6/11/2003MINUTES OF
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
WITH THE ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 11, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills with the Rolling
Hills Community Association Board of Directors was called to order by Mayor Hill at 7:32 p.m.
in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
Mayor Hill welcomed those in attendance. Board President Don Crocker requested that items
3-A, 3-B and 3-C be held on the Agenda until the arrival of Councilmember Black.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Black, Lay, Pernell Mayor Pro Tem Heinsheimer and Mayor
Hill.
Board Members Present: Moen, Schnabel, Vice President Black and President Crocker.
Codncilmembers Absent: None.
Board Members Absent: Howroyd (excused).
Others Present: Craig Nealis, City Manager.
Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager.
Mike Jenkins,City Attorney.
Sid Croft, RHCA Legal Counsel.
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director.
Marilyn Kern, Deputy City Clerk.
Mr. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West.
Mr. Fred Lorig,1 Spur Lane.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
COORDINATION OF PLANNING, ARCHITECTURAL, LANDSCAPE AND
EASEMENT REVIEWS.
City Manager Nealis presented the staff report. In response to RHCA Board Vice President
Black, City Manager Nealis reported that the Planning Commission has the discretion- to add
landscaping conditions as part of their approval of a residential development and that this
condition is usually imposed for screening of the development, revegetation of a graded areas
or for erosion control connected with the project. He explained that the Commission usually
requires the applicant to provide a financial bond to guarantee the installation of the required
landscaping and irrigation. He further explained that the landscaping that is imposed by the
Commission must relate specifically to the development project and that the Commission
does not have the authority to impose specific introduction or deletion of existing landscaping
that is not directly connected to the land use application.
RHCA Board Vice President Black questioned whether the Commission delineates the type of
tree that may obstruct a view in the future. City Manager Nealis explained that during
Commission review, it is very common for the Commission to impose conditions to ensure
that no new trees, at maturity, grow above the roof height of the structure, but that it is up to
the discretion of the Commission.
Councilmember Lay explained that he is a former member of the Planning Commission and
provided background regarding the Commission's previous course of action of paying
attention to not imposing encroachments on easements or clearing of vegetation as part of
their deliberation on development applications. He indicated that the RHCA had objected to
this practice because it preempted their authority over easements. Councilmember Lay
explained that the Planning Commission may, but is not required, to ask for a landscape plan
and that requiring a plan usually depends upon the magnitude of the development. He said
that as the City Manager reported, the Commission may stipulate the types or heights of trees
required in a landscape plan and that the Commission almost always requires landscape plans
where a large amount of grading is involved. He explained that the Commission usually
Minutes
City Council/RHCA Board of Directors
Joint Meeting
06/11/03 -1-
requires that the applicant use native plants. Councilmember Lay explained that staff
completes the review of landscape plans and that in the last year a staff level landscape review
committee had been established which includes the Planning Director and the Chair of the
RHCA Landscape Committee.
Councilmember Lay commented on the architectural review by the Community Association
and indicated that it is his understanding that the Architectural Review Committee does not
require a landscape plan. He also commented on the RHCA Landscape Review Committee
and the RHCA Easement Committee and indicated that he feels that there should be a way for
the City's Planning Commission and Landscape Committee work more closely together with
the RHCA Committees. In response to RHCA Board Vice President Black, Mayor Hill
explained that the Commission has been increasingly concerned about the long-term effects of
landscaping.
RHCA Board President Crocker commented on future view obstructions. City Manager
Nealis explained that Planning Commission resolutions are recorded against the property
thereby putting future owners of a particular property on notice regarding any landscape
requirements. RHCA Board President Crocker indicated that he feels that the Planning
Commission is in a better position to impose these types of conditions on properties because
the RHCA does not have the means to record such conditions against properties.
Board Member Moen indicated that he feels that problems may occur if residents feel that they
are being ping-ponged between the two bodies. He commented on the RHCA's policy of
keeping easements open. He also commented on the Commission's granting of Variances for
setbacks which may encroach into an easement causing the applicant to come to the RHCA for
a license agreement which may be denied, causing the applicant to return to the Planning
Commission. City Manager Nealis reported that if anyone comes to City staff with a setback
encroachment request that involves an easement, that staff does not process the application
unless it is first approved by the RHCA. Councilmember Lay stated that he feels that
Caballeros attendance at Planning Commission field trips is very helpful in addressing the
usefulness of easements.
Discussion ensued regarding landscape plans and view corridors. RHCA Board President
Crocker commented on the agony that is associated with view impairment issues by all parties
involved and indicated that a detailed landscape plan in the beginning which looks to solve
future view issues could alleviate this. In response to RHCA Board Vice President Black,
Councilmember Lay explained that sometimes it does not make sense for the Commission to
require a landscape plan for small projects such as for a 200 sq. ft. residential addition.
Further discussion ensued regarding the Planning Commission's review of residential
developments and landscape conditions relative to the height of certain trees that have a nexus
to the proposed development. Mayor Hill commented on the sensitivity level of the view
issue and stated that he feels that both entities are moving in the right direction to maintain
views in the City. RHCA Board President Crocker commented on a trees and views flyer
created by Planning Commissioner Arvel Witte. Planning Director Schwartz indicated that
this document could be revisited since the RHCA had completed their policy on views.
Councilmember Pernell commented on the issue of view preservation in the City and City's
and RHCA's view preservation processes that are available to residents. RHCA Board
President Crocker indicated that Board Members Schnabel and Moen are working on the
easement issue for the RHCA. Councilmembers and Board Members discussed how to best
maintain the views in the City. It was agreed that at the time of the inception of a residential
development project through the Planning Commission would be the best time to ensure that
landscaping will not become a view issue in the future. RHCA Board Member Schnabel
indicated that she feels the Planning Commission, Landscape and the Easement Committees
could be involved in making sure that future view impairments do not become an issue.
After discussion, both the City Council and the RHCA Board agreed to be cognizant of each
other's policies and procedures. The RHCA indicated that the Easement Committee will
review easement license agreements very carefully. Councilmember Lay suggested that both
Landscape Committees work together and coordinate the review of landscape plans. RHCA
Board Member Moen reported that the Easement Committee will be recommending that the
RHCA not grant easement licenses unless there is an absolute, compelling reason.
In response to Mayor Hill, City Attorney Jenkins explained that the City may enforce
landscaping conditions that have been imposed by the Commission should the applicant be
out of compliance with that condition in the future.
Minutes
City Council/RHCA Board of Directors
Joint Meeting
06/11/03 -2-
VIEW IMPAIRMENT.
Councilmember Black commented on the City's and the RHCA's procedures to resolve view
issues in the City as well as the landscape committees of both entities. In response to
Councilmember Black, City Attorney Jenkins explained that as a City, we are constitutionally
constrained not to impose conditions that do not relate to the impacts created by a particular
project. He indicated that there has to be a relationship between what is being applied for and
it's impact and the conditions that are being imposed. If the conditions go beyond the impact
of what is being applied for, then those conditions are arguably arbitrary or they do not
advance a general governmental interest. He explained that in some instances landscape and
view conditions may be imposed on properties that are being developed during the Site Plan
Review process and that the Commission does this on a site by site, project by project basis.
RHCA Board President Crocker commented on the City and the RHCA view resolution
procedures and on litigation that occurred due to the view ordinances in other municipalities.
He explained the deed restrictions of the RHCA and indicated that they contain a provision for
the resolution of view impairment issues. He further explained the adoption of the RHCA
view impairment resolution and the concerns that had been expressed about the mature
growth in the City and that persons have the right to a view. RHCA Board President Crocker
explained the view corridors established by the RHCA and what they feel is an equitable
solution to view issues between neighbors. He explained the City's View Preservation
Ordinance. He stated that he feels that the ultimate solution to view issues is for neighbors to
work together. He indicated that there are a few properties in the City that do not have view
impairment deed restrictions and that those property owners are referred to the City.
RHCA Board Vice President Ralph Black commented on the costs associated with the City and
RHCA view impairment procedures. He also commented on the mediation process of the
City. RHCA Board President Crocker commented on the expenses associated with the City's
view impairment process to obtain a survey and labels that are used to provide notices of the
public hearing. Councilmember Lay commented on the legal issues and requirements
associated with the City's view impairment process.
In response to Mr. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West, City Manager Nealis. explained that
currently there are no view impairment cases pending before the City. He explained that 2
cases had been brought before the City since 1990 and that 1 was settled between the property
owners and the other went through the process. He indicated that City staff has handed out
approximately 30 view impairment packets and that he feels that residents use that packet to
meet with their neighbors.
Mr. Fred Lorig, 1 Spur Lane, commented on the City's view impairment process and the
survey that is required and the costs associated with this survey. He commented on the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes', the City of Rolling Hills Estates' and the City of Tiburon s view
impairment processes and indicated that he is not aware of a survey requirement associated
with those view impairment processes.
In response to Councilmember Pernell, RHCA Manager Peggy Minor indicated that all of the
properties on Eastfield Drive do not have the deed restriction relative to views. She also
indicated that there are also a few properties on Crest Road as well as Cinchring Road and
Quail Ridge Road South that do not have the deed restriction.
In response to Mr. Lorig, City Manager Nealis explained that the View Impairment
Application does not require a survey of all of the trees on the property but does require a
survey of the structures on the property and their relationships and distances from the
property line. He reported that staff works with the applicants to obtain enough information
so that all interested parties may be able to ascertain what the complaint is over. He indicated
that photographs depicting the view impairment have been provided in the past. He reported
that an important component of the application is the 1,000 ft. radius map with address labels
so that the public hearing can be duly noticed as required in the Code.
In response to Mr. Colyear, City Manager Nealis explained that a 3 member Committee
currently exists, however, one member may not be able to serve and another may not wish to
continue to serve on this Committee. He indicated that if the City receives a complaint, staff
would query this Committee to see if they wished to continue to serve and if not, the City
would advertise for any vacancies as required by State Law. He indicated that there would be
enough time for this action due to the mediation process.
After discussion, based on the finalization of the RHCA View Guidelines and Procedures
Resolution, City staff indicated that they would revisit the status of Planning Commissioner
Arvel Witte's informational brochure on trees and views.
Minutes
City Council/RHCA Board of Directors
Joint Meeting
06/11/03 -3-
STORM HILL PROPERTY DONATED TO CITY.
Councilmember Black commented on the 8 acre parcel donated to the City by the Storm
family. He indicated that Caballeros has established a Committee to establish horse trails in
the.area and that he suggests that walking paths and a picnic area would be a good use for this
property. He also indicated that he feels that this would be a good opportunity to make use of
this donated land that has set dormant for such a long time. He reported that the Storm
family had indicated that there may be funds available through their foundation to make
improvements. He indicated that he understands that this property would have to be leased
to the Association in order to maintain the privacy of the site.
RHCA Board Member Crocker indicated that he feels that Caballeros or other clubs should be
queried as to what uses they would suggest for this property to come up with a plan that has
broad community support. He commented that irrigation would be necessary if the site were
to be improved. Discussion ensued regarding a trail that leads to the property.
Councilmembers and Board Members discussed the costs that may be associated with
development of this property and what amenities would suit this property as well as funding
methods for this proposed project. Councilmember Black indicated that funds have been
offered by the Storm family for a project and that they would like to see this property used.
In response to Councilmember Black, Mayor Pro Tem Heinsheimer indicated that the City's
lease agreement with the RHCA is amendable at any time.
After discussion, the RHCA indicated that they will place an item on a future agenda and ask
Caballeros to propose uses for this property for consideration by the RHCA Board of
Directors and ultimately the City Council.
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.
Councilmember Black commented on underground utility requirements related to two recent
subdivisions and the fact that this undergrounding has not been completed. He commented
on reserve funds available at the City and the RHCA and inquired whether these funds could
be used to further the efforts of individual homeowners to underground their utilities.
City Manager Nealis explained that since 1982, there have been 7 subdivision applications that
had been finaled. He indicated that 4 of these subdivisions had agreements to complete
certain utility work after adoption of each final map. He explained that staff is currently
working with a property owner on Portuguese Bend Road and Edison to try to determine
whether more poles could be privately eliminated by other property owners in the area at the
same time. He further explained that Edison is willing to meet with homeowners interested in
undergrouding their utilities to discuss a private undergrounding project.
City Manager Nealis reported that the original Underground Utility Feasibility Study is on file
at City Hall and that it may assist residents wishing to privately underground utilities. In
response to Councilmember Black, City Manager Nealis explained that Rule 20A Funds must
be used on major thoroughfares and he indicated that City general funds would not be eligible
to be used on a private undergrounding project. City Manager Nealis explained a program in
Palos Verdes Estates where the City would assist homeowners in establishing a private
underground utility project to help fund initial engineering costs. He explained that these
funds are paid back to the City if the project moves forward.
Mayor Pro Tem Heinsheimer commented on the Underground Utility Feasibility Study and its
usefulness in assisting and encouraging homeowners that may wish to underground their
utilities. In response to Councilmember Black, RHCA Board President Crocker stated that
there is no public benefit by using all residents' tax money to only benefit a certain portion of
the community. He indicated that underground projects on major thoroughfares benefit all
residents.
Mayor Pro Tem Heinsheimer commented on the City's requirements that residents must
underground their utilities during certain residential developments on their property.
Councilmember Black stated that he feels that the City should set a goal of eliminating as
many utility poles as possible when ever the opportunity arises.
In response to RHCA Board Vice President Black, City Manager Nealis commented on the
agreements for underground utilities that have been initiated in certain subdivision approvals.
He indicated that in one case, a property owner was in default of the agreement to
Minutes
City Council/RHCA Board of Directors
Joint Meeting
06/11/03 -4-
underground utilities and that the City Council just authorized another agreement for this
property owner. He indicated that in the other subdivision case, the information submitted
from Edison indicated that a portion of the underground work had been completed and that
the applicant had paid and entered into an agreement with Edison to have the wires pulled
and therefore the subdivision was given final approval without an agreement. In response to
RHCA Board Vice President Black, City Manager Nealis explained that subdividers are legally
permitted to enter into development agreements under the subdivision laws of the State.
RHCA Board Vice President Black suggested that the City review and amend Municipal Code
Section 16.20.140 relating to subdivision underground utility requirements.
In response to RHCA Board Vice President Black, Mayor Hill explained a problem with an
underground utility vault on Crest Road that contained a transformer that had failed several
times causing residents to become upset with the power outages. He indicated that this
equipment was eventually placed above ground and that it was determined that having these
electric facilities underground is not practical in all cases and that these types of facilities may
be placed above ground if necessary and can be well screened. He stated that he feels that
revising Municipal Code Section 16.20.140 may not allow for this to occur. He indicated that
the electrical service provided by this above ground transformer has been much better since it
was placed above ground.
Mr. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West, inquired about Rule 20A Funds. In response,
Mayor Hill explained Edison's reporting of Rule 20A funds and indicated that it accrues a
relatively small amount each year. He also explained how the funds are applied and indicated
that they are relatively restrictive. Mayor Pro Tem Heinsheimer explained the current Rule
20A project on Crest Road which will utilized the Rule 20A funds accrued in past years.
City Manager Nealis indicated that the Code Section referred to by RHCA Board Vice
President Black had been placed before the City Council and RHCA Board this evening. He
stated that the language states that the equipment "may" be placed above ground, but does
not require the equipment to be above ground and does not prevent it from being
underground.
In response to RHCA Board Vice President Black, City Manager Nealis explained that during
the subdivision process, poles that are required to be removed are identified by pole number
during the public hearings before the Commission and City Council. Councilmember Lay
explained that the Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council relative to
subdivisions. RHCA Board Vice President Black stated that he feels that the City should have
a structured formal square footage verses poles requirement/ ratio used during the
subdivision process. Mayor Hill responded that he feels that the process is very specific and
explained how the Commission recommendations on subdivisions are reviewed by the City
Council. He also explained that numerous public hearings are conducted before any decisions
are made. Mayor Pro Tem Heinsheimer stated that it is the City's policy to get every pole that
touches the subject property underground during the subdivision process. He indicated that
in some cases this is not always possible and that having a formula for underground utilities
would not always achieve the intended goal and that it is better to leave it to the discretion of
the Planning Commission. In response to RHCA Board Vice President Black, Mayor Pro Tem
Heinsheimer stated that the City cannot impose as part of a subdivision that the entire street
be undergrounded. Councilmember Pernell explained that each of the requirements for a
residential development must have a nexus to the project. Also in response to RHCA Board
Vice President Black, Mayor Pro Tem Heinsheimer stated that he feels that the Planning
Commission and the City Council have been aggressive relative to undergrounding efforts.
After further discussion, City staff indicated that they would continue to provide assistance in
the initiation of private undergrounding efforts.
CONSIDERATION OF ROLLING HILLS FOUNDATION.
RHCA Board Vice President Black explained the fundraising efforts of local hospitals and
indicated that he would like to see the City raise funds for projects such as undergrounding
utilities. He commented on the tax benefit of donating funds and explained the foundation
created in the City of Rolling Hills Estates.
City Attorney Jenkins explained that undergrounding projects have both public and private
benefits. He explained how and why an assessment district for certain improvements is
formed. He stated that California law allows Cities to form assessment districts because it
enhances the value of a property. He talked about how assessments may be tax deductible.
He indicated that donations to a City are tax deductible as long as the donated funds are used
for a public purpose. Mayor Pro Tem Heinsheimer stated that he feels that the City should be
careful not to set up a financial mechanism that may challenge the private status of the City.
Minutes
City Council/RHCA Board of Directors
Joint Meeting
06/11/03 -5-
After further discussion, no action was taken.
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SECURITY.
Cotincilmember Black commented on a recent survey circulated by the RHCA relative to the
operation of the gates, which would make the gate guards more available to patrol roadways.
He also explained that the City has initiated an extra traffic enforcement program. He said
that this is a temporary program and that the City is hoping to make it more permanent.
RHCA Board President Crocker explained that the gate guards do not carry guns and cannot
arrest anyone. He stated that they only control the right to enter the private roads. He stated
that the City is in charge of safety. After discussion, no action was taken.
LITIGATION EXPENSES.
Cotincilmember Black commented on the City's budget and the increased insurance expense
due to litigation. After a brief discussion, no action was taken.
Mayor Hill asked for any further comments on the items discussed on the agenda. Mayor Pro
Tem Heinsheimer commented that he felt that there was a clear policy that the City or the
Association would not take action on approval on anything that presupposed the approval by
the other entity. Councilmember Lay commented on residential developments with setback
problems that come before the City may cause the applicant to request an easement reduction
with the RHCA. RHCA Board Member Moen indicated that the RHCA will not grant an
easement license agreement unless there is an absolute compelling reason. City Manager
Nealis indicated that staff and the Planning Commission are aware of this situation, however,
sometimes a resident feels that an easement reduction may benefit their case.
RECESS
Hearing no further discussion, at 9:25 p.m., Mayor Hill recessed the meeting and the RHCA
Board adjourned.
The meeting reconvened at 9:36 p.m. and Mayor Lay moved that the City Council add a
closed session to the Agenda. Councilmember Black seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously. City Attorney Jenkins reported that the City Council would conduct the closed
session under 94956.9(c) which is potential initiation of litigation relative to one particular case.
At 9:52 p.m., the City Council returned to regular session and it was announced that no
reportable action was taken in closed session.
ADTOURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Hill adjourned the meeting at 9:53
p.m. to the next regular meeting of the City Council to be held on Monday, June 23, 2003,
beginning at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road,
Rolling Hills, California.
Approved
Frank E. Hill
Mayor
Minutes
City Council/RHCA Board of Directors
Joint Meeting
06/11/03
Respectfully submitted,
4h/�'J
Marilyn Kefn
Deputy City Clerk
W
1