Loading...
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