Loading...
01-11-16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HIL,LS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY,JANUARY 11,20I6 CALL TO ORDER __ A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Pie�er at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Partuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilrnembers Presen#: Black, Dieringer,Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Pieper. Counci�members Absent: None. Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Mike Jenkins, City Attomey. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Directar. Terry Shea, Finance Director. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Wendy Starks,Associate Planner. William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane. Lynn Gill, 3 i Chuckwagon Road. Norm Millex, 4 Chesterfield Road. Howard Weinberg,Attorney. Roger Hawkins; 37 Crest Road West. Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West. Tom Heinsheimer, 7 Johns Canyon Road. John Blazevich, 1 Buggy Whip Drive. Spencer Karpf, 8 Maverick Lane. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West. John Nunn, 1 Crest Road West. V'Etta Virtue, 4 Ma�erick Lane. 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—(1}Regular Meeting of November 9,2015 and{2)Regular Meeting of November 23, 2015. RECOMMENDATIDN: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMII�NDATION: Approve as presented. C. Consideration of the City Council Appro�ed Vendor List. RECOMMENDATION: A�prove as presented. D. Considexation of Fiscal Year 2Q16/2017 Budget Preparation Calendar. REC�II�VVIEENllATION: Approve as presented. E. City Council FinanceBudget/Audit Committee meeting notes of December 17, 2015. RECOMMENDATIQN; Receive and file. Couricilmember B�ack moved that the City Cauncil approve the items on the consent calendar as presented. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Mayor Pieper suggested taking New Business i#ems 7A and 7B pertaining ta the Audit REpart and consideration of opening a new checking account out of order. Hearing no objectian,he so ordered. -1- NEW BUSINESS CONSIDER.ATION OF T'HE 2014-15 ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDIT. Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staf�s comments. Finance Director Shea presented the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report {C.AFR) stating that the auditors have pro�ided an independent report to the City Council along with the CAFR which provides an unmadified opinion which is the highest level of assurance that the auditors can give. He noted that there was a significant change in the repart this yeaa� as required by the Go�ernmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB} which mandated that City record its unfunded Ca1PERS pension Iiability{GA�B 68). He further re�iewed Statement of Net Positions noting that the net pension liability is shown at $421,924 as of June 30, 2014. Councilmember Black commented that the number reparted is inaccurate because it is based on an inaccurate rate o� return. Mr. Shea further stated �at the City's total net position is $6.5 rnillion and unrestricted of$4.8 million and then reviewed the Governmenta� Fund balances as well as the statement of revenues and expendituxes. Brief discussion ensued concerning the City's unfi�nded pension liability and the actual rate of return which is lower and would:result in a higher liability. Following brief discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer moved that the City Council receive and fiIe 2014- I S Comprehensive Annuai Financial Report. Councilmember Black seconded �he motion, which carried without objection. CONSIDERATION OF �PENING AN INTEREST NOW CHECKING ACCOUNT WITH OPUS BANK. Mayor Pieper introduced tl�e item and asked for sta.f�s comments. Finance Director Shea presented the staff report which recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to open a new checking accaunt at Opus Bank in order to increase the City's investment. He stated that the City is currently involved in a Certificate of Deposit Accaunt Registry (CDAR)through Malaga Bank but the rate of return has dropped fram .65% �a .25%. He stated that Opus Bank will guarantee the City a rate of .65% if $1,000,000 is invested far a 1-year term. Mr. Shea further reviewed Opus Bank's collateralization. Following brief discussion conceming the collateralization and ather in�estment options, Councilmember Black moved that the City Council authorize the City Manager to open an Interest Now Checking Account with Opus Bank and deposit $1,000,000 of the City's funds into the account. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion,which carried without objection. COMMISSION ITEMS RESOLUTION NO. 2015-23. A RESOLUTION OF TI� PLANNING COiVIlVIISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL �F A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN ADDITION AND CONSTRUCTI�N OF A POOL EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE ON A PROPERTY WITH RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION; GRADING FOR A GUEST PARKING AREA AND VARIANCES TO LOCATE THE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE SITE, TO EXCEED THE MAXTMUM PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE, AND T� LOCATE A PORTION OF A 3' HIGH RETAINING WALL WITHIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 884 AT 13 OUTRIDER ROAD, (LOT 94-A-EF),ROLLING HILLS, CA, (HANG JA YO�). Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for stafPs comments. Planning Director Schwartz re�iewed tlie applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 884 at 13 Outrider Road to construct a paxking area off an existing driveway, ta add ta an existing residence and to relocate the existing poal equipment to the front of the property. She reviewed the con�guration of#he lot and the existing structures on the property. She stated that this request, except for the variance, was brought before the Planning Commission because this property has condition that any further de�elopment be brought 6efore the Planning Commission for review. She sta.ted that the Planning Commission approved the applicant's request on a 5-0 vote with conditions that the area between the parking space and the roadway easement be planted to soften its appearance. Councilmember Black mo�ed that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-23 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 884 at 13 Outrider Road. Councilrnember Mirsch seconded the motion,which carried without objection. Minutes City Council Meeting 41-11-16 -2- RESQLUTION NO. 2015-25. A RESOLUTION �F THE PLANIVING CONIlVIISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HII,LS GRANTING A CONDIT�ONAL USE PERNIIT AND A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO FILL IN AND COIVVERT AN EXISTING CABANA TO A GUEST HOUSE AND TO CONSTRUCT A RAISED DECK AT 7 CREST ROAD EAST IN ZONING CASE NO. 891 (LOT 3-FT'), ROLLING HILLS, CA. (DOTY}. Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staf�s comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applican#'s xequest in Zoning Case Na. 897 at 7 Crest Road East tv convert an existing cabana and covered porch to a guesthouse. She stated that the applicant is also praposing to convert a raised planter to a raised deck which will be 3 ft. out of grade. She fi�rther reviewed the applicant's request for a 319 sq. ft. treltis with a lighted outdoor kitchen area and stated that the appltcant also asked the Planning Commission to determine if the proposed light�ng under t}ie proposed trellis meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that the Zoning Ordinance specifically lists permitted lighting but has a provision that can, with a hearing, determine if lighting not specifica�ly listed meets the intent of the Ordinance. She stated that the Platu�ing Commission approved the applicant's request on a 5-0 vote and found the lights to be not obtrusive and to rneet the intent of the Ordinance. Discussion ensued cancerning the propased lighting, with Councilmembe7r Black suggesting that the City's ordinance should be based on lumens rather than wattage. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Die;ringer, Plann�ng Dixector Schwartz stated that if there are any complaints from neighbors about the �ights, such complaints would be handled as a code enforcement item. Follawing brief discussion concerning the proposed lighting, Councilmember Black moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution Na. 2015-25 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zonirig Case No. 89 i at 7 Crest Road East. Couriciimember Mirsch seconded the motion,which carried without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPL�C.ANT, THE PUBLIC HEARING IN ZONING CASE NO. 880 WILL BE CONTINUED TO A DATE TU BE SELECTED AT THIS MEETING. ZONING CASE NO. 88Q - REVISED. REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR A 280 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION 4F WHICH 41 SQUARE FEET WOULD ENCROACH UP TO 5.2' INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND THE ROOF OVERHANG WOULD ENCROACH 3.8' INT4 THE SIDE YARD SETBACK BEYOND THE OF 5' ALLOWED, AND FOR A RETAINING WALL THAT WOULD BE 20' LONG, BETWEEN 3' TO 5' HIGH AND WHICH WOULD NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5' IN HEIGHT TO ENCROACH 10' INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN ZONIlVG CASE NO. 880 - REVISED, AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 78-RH), ROLLING HILLS, CA, {HASSOLD'1�. THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEQA)PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301, CLASS 1 EXEMPTION. At the request of the applicant, consideratian o� this i�em was cor�tinued to a regular meeting of the Rolling Hill City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, February 22, 20I6 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Ha11, 2 Poriuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, Califarnia. AT THE REQUEST OF THE PARTIES, THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPEALS OF COMMITTEE ON TREES AND V�WS RESOLUTION NO. 2a15-03-CTV WII.L BE CONTINUED TO A DATE TO BE �ELECTED AT THIS MEETING. CONSIDERATION OF TWO APPEALS OF COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS RESOLUTION NO. 2015-03-CTV SETTING FORTH FINDINGS RELATING TO TRIlVIMING OF TREES AT I S PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD DUE TO VIEW IMPAIRMENT FRQM 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD. At the request of the parties, consideration of this itern was continued to an adjourned regular rneeting af the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, February 22, 2016 beginning at 7:00 a.m. �or �he purpose of conducting a site visit �0 15 Portuguese Bend Road and 18 Porluguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Recagnizing that it was $:00 p.m.,Mayor Pieper called for the open agenda. Minutes City Council Meeting 01-11-16 -3- OPEN AGENDA-APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. - PUBLIC CONIlI�NT WELCOME Nane. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUE� CONSIDERATION �F AN ORDINANCE NO. 346. AN ORDINANCE �F THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICLPAL CODE RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVAT'iON, IN ZONING CASE NO. 881 AND ZONIlVG CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-03. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORIVIA ENVTRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEQA). AND Mayor Pieper introduced the it�m and called for staff s comments. Plamung Director Schwartz stated�hat same correspondence was received since the dissemination of the agenda packet and copies of thase documents ha�e been placed on the dais and made a�ailable to the public. She stated that i�here is an error in the staff report on p. 6 where Mr. Schoettle is misquoted and shown at the wrong address. Planning Director Schwartz stated that there are twa items related to view preservation on tonight's agenda—the first is a proposed Zoning Code Amendment and the second is interpretation of Measure B. She fiuther stated that the proposed ordinance does not change the language of Measu.re B because it cannot be changed except for by a �ote of the people. She reviewed the history behind the current View Preservation Ordinance noting that the Planning Commission held se�eral public forums and was discussing amending the Ordinance in early 2012 but was directed to suspend that activity due to a proposed ballot measure set to be placed on the ballot in March 2013. She reviewed the provisions set forth by Measure B that was adopted by the votexs in March 2013 and sta�ed that following its adoption, it was determined that some of the provisions it set forth were ambiguous and needed definition. She further stated that because of these factors, in July 2014, the City Council appointed an ad hoc corninittee consisting of Mayor Pieper and Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer to review the Ordinance and discuss how Measure B should be interpreted. Following the ad hoc committee's discussion, recommendations for changes to the Ordinance were forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and public hearing. Ms. Schwartz stated that the proposed Ord�nance mostly corrects typographical errors and defines and clarifies the Ordinance. She stated that during its deliberations about the ordinance amendments, the ad hoc cammittee agreed on most of the amendments but there were two items for which they did nat come to agreement - the first being indemnification and the second being cost allocation o�maintenance costs after initial remecliation. Subsequently, the Planning Commission was directed to review and discuss the proposed amendme�ts as well as the two items regarding indemnification and maintenance costs. Following several pubiic hearings and lengthy deliberation, the Planning Commission agreed with the Ad Hoc Committee's proposed revisions to the Ordinance and determined that #he ordinance should provide indemnification for the City and that the subsequent maintenance cost should be borne by the tree owner but the �rdinance should give the Cammittee on Trees and Views discretion to allocate the costs between the two parties if finding can be made to warrant such an arrangernent as presented in the proposed Ordinance. S�e fiu-ther stated tha�the staff report also includes a summary of the public testimony as w�ll as the minutes from the Planning commission meetings where this item was discussed. She stated that the staff report contains the proposed ardinance as well as a table show�ng the existing ordinance compared to the propased ordinance alang with comments regarding the amendments. She fixrther reviewed the items contained in the staff report including a matrix of other cities' ordinances. Mayor Pra Tem Dieringer clarified that during the ad hoc committee's discussion regarding the ability of an applicant to have mi.�ltiple �iews that it was her opinian that the number of views should be lixnited to two distinct view positions and not unlimited views. Planning Director �chwartz stated that the item Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer is referring to can be found on page 33 in Paragraph B and she read the language as proposed referring to multiple views. Mayor Pro Tem D'zeringer stated that it should be rnade clear that the recommendation is froxn the Planning Commission not tlie ad hoc committee. Mayor Pieper called for public cornments relative to the proposed ordinance aznendment. William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane addressed the City Council stating that he is in favor of view carridors not�iews from e�ery window. Lynn GiII, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Coi�ncil suggesting that rather than amending/fixing Minutes City Council Meeting 01-11-16 -4- the exis�ing ordinance the City Council shauld adopt a new ardinance similar to the one adopted by the City af Rolliu�g Hills Estates. He further stated that he dra.fted an ordinance based on the Rolling Hills Estates' ordinance and provided it for the Planning Comrnission and City Council's co�sideration. Norm Miller, 4 Chesterfield Road addressed the City Council stating that there zs no way to satisfy all of the parties in view related disputes and it is not possible to define what the best"view corridor' is. Howard Weinberg, Attorn�y addressed the City Co�xncil to offer suggestions with regard to the proposed text of the ordinance as follows: in the defmition of view corridor, include a thresho�d by adding language — that pro�ides that all of the view corridors in a restored view are not less than 70% or 75% of preexisting view breadth that existed before the action was taken; in Sectian C (circle page 35} and Sec�ion C (circle page 36}where automatic termina�ion of an application takes place when certain events don't occur to add lariguage that if such termination is to occur that it is without prejudice to the applicant to reapply; in Paragraph B (circle page 39) where it gives 90 days for the remediation to be dane or if additional time :is required by ari expert at the earliest da�e recommended, to add an outside threshold date not later than 9 or 12 rnonths; and in Paragraph C (circle page 39) to strike the added language that allows for an alternative cost allocation for ongoing maintenance. Roger Hawkins, 37 Crest Road West addressed the City Council to suggest that that the City Council should remain neutral and stay out of view disputes; leaving it to the residents to resolve view issues so that the City's litigation liability is reduced. Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the City Council in agreement with Mr. Hawkins. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council in agreement with Mr. Hawkins. 7im Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Councii also in agreement with Mr. Hawkins and stated tha.t the City should stay out of the financial part of view issues. Hearing no further public comment,Mayor Pieper asked for comments from the City Council. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested an amendment to the proposed ordinance on circle page 34 pertaining to the definition of °`View Corridors" to change tanguage so that it doesn't allow for "an unlimi�ed number of views" but rather is limited to a maximum of two distinct views listed in the view provision if the views are from opposite directs such as north/south or eastlwest. Councilmember Black commented that he thaught with the passage of Measure B the City's current ordinance was supplanted by Measure B. In response, City Attorney Jenkins sta#ed that Measure B only affected a few distinct sections of the Ordinance and left the rest in tact. He further stated that if the intent was to repeal the rest o� Ordinance then the �anguage shauld have said so but since it did not the remainder of the Ordinance remains in effect. Discussion ensued conceming the issue o�xndemnification. Mayor Pieper commented that he does not feel the City should require indemnification because it is �the City's role to protect its residents. Councilmember Biack concurred stating that sometimes it is the role of City government to stand up �or the little guy. He also stated that he feels the City should continue to ha�e a view ordinance and not get out it as was suggested. Mayor Pieper concurred. Further discussion ensued concerning whether ar nat the City should have a view ordinance. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she feels that both trees and views aze important and it is not a matter of ane or the other. She further commented that the intent of the Ordinance is to balance both sides of the issue — trees and views — and it is incumbent upon the City Council to continue with a View Ordinance if both txees and views are an asset and value to the Community as stated in the General Plan. She further cammented that she feels that if the City is going to have a View Ordinance that it is not right to ask someone who chooses to avail themselves of the Ordinance to indemnify the City. Mayor Pro Tern Dieringer suggested that there is a third option where the City would make an adjudicatary decision but enforcement of the decision would be up to the parties. Discussion ensued concerning using such a process. Mayor Pro Tern Dieringer further suggested that�he City could also set up a fund where the residents could apply for assistance with legai costs associated with enforcement of the View Ordinance. Councilmember Black and Mayar Pieper commented that the City cannot use public funds for such a purpose. Mayor Pieper further commented that he feels it is necessary for #1�e City to have a View Ordinance and he feels that the Ordinanc� is balanced and takes both trees and views into Minu�es City Council Meeting 01-11-16 -5- consideration and daes not indiscriminately remove trees. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer stated that she feels there may be a better altemative and she feels that the City Council needs to be guardians of the public trust and protect the City's resources. Further discussion ensued concerning the indemnificatian issue and the lega�process used for challenging the City's decisian. In response to Councilmember Mirsch with regard the intent and purpose af the Ordinance as shown in Section17.26.010, City Attorney 7enkins clarified that canyons, vistas and hillsides may be considered views as defin�d in Section 17.12.220 which inciudes "a visua.11y impressive scene or vista not located in the immediate vicinity of the residence." Councilmember Mirsch also commented with regaz'd to allocation of maintenance costs that she feels there should be as few instances as possible where it is up ta the Committee (or the City Council) to determine who should pay for the rnaintenance costs. She stated that she feels the people should know going into the process what the expected costs will be. She further stated that she feels that if it has been determined that the view seeker is entitled to a view and has paid for the initial remediation, then the tree owner should pay for the ongoing maintenance. Mayor Pieper asked for the City Council's comments with regard to Mr. Weinberg's suggested text c�anges stating that he feels the suggestions are reasonable. He staxed that he feels it is reasonable in Section 17.26.460(B) to allow up to one year for the restarati�e action to be completed; and in Section 17,26.040(D) and 1'7.26.050(C} to add language such that the withdrawal referred to is done `�vithout pz�ejudice to the applicant to reapply." Discussion ensued concerning lirniting the ability for the applicant to reapply. City Attorney 3enkins clarified that the intent was to deem an application withdrawn i�the applicant is not actively pursuing the cornpliant after 1SO days and it was never intended to imply that tlae applicant could not reapply. He further commented that he does not feel that adding the language "without prejudice to f ling a subsequent application" is inconsistent wi#11 the intent. Following further discussion, the City Council concurred to add that language. Councilmember Black commented that he is not ready to vote on intraductian of the ardinance. Following brief discussion the City Council decided that the besY caurse of action im addressing tl�e ordinance changes would be to go over each of the proposed changes point by point. Following discussion, the public hearing for deliberation on this mater and consideration of introduction of the Ordinance was continued to the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, January 25, 2016 beginning at 7:30 p.rn. iri the Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California at which time, the City Council will review each of the proposed changes. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1182 ADOPTING ADNIINISTR.ATIVE REGULATIONS TNTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. Mayor Pieper introduced tl�e item for cansideration and asked for staff s comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that as part of the discussion pertaining to revisions to the View �rdinance, the City Council ad hac committee also discussed and cansidered items relative to the interpretation of Measure B and suggested some language for the Planning Commissian to review and discuss. She stated that the Planning Commission recommends adaption of this Resolution which provides an interpretation of Measure B so that it can be uniformly app�ied to alt view cases before the Committee on Trees and Views. Ms. Schwartz further reviewed the items related to the interpretation of Measure B that were discussed by the ad hoc committee including, panoramic vs. corridor views; what constitutes acquisition of property; the def nition of mature vs. maturing trees; what canstitutes clear and convincing evidence; and retroactivity. She stated that the ad hac committee in addressing the panoram�ic vs. view corridar issue, recommended that word panoramic be remo�+ed from the intent sectian of the �rdinance thus not needing interpretation. With regard to burden of proof, it was determined that the issue did not require any further definition or interpretation. The ad hoc committee also concurred that the prev�ous cases decided by the Cornrnittee on Trees and Views ar the City Council are not enforceable under the o1d ordinance and would need to come back ta the Committee on Trees and Views under the provisions set forth in measure B. For the two remaining issues, acquisition of property and mature vs. maturing, the Planning Commission discussed those two matters at l�ngth and made the recommendations presented in the Resolution. She Minutes City Couricil Meeting U1-11-16 -6- reviewed the recommendation for the question of acquisition of property as presented on page 6 of the staff report stating that an inheritance does not constitute a change in ownership but a sale of a property does. She further stated that there was lengthy discussion regarding properties that are place in trust and recommended that placement into a revocable tn.�st is not an acquisition,but placement into an irrevocable trust or the change frorn revocable to irre�ocable is an acquisition as is consistent with tax regulatians. With regard to the definition of mat�xre, the Planning Commission also discussed this matter at great length at�d af�er receiving four separate reports from arborist (during deliberation on a current case) that did not concur, ultimately decided the definition should use Sunset Western Garden Book as a reference using the highest height in the height range shown. She further stated that the Planning Commission also discussed trees that had been previously trimmed to maintain a view and determined that such h ees should not be considered mature. She stated that the ad hoc committee in its discussion of this issue a.lsa agreed that the Sunset Western Garden Book should be used as a reference but did not concur a�to which height to use. She fi.Frther stated#liat in his correspondence, Mr. Gill suggests using 75% of the average height as shown in Sunset �estern Garden Bool� Mayar Pieper asked Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer to explain the documents that she provided that were placed on the da.is and made available to the public. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer sta.ted that the documerrts include all of the material that was dissemina.ted to the voters because legally the City would be bound by �hose material if the matter goes to court and any decision made in the interpretation should be consistexit with those materials. I response to Mayox Pieper, City Attarney Jenkins stated that the reason these matters were examined was because there wasn't' anything in the election related materials that further explained the issues before the City Council. He further stated that the interpretation has to be xeasonable and it has to be cansistent with Measure B to the extent that Measure B is ambiguous or does not provide guidance. Mayor Pieper nated that several e-mail correspondence were received one of which was against the int�;rpreta.tion and 17 in concurrence with the interpxetation. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer noted that the e- mails in favor appear all to be the same. � In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer, Planning Director Schwartz stated that the Planning Commission did not cansult with an arborist ta assist in determining the definition of mature;however, th� Planning Commission did use the definition used by the International Society o�Arboriculture. Mayor Pieper called far public camment. Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road addressed �he City Council sta.ting that she does not feel that there is any ev�dence to support the notion that if a �ree has been previously trimmed it is no longer considered a mature tree. She stated that the intent of Measure B was to ensure that a tree that was fully grown and already in the view could not be cut down. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Council stating that he submitted a letter with regard to the maturity issue. In surnmary of the letter, he sta.ted that maturity should not defined as the top of the height range. He suggested instead using the 75%rule as explained in his�etter. Tam Heinsheimer, 7 Johns Canyon Road addressed the City Council to express appreciation to all the people involved in this complicated process. He sta.ted that because of Measure B, the City is no ionger in a position ta decide whether or not t13e City should be involved in view issues but instead,needs to resolve the ambiguities of Measure B. Marcia Schoett�e, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council to express her opposit�on to the notion - - tl�at i£a tree has been previously trimmed it is no longer considered a mature tree. She stated that she does not feel the staff report accurately provide the history of the view related discusstons in that it does nat mention that in November 2011 a group of resid�nts were concerned that new residents were purchasing houses that did not have a view ar�d forcing their neighbors to cut their trees and asked to be heard but were nat given the opportunity to be heard. She further expressed concern regarding a post card opposing Measure B that was sent to all residents by the Ralling Hills Community Association. John Blazevich, l. Buggy Whip Drive addressed the City Council sta�ing that views are about money and if someone wants a view then they shauld pay the money to purchase a property that has a view instead of purchasing a property without a view and forcing their neighbors to cut their t�ees. He suggested keeping MinUtes City Council Meeting 01-11-16 -7- Measure B simple. Spencer Karpf, 8 Maverick Lane addressed the City Council expressing his agreement with Mrs. Schoettle,Mr. Blazevich and Dr. Cri11's comments. He stated that the City Council needs to continue to be responsive to the residents and expressed concern that lawsuits will ari�e if it is not. Richard Co�year, 35 Crest Road West addressed the City Council stating that he is the author of Measure B and leading up #o the election when asked about the acquisition date, he told people the following: "If a title company is asked to identify the current owner of th� camplaining property, and asked to identify the recording date of the instrument establishing that ownership every inc�uiry will obtain the same recording date and eliminate any ambiguity." William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane addressed the City Cauncil and submitted a letter for the recard regarding the defmition of mature. He read the letter which, in summary stated that the proposed definition of maturity is inconsis�ent wifh the law and common sense and represents an effort to thwart the will of the voters. Howard Weinberg, Weinberg &. Associates addressed the City Council on behalf of the Nuccions at i8 Porluguese Bend Road and submitted a letter for the record fram Sharon Lily with the �nternational Society of Arboriculture which addressed the maturity issue and in summary defines mature height as the rnaximum height the plant is likely to reach if �he conditions of the planting site are favorable. He suggested tha� it is appropr�ate for the City Council to adopt the regulations as proposed by the Planning Commission. He further suggested some text changes to the regulations as follows: Section 1001 Paragraph A add except as modified in these regulations; Paragraph C remove the language "or the revacable trust became irrevocabie"; and Section 2003 to change the word none in the first sentence to the word any. Mike Schaettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council with regard to the definition af maturity and suggested that the City Council use the middle part of the curve as shown in the documents Dr. Gill provided. John Nunn, 1 Crest Raad West addressed the City Council with regard to the definition of maturity stating that the maximum height should not be used given the City does not have ideal conditions for growing trees especially given the recent drought. He suggested instead using an average. He further expressed concern that the City and the Rolling Hills Community Association favor the creation of�iews versus sorneor�e wha has trees and funds ane neighbor o�er another if a lawsuit results. Norm Miller, 4 Chest�eld Road addressed the City Council stating that is was his understanding that Measure B was to supplant the ordinance. He stated that a person should get the view tl�ey came in with azi�views shouid not be created that did not exist when a property was purchased. He further sta.ted that it s illogical to tell someone they cannot ha�e the view they purchased. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council to express his opposition to#he nation#hat if a tree has been previously trimmed it is no �onger considered a mature tree. He further cornrnen�ed that the definition af rnat�re height should be at the rninirnurn height or instead use age. Mr. Blazevich asked if there is a report available that provides the nurnber of complaints that ha�e been received. V'Etta.Virtue, 4 Maverick Lane addr�ssed the City Council regarding the definition of maturity�a suggest tt�at age or how long someone has had a tree should be used instead af height because given the planting conditions, many trees may not reach their potential height. She fi�rther suggested that specimen trees should be exemp�. Mr. Karpf stated that there is place near Mendocino called Van Damme State Pazk where there is a forest af fully mature Douglas Fir type trees that are no taller than him because the hard pan is close to the surface. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Pieper closed the public hearing. In response to Mayor Pieper, City Attorney Jenkins stated that if the City is sued over its interpretation, the interpretatian can be used while the lawsuit is pending. Minutes City Council Meeting Ol-1�-lb -8- Mayar Pieper explained that as Measure B was written, it is difficult for the Carnmittee on Trees and Views to apply so either the City Council needs ta provide an interpretation or alternatively, place another measure on the ballot resalve the issue. Councilmember Mirsch suggested that even if another ballot measure is placed on the ballot, there still need to be some interpretation of Measure B fin the meantime so that the City can apply the existing ordinance. --- Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer concurred with Councilmember Mirsch and stated that any interprreta.tion of Measure B should be done in such a way to discourage litigation and should rely on factual information and as Measure B states the definition of mature/maturing should be based on the industry standards predominately accepted by a�barists. She further stated that she contacted the Nataonal ,Arborist Association and was told that they use the book An Illustrated Guild to Pruning (3r�Editian) by Edward F. Gillman as a reference and in that book mature is defined as when a tree reaches 75% of its maximum attainable height. She suggested that the City shauld contract with a consulting arborist certified by the Association of Consulting Arborist so that if the matter goes to court there is an expert opinion to rely on. With regard to using tax law as a basis for determining acquisition, Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested that the matter needs fixrther study and discussion. Brief discussion ensued concerning the matter related to acquisition vc+�th Councilmexnber Mirsch and Mayor Pieper cancurring with the Planning Cammission's recommendation. Councilmember Wilson expressed cancern that the defining znaturity is going to be a very difficult task because there are so many varying opinions. He commented that he is also concerned about the Planning Commission's recommendation trees that were previausly trimmed are nat considered mature. Councilmember Black commented that he sees the ambiguities and the difficulty defining and interpreting some if the zssues, but he does not feel inclined to fix it and suggested that it be fixed by a ballot measure. Mayor Pieper commented that his interpretation of tl�e way Measure B was positioned to the voters was that the view you bought is the�iew you get,which makes sense. But, in actuality, that is not true because o#'the provision which disallows panaramic views in favor af corridor views. Discussion ensued concerning�he definition of mature and this issues surrounding deeming a tree that had been previously trimmed not mature. City Attorney Jenkins commented that the goa.l is not to hire someone to tell the City Council what the rules should be so that that person could #estify in court. He sated that if there is a need fox someone ta testify in court the testimony should be that the rule the City Counci�adopted is a rEasonable interpretation of the word mature based on existing literature. He stated that there is no one a�rborist that can give the one right answer; but rather from the vat�ety of information received, the City Cauncil's job is to review t.�,at information and choose one that is reasonable for implementing Measure B. Following further discussion, deliberation on this matter was continued to the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduied to be held on Monday, January 25, 2016 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Poriuguese Bend Road,Ralling Hills, California. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED) DISCUSSION TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE PERCENTAGES IDENT�IED WITHIN THE PENINSULA REGIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT IN ORDER TO ADD QNE SURVEII.LANCE AND APPREHENSION TEAM (SAT) DETECTNE. Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz presented the staff report which recommends that the City Council appropriate funcling with the two other member cities of the Palos Ver�es Peninsula Regional Law En�orcement Committee to add on additional Surveiilance & Apprehension Team (SAT)Detec�ive to the contract with the Los Angeles County SherifPs Dept. in order Minutes City Council Meeting 01-11-16 -9- to combat the increase in burglaries Peninsula wide. He further reviewed the crime statistics as well as the cost distribution amongst the#hree cites for the additianal SAT detective. Following brief discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer moved that the City Council appropriate $7,340 for an additional SAT Detective through FY 1G/17 and thereafter$10,698 annually beginning in FY 17/18 for the additional SAT Detective to be contracted with Los Angeles County SherifPs Dept. through the Palos Verdes Peninsula Regional Law Enforcement agreement. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. MATTER�FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPQRTS DI�CUSS�ON REGARDING MOVING THE START TIME OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS TO 6:30 P.M. {ORAL REPORT) Mayor Pieper suggested that City Council consider maving the start time of the City Council meeting to 6:30 p.m. in instead of 7:30 p.m. so that the meetings conclude earlier. Following brief discussion and with Councilmember Black expressing concern that the meetings will just go langer not end any earlier, no actian was taken. Mayor Pieper asked Councilmember Black to further consider this recommendation and if he is in favar, infozm tl�e City Manager sa the rnatter can be agend�ized again. OTHER MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Pieper suggested that the City look inta acquiring assisted lzstening devices for re�idents that have difficulty hearing. Counci�member Black suggested that instead of wattage, lumens be used in the City's �utdoor Lighting Ordinance. Staff was directed to inc�ude that change with the next update ta the Zoning Ordinance. Counciimember Mirsch asked for a report from the Fire Fuel Ad Hoc Committee regarding fhe status of the Camrnunity Wildfire Protection P�an. MATTERS FROM STAFF RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY UPDATE. (ORAL REPORT) City Manager Cruz reported that the supplemental burglary patrol has concluded. He further reparted that according to the Sheri�s Dept., the two recent burgiaries on Maverick Lane and Caba�leros Road do not appear to be related to the previous burglaries in the Southfield area. Councilmember Mirsch reparted that the Vo�ur�teers on Patrol Program continues to move forward with the next step being Sheriff s Dep�. vehicle training/certification for the volunteers. PUBLIC CONIlI�NT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS None. CLOSED SESSION Government Code §54957 Public Employee Performance Evaluation Title: City Manager Gavernment Code §54957.fi Conference with Labor N�gotiatar City representative: Personnel Committee(Pieper and Dieringer} Unrepresented employee: City Manager The City Council recessed inta closed sessian at 10:58 p.m. to discuss the matters listed above on the closed session agenda. The meeting returned to open session at 11:34 p.m. Minutes City Councii Meeting 01-11-16 -1Q- RETURN TO UPEN SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION(ORAL REPORT}. The meeting was called back to order in open session at 11:34 p.m. City Attomey Jenkins reported that the City Council met in closed session to discuss the item listed above and no reportable action vvas taken. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no furthEr business before the City Cauncil, Mayor Pieper adjourned the rneeting at 11:35 p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, January 25, 2016 beginning a� 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber a# City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, Cali�omia. Respectfully submitted, __ � ��'� Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, —�..-,. � ������ Jeff Pi�per Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 01-11-16 -11-