jurisdiction adopted a CAP and that would support a stronger Minutes City Council Meeting 02-26-18 -5- argument for submitting for grants. Mayor Black commented that there are ways to do this as it is non�binding, but rather than adopting it the City Council can accept it as this is what was done in the past. Interim City Manager Schwartz stated that there was a similar discussion for the Energy Conservation Plan, and the City Council agreed to "accept"it and not adopt it. Discussion followed related to the use of language such as "non-binding", "accepted" or "adopted" to reflect the City's support of the CAP. Councilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council strike the word "Adopt" and replace with "Accept in principle" on page 1 of the staff report and adopt the following motion: Accept in principle the City of Rolling Hills Climate Action Plan with the existing approved EE chapter and the additional LUT, Waste, Greening, and Energy Generation/Storage chapters as a policy guidance document for assessing, prioritizing, and implementing future projects within the City. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion,which camed without objection by a roll call vote as follows: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Dieringer,Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Black. NOES: COiTNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT: COiJNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSTAIN: COITNCILMEMBERS: None. 8. NEW BUSINESS None. 9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS A. FIRE FUEL REDUCTION AD-HOC COMMITTEE REPORT. Mayor Black called for the report. Interim City Manager Schwartz noted that correspondence was received from Clint Patterson, Rick Boos, Jill Smith and Pamela Reis expressing support of the City's proactive management of the removal of dead vegetation�in the City. Councilmember Mirsch presented her report as follows: 1) The Dead Vegetation Enforcement Ad Hoc Subcommittee's (Comrnittee) purpose is to determine the feasibility of using the existing City's fire fuel abatement ordinance to remove dead vegetation and changing the City's role from a complaint driven enforcement to a proactive enforcement process; 2)The Los Angeles County Fire Department's (LACFD} enforcement of defensible space is 200 feet from structures; 3) The City has adopted a more stringent position on fire fuel abatement that encompasses any part of the property; 4)Many of the City's properties have unvegetated or open spaces that grow weeds and grasses that then die and become fuel if they are not cleared; 5) This matter was brought up by residents who expressed their concerns at City Council meetings regarding dead grasses and asked the City to take action and mandate that dead vegetation be cleared; 6) The City has placed articles in the newsletter and distril�uted pamphlets to educate residents; 7) If no enforcement is done, there is a small percentage of residents that, through negligence or lack of awareness, will not comply and the result is that the fire fuel will remains; 8) Residents do not like to report on their neighbors; 9) Fire fuel could be located in canyons where some residents are not aware of and they may also think the dead vegetation along the trails belongs to the Rolling Hills Community Association and is not on their property; 10) The Committee agreed to determine if this issue is isolated to one or two properties in the City or is a condition throughout the City; 11) Mayor Black and Councilmember Mirsch separately made observations �f properties from the roads and trails and found dozens of properties with dead vegetation; 12) T'he Committee believes that this amount of hazardous material warrants the City's attention and efforts to mitigate the hazardous conditions; 13) The Committee feels that the City's current practice is inadequate to address the safety of the City and its residents and recommends a proactive enforcement of the ordinance; 14) The City's ordinance is separate from LACFD's requirements; 15) The Committee reviewed �he resources available to implement the program and believes it would create an increase in staff's workload due to the limited staff resources; 16) The Committee does not feel it is acceptable to allow hazardous conditions to exist because of limited resources; 17) The Committee recognizes that resources will need to be allocated for this project and suggests that the City Council direct staff to explore the best practices to proactively enforce Chapter 8.30 of the municipal code; 18) The Committee recommends that the resources and costs required to implement this program be brought back to the City Council for consideration; 19) The Committee Minutes City Council Meeting 02-26-18 -6- recommends to take immediate action; 20) Fines were discussed; however, the Committee feels fines are not necessary to impose at this time; 21) The Committee discussed concerns that were received from residents who opposed the proactive enforcement of the ordinance and determined that there is broad support from residents who feel it is incumbent upon the City Council to protect the City from hazardous conditions and reduce fire fuel; 22) The Committee discussed concerns received from residents who felt that the City would abuse its powers; 23) The Committee determined that the proactive enforcement would only be limited to dead vegetation; 24) The Committee found significant amounts of other dead vegetation such as trees and Palm fronds and recommends expanding the scope to consider all dead vegetation and follow what is outlined in Chapter 8.30 of the municipal code, 25) In response to Councilmember Dieringer's concerns that proactive enforcement would conflict with the efforts af the LACFD, such as the implementation of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), or would encourage residents to clear their brush in an unsafe or environmentally unsound manner, the Committee believes the issue is with the enforcement component of the ordinance and is not suggesting anything that would be in conflict with any of the LACFD programs; 26) The Committee recommends using LACFD's brush clearance guidelines to address watershed concerns; 27) The Committee encourages the continuance of the standing Fire Fuel Reduction Ad Hoc Subcommittee to continue its work with the LACFD to develop a CWPP for the City and to include inspection and enforcement components; and 28) The Committee believes the existing ordinance, which extends the requirement to remove dead vegetation beyond the defensible space area enforced by LACFD, provides critical additional protection needed for the prevention of wildfires and proactive enforcement should be a priority for the City and staff. Mayor Black opened public comments. Marsha Shoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive, commented that she feels the proactive enforcement of the ordinance is redundant and is shocked that the City now wants to give themselves more power. Ms. Shoettle stated that the proactive enforcement is not as simple as it was presented and expressed support of the LACFD's efforts to clear dead vegetation. She further stated that most residents follow the requirements of the fire department. Sue Breiholz, 6 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road, commented that she feels it is the City's responsibiliry to enforce the safety of the City. She stated she has observed fields of dead vegetation and grass outside of the 200 foot LACFD requirement that have not been addressed. She expressed support of the proposed program: Gene Honbo, 33 Portuguese Bend Road, stated that he hikes the trails and has observed a lot of properties that do not maintain their canyons and that the bottom of the trails are filled with debris. He expressed support of the proposed proactive enforcement of the ordinance. Jill Smith, 10 Georgeff Road, stated that�she submitted correspondence to the City Council expressing concern with the dead vegetation in the canyons and in the lower trails. She expressed support of the proposed proactive enforcement of the ordinance. John Nunn, 1 Crest Road West, commented that he supports the removal of dead vegetation. He expressed concerns with creating more compulsion. Mr. Nunn stated that residents have not been told to clear dead vegetation in the canyons;thus he does not feel proactive enforcement is necessary. J. Lopez, LACFD, Forestry Division, stated that he appreciates all the comments made related to LACFD's enforcement of the 200 foot requirement. He indicated that the state's regulations require clearance up to 100 feet and LACFD requires clearance up to 200 feet. He indicated that the state and LACFD both meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. Mr. Lopez stated that he is obligated to inform the City that CEQA compliance is required for private properties. Discussion followed among the City Council and Mr. Lopez concerning the CEQA requirements, LACFD's 200 foot clearance requirements, the CWPP, educational tools for the public,Hazard Mitigation Plan,grants and best practices from the CWPP. Mr. Lopez provided a handout that summarized the CEQA requirements. Further discussion ensued concerning the CEQA requirements, past fires in the City, fire prevention preparedness, dead vegetation management and best management practices from the CWPP. Hearing no further comments, Mayor Black closed public comments. Minutes City Council Meeting 02-26-18 -'7- Mayor Black commented that he would like to extend beyond the 200 foot requirement for brush clearance. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson inquired if compliance would�e possible without fines. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Wilson's question, Councilmember Mirsch clarified that the City only pursues enforcement of the ordinance on a complaint basis and that if proactive enforcement is adopted, the Committee felt that fines would not be necessary since residents have not been made aware of the additional areas, such as canyons,to clear. Discussion followed among the Councilmembers regarding compliance from the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy, CEQA compliance, the adoption of a ,CWPP, and costs to implement a proactive enforcement program of the fire fuel abatement ordinance. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council direct staff to research and provide recommendations on implementing a proactive fire fuel reduction program and the cost. Acting Planning Director Stewart recommended that City Council direct staff to review the proposed program to proactively enforce the fire fuel abatement ordinance on an entire property and how it would effect CEQA regulation. Councilmember Pieper offered an amended motion that the City Council direct staff to research and provide recommendations on implementing a proaetive fire fuel reduction program that includes brush clearance of the entire property and the cost. Mayor Pro Tern Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection by the following roll call vote: AYES: COiJNCILMEMBERS: Dieringer,Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Black. NOES: COiJNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT: COiTNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSTAIN: COLJNCILMEMBERS: None. At this time other matters from the City Council were discussed. � Councilmember Dieringer provided the City Council with a copy of a report from the League of California Cities entitled"Retirement Systems Sustainability Study and Findings." 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF None. 11. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Black adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, March 12, 201 S at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall;2 Portuguese Bend Road,Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, � ���+�� Yv�. te Hall � City Clerk Approved, I r � � � �� � atrick i son Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 02-26-18 -g-