Loading...
01-25-16 n�nvu�s oF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS,CALIFORNIA MONDAY,JANUARY 25, 2d1G CALL TO ORDER A regular�neeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Pieper at 7:3Q p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road,Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Black,Dieringer,Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Pieper. Councilmembers Absent: None.. Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Mike 7enkins, City Attarney. Yolanta Schwartz,Planning Director. Terry Shea,Finance Director. Heidi Luce, City C1erk. Kirt Behera, 12 Rix�gbit Road East. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road. 1Vorm Miller,4 Chesterfield Raad. Howard Weinberg,Attorney. James Wald, 7 Quait Ridge Road South. Cathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West. 7im Aichele, 14 Crest Road West. Richazd Calyear, 35 Crest Road West. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Driv�. William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a stngle motion. Any Councilmember may rec�uest removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actians. A. Minutes -Regular Meeting of January 11, 201fi. RECOMIV�NDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Financial Statement for the Month of October,November and Decembe:r 2015. RECOMMENDATiON: Apprave as presented. D. Allied Recyc�ing Tonnage Report�or November 2015. RECONIIVIENDAT`ION: Receive and file. E. Correspondence from Republic Services confirming #1�e following dates for the 2016 bi- annual clean up and shred events in the City of Rolling Hills: April 9 (greenwaste}, April 16 (bulky items), Apri13a (shred), September 10 {greenwaste), September 17 (bulky items) and September 24 (shred). RECOMII�NDATIQN: Receive and file. Councilmember Black moved that the City Council approve the items on the consez�t calendar as presented. Councilmemher Wilson seconded the motion,which carried witt�out objection. Mayor Pieper suggested taking New Business item l0A pertaining to the Quarterly Inveshnent Report out of order. Hearing no objecnon,he so ardered. MATTERS FROM STAFF QUARTERLY SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31,2015. _�_ Finance Director Shea presented the investment report for the quarter ending December 3l, 2015. He noted that interest income is down slightly compared to the same quarter from FY 14115. He further noted that the City funded its Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) liability using the Ca1PERS CERBT Strategy 1 and the ending balance is down sligl�tly compared to the previous yea.r with a balance of $490,000; but is up overall when compared to the s#arting balance of$325,000 when it was funded four years ago. In response to Councilmember Mirsch and Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer, Mr. Shea stated that s#aff will con�inue to monitor the fund and if necessary, the funds could be moved to a less aggressive in�estment strategy if the earnings continue to decline. Mr. Sh�a further reviewed the schedule of investments, the comparati�+e interest data, the investment aliaca�ion summary and liquidity calculation, Following brief discussion, Councilmember Black rnaved that the City Cauncil receive and fi1e the quarterly investment report for #he quarter ending December 31, 2015 as corrected. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer seconded the motion,which carried vv�thout objection. COMMISSION ITEMS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS WAIVE FULL READING AND INTR�DUCE ON FIRST READING ORDINANCE NO. 346. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING TITLE I7 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 881 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 20�5-03. T'HE PROTECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO TI� CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEQA). Mayar Pieper introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated i�hat the City Council held a public hearing on this ordinance at its January 11�` meeting and took public testimony which is summarized in the s#aff report. She stated that se�eral correspondence have been received since the last meeting and are either atta.ched to the staff report or in the case where it was zeceived after the agenda packet was prepared, placed on the dais. She briefly reviewed the correspondence received and stated that also included with the staff report is a summary of all of the view cases prior to and after Measure B. She further stated that at the last rneeting, the City Council propased to go item by item over each of the proposed changes and a table including the proposed changes is included in the staff report to facilitate that activity. In response to Councilmember Black, Ms. Schwartz stated that there have been 21 view cases since 19$8 and a total of 22 trees were ordered ta be removed, one of which was a dead tree. Mayor Pieper commented that the abjective of these ordinance amendments is to make the ordinar�ce more clear and pro�ed useful tools for the Committee on Trees and Views to use so that the �rdinance can be applied cansistently. The City Council then proceeded to review the pmposed amendments item by item. 17.12.220"V"words,terms and phrases Ms. Schwartz re�iewed the proposed amendment that adds to the definition that bathrooms, closets, garages and hallways are not considered view�ing area and adds a definition for "view corridor" as added to the ordinance by Measure B. Councilmember Black commented that he feels that there are some houses where the house is specifically designed to take advantage of views from bathroom and/or hallways and he feel those items should not be included in the list of exclusions. Discussion ensued concerning the number af "�iew locations" ailowed. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested that the City Council first consider the number of views that will be allowed and come back to this item after that discussion. 17.26.040(S)Eligibili#y Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested that only two views be allowed where the second view is completely different and from an opposite directian than the first view. In response to Mayor Pieper, Ms. Schwartz stated that to date, there haven't been any applications seeking to restore multiple views. Discussion ensued concerning properties that have multiples views with homes designed to take advantage of thase views. Councilmember Mirsch commented that there is a fairly high threshold to be eligible £ar view restoration and she feels if an applicant meets the criteria, they should be entitled to the view they had Minutes City Council Meeti�g a 1-25-16 -2- when they purchased their praperty and the number of views shauld nat be limited. Mayor Pieper commented that the Committee on Trees and Views has never provided panoramic views ar�d the Ci�Ey has always strived to have a balance between trees and views when applying the ardinance. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer further commented that the word"disjointed" is unclear. Councilmember Mirsch stated that she is in favor of the proposed langua.ge. Cauncilmember Wilson, Councilmember Black and Mayor Pieper concurred. 17.12.220 "V"words,terms and phrases Following discussion concerning �he definition af "view", the City Council concurred to ediminate bathrooms and hadlways from the list of exclusions. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the propased definition of"view corridor" and stated that i# is necessary to add this definition because Measure B added the term to the Ordinance but did not define it. Following discussion,the City Cauncil concurred that the proposed definition is appropriate. 17.2G.O1Q Intent and�urpos�. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed changes that would delete the word "panoramic" and add the word "views" to clarify�he intent and purpase to be consistent with Meas�xre B. Following brief discussion, the City Council concurred. 17.26.04U Abatement of view impairment--Procedure Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed changes that add reference#o the definition of"view impairmer�t" in the introductory sentence; clarify the process and submittal requirement for mediation and for a hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views in Paragraph A; and add new Paragraph B �o a11ow a property owner to file an application for view impairment even if there are trees/fo�iage on their property that contribute to the view impaitment and that a person may file against multiple property owners for the same view. Discussian ensued concerning Paragraph B. She reviewed the additional proposed changes in Paragraph C to clarify the mediator's role and provisions for when an agreement is reached in arbitration; and in Paragraph D to clarify the public hearing process and provide a deadline by which an application for a public hearing has to be submitted after the mediator's notice that the mediation is finished and to add the term "without prejudice." Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested removing the term "without prejudice". In response to Cauncilmember Black, Ms. Schwartz reviewed the applicatian process and associated fees. Discussion ensued concerning the prapased 30-day deadline for submitting an application after mediation has concluded. Cauncilmember Black suggested that the time should be 60 or 9U days rather than 30. Mayor Pieper cammented that he feels an applicant should not be prohibited from reapplying and that the term "without prejudice" is appropriate. Following additional disc�ssion ensued concerning the 30 day deadiine the City Council decided to change the deadline to 60 days and to keep the term"without prejudice." 17.26.050(C) Conduct of Hearing Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change that clari�es what happens dwring #he public hearing proceedings and allows for additional information to be submitted. The City Council concurred with this change. Ms. Schwattz fixrther reviewed the proposed change that provides the Committee on Trees atid Views with the discretion to allocate the costs to the applicant or both parties, under certain circumstances when an expert opinion/report is necessary and adding pxovisions to provide for how such an opinion shouid be .� obtained. Councilmember Black expressed opposition to having the tree owner share in the cast for expert services because the process could be stalIed if the payrnent is nat received. Mayor Pieper also expressed opposition to shared cost stating that the ap�licant should bear the cost solely. Councilmember Mirsch concurred. Following discussion, the City Council concurred to eliminate the danguage thai allows the Committee to allocate ihe cosi for experf services to both parties. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested adding language as shown in the docum�nt she distributed at the beginning of the meeting, to specify that any expert advice sha12 be provided by a consulting arborist who is a member of the American Saciety of Consulting Arborists and the International Society of Arboricuiture and sign a certification of performance. She further reviewed the proposed provisions �'or Minutes City Council Meeting Q1-25-t6 -3- the certificate of performance. Mayar Pieper expressed concern that there may be mu�tiple associations and how would the City confirm which is the appropriate association. Councilmember Black stated that he likes the proposed provision for the certificate of performance but he too, is not sure about which associations are appropriate. To pro�vide further c�arification, City Attorney Jenkins stated that the expert would be selected by the City and it is not necessary to have the requirements in the ordinance but rather direction could be given to staff as to the specifics with regard to the type of expert that should be hired and what should be included in the Scope of Work and Certification of Performance. Discussion ensued concerning the provision recommend by Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer. City Attorney Jenkins fi�rther clarified that the City does not place affirmativ� obligations upon City staff in City ordinances. Following discussion, the City Council concurred to direct staff to use the information provided by Mayar Pro Tem Dieringer when it is necessary to hire an expert. City Attorney Jenkins suggested, in the last paragraph where the issue of abandanment is addressed, to add a fhird pravision that the appCication can also be cofrsidered abandoned if the complainant faids or refuses to provide supplemental information or faids or refuses to pay the cost of the eacpert services. Following discussion,the City Council concurred. 17.26.QS0(E)Action Ms. Schwartz reviewed the praposed change that deletes the phrase "and to restare the complainant's view" from the first sentence and adds language that if restarati�e action is precluded due to various limiting fac#ors, the Committee shall make specific findings to that effect. City Attorney Jenkins clarified that the change to delete the phrase "and to restore the complainant's view" is suggested because the current language suggests an end result that may be no langer possible due ta the pravisions set forth by Measure B. He stated that the Committee's decision may abate the view impairment but in doing so, may no� restore the view and as such, that language shauld be removed. The City Council concurred with those changes. Wifih regard to the restarati�e a.ctions listed, Counci�member Mirsch asked if the tersn"topping" should be removed from the list recognizing that is typically referred to as not a good practice. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented that she feels the term should be eliminated ax�d language should be added tl�at the restoration and type of pruning should be pursuant to the best management practices for tree pruning of the Internationa� Society of Arboriculture. Mayor Pieper commented that the ordinance should not prescribe how the tree is to be trimmed; and how the work is done is up to the arborist ultimately hired by the tree owner. Councilmember Black sta.ted the he is not in favor or remo�ing the term "topping." Following brief discussion the City Council decided to leave the term in the ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer was opposed. Discussion ensued concerning the various factors that may limit restorative action, including the privacy issue. Following discussion,tl�e City Council concurred to include the proposed added language. 17.26.�50{F)Environmental Review. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the propased change which adds a new paragraph to specify that enviror�mental review pursuant to CEQA requirements shall be conducted prior to adoption of a final decision and if the project is deemed not to be exempt from CEQA, the camplainant shall bear the cost far the environmental review. Tn response to Councilmember Black regaxding CEQA review, City Attorney Jenkins clarified that staff wi�1 determine what level of review is necessary and the City does not allow the property owrier or tree owner to dictate the le�el of en�ironmental review. 'I'iie City Council concurred with the addition. 17.26.OS0(G}Finality of Decision. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change, which changes the fmality of the decision to 30 days ra#her than 20 days so that is it consistent with other applications of the Zoning Ordinance. No objection was expressed. 17.26.060(A)Implementatian of restorative action. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change, which clarifies that the complainant pays for the initial restorative actian. No objection was expressed. Minutes City Council Meeting 01-25-1G -4- 17.2G.06d(B)�mplementation of restorative action. Ms. Schwattz reviewed the proposed change, which clarifies the date by which restorative action should be done and adds that if additional time is necessary, it must be done within one year. Following brief discussion,no objection was expressed. 17.26.OG0(C)Implementatio� of restorative�ction. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change, which adds a provision that the cost for subsequent � maintenance may be allocated to both parties if the written findings justify such an al�ocation. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she feels that the cost for ail subsequent maintenance should be borne by the tree ovvners. She furkher commented that it shauld not be subjective and she fee�s that there should be no provision for an alternative cost allocation. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer cummented that she feels there shouid be a provision to allaw for an alternative cost allocation. Mayor Pieper and Councilmember Black concurred with Councilmember Mirsch that there should be no provisian for an alternative cost atlocation. Following discussion, the City Councid deleted the provision far an alternative cost allocatian. 17.26.060{D) Implementation of restorative action. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the proposed change, which deletes the language in Paragraph D regarding the implementation method recognizing that these issues are addressed elsewhere in Secnon 17.26.060 and the language is vague and not applicable. Following brief discussion concerning hedges, no objection was expressed. 17.26.070 Enforcement Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented that many cities issue a decision in view matters, but enforcement of the decision is done by the parties so that the City has no liabi�ity. She suggested adding such a clause as Section 17.26.075. Mayor Pieper commented that this matter xs part of the indemnification issue which �. will be discussed later. He further commented that he feels it is the City's responsibility to defend its ordinance. Discussion ensued conceming enfarcement and indemnification. Councilmember Black commented that he is apposed to indemnification. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she would like for the City not to be in the tree and view business,but since views are part of the Ci�y's General Plan and there is an ordinance in place,the City should have enforcement powers. In response to Mayor Pieper regazding getting out of view matters, City Attorney Jenkins stated that without the existing ordinance, Measure B would not make sense. 17.26.0$�Notification of subsequent owners. Ms. Schwarkz �reviewed the proposed change, which adds clarification that an informatianal covenant for both properties that wouid run with the �az�d. She commented that the correspondence fram Mr. Weinberg suggests that �he covenant should only be recorded against the tree owner's property. City Attomey Jenkins explained the considerations where recording the covenant makes sense for both properties. Following brief discussion,no objection was expressed. 17.26.100 Indemnification (new provision) Following brief discussion and with Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer opposed, the City Council decided to remove the indemnifacation clause based an�the discussion above. Following an explanation by City Attorney Jenikins regarding the procedure for inlxoduction of the ordinance,Mayor Pieper called for public comment limited to two rriinutes per speaker. Kirt Behera, 12 Ringbit Road East addressed the City Council to express concern that current ordinance as amended by Measure B does not allow for restoration of a view that existed when a property was purchased. He further expressed concern�hat Measure B will cause the city to become a no view city. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Council ta further explain the changes he recammended in the correspandence he provided including striking �the terms pruning and topping and Minutes City Council Meeting 01-25-16 -5- thinning and replace with words that achieve the same objective ie: crown reduction, crown raising and lacing. No�n Miller, 4 Chesterfield Road addressed the City Co�ncil regarding Measure B. Mayor Pieper explained that Measure B will be discussed later. Mr. Miller further commented that the ordinance shauld include reference to consulting arborists as suggested by Mayar Pro Tem Dieringer. He further commented that mandatory arbitration should be required to reduce litigatian. Howard Weinberg, Attorney addressed the City Council to suggest the following text changes: 17.26.080 change the word informational covenant to a memorandum of the ordinance; regarding the requirement for additional evidence,the app�icant should not be forced to pay for additional evidence. James Wald, 7 Quail Ridge Road South addressed the City Council to ask for c�arification as to whether or not the arborist hired by the City is a�lowed to do the work, He further suggested regarding arborists, �hat there be more research done as to what is the accepted arganization and the public should be able to cornrnent on it. He further suggested that the term topping should be remaved from the ordinance and the City should require arbitration to xeduce litigation. The City Council discussed the ma,tters raised by the public. With regard to Mr. Weinberg's suggestions, City Attorney Jenkins suggested changing the word covenant to "instrument." Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer suggested using the word "docutnent" instead. The City Council concurr�d to change the word covenant to document. Discussion ensued concerning Mr. Weinberg's suggestion regarding addidona� evidence. Fallowing discussion,the City Council concurred to leave the language as proposed by City Attorney Jenkins earlier. Discussion ensued concerning the suggestion that the City require arbitration. City Attorney 7enkins explained the issues associated with mandatory arbitration and enforcement means available ta the City. He commented that he feels it is impractical and may not be doable legally. Following discussion, the City Council decided not to add mandatory arbitration. Following public testimony and discussion, Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council waive full reading and introduce on first reading Ordinance No. 346 amending Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code relating to View Preservation as amended above (shown in bold/italic). Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which catried with Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer opposed because it did not incorporate the changes she recornmended. OPEN AGENDA-APPROXIMATELY$:OQ P.M. -PUBLIC COMII�NT WELCOME Cathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed ardinance pertaining to restrictions on medical marijuana in the City stating that she feels it takes away people's rights granted under the compassionate use act. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West addressed the City Council regarding the proposed ordinance pertaining to medicai marijuana stating that he uses some derivative of marijuana for his sheep. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed �he City Council in opposition to the proposed ordinance pertaining to restrictions on medical marijuana in the City. He expressed concern that ordinance was not given proper consideratian by the Planning Comrnission because it was presented by the Assistant City Attorney as a matter that required urgent actian. Norm Miller, 4 Chesterfield Road addressed the City Council regarding the need far microphones in the Council Chamber, regarding the proposed ordinance pertaining to medical marijuana and regarding how the City Council handles public cornment specifically that feedback is not provided when a person provides comments. As an explanation regarding the proposed ordinance pertaining to medicai marijuana, City Attorney Jenkins stated that proposed ordinance will be before the City Council next month. He pro�ided the background and reasoning as to why the matter is being brought before the City Council: He stated that nothing in the praposed ordinance will afFect the right of a Rolling Hills resident to posses marijuana for pexsonal use; ta drive ta a dispensary to purchase medical marijuana and bring it into City; or from ordering marijuana oniine or by phone from a reputable source and having it delivered by US mail,FedEx, Minutes City Council Meeting ai-2s-t� -6- UPS or another means. He further stated that the State legislature passed a bill sta.ting that if cities da not act by March 1, certain regulatory authoz�ty would be vested in the State and the cities would lose any arid a11 oppartunity to regulate under their own police powers. He further explained that the author of the bill has since said that he did nof intend to establish the March 1 deadline and there is a bill currently pending in the legislature that would eliminate the deadline. He stated that if the pending bill is passed and signed by the Govexnox,the City can take its time in considering this matter. He further provided a brief overview of the proposed ordinance as it relates to delivery and cultivation of inedical marijuana. OLD BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION N�. 1182 ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATYONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. Mayor Pieper suggested that this matter be fixrther continued so that the item can be given proper cansideration. Hearing no objection, consideration of this matter was continued to the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on February 8, 2016 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portugu�se Bend Road,Rolling Hills, California. NEW BUSINESS None. MATTERS FROM STAFF WILLDAN ENGINEERING ANNLJAL UPDATE. (ORAL REPOR'I� Planning Director Schwartz reported that since 200$, Willdan Engineering has provided building and safety services for 25 projects— 1 i of which are complete and the remainder of which are in plan check or being constructed. She noted that Wilidan provided sexvices for multiple projects at three pmperties. RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY UPDATE. (ORAL REPORT) Regarding the status of adding an additional SAT Detective to the Regional Law Enforce3ment Contract, City Manager Cruz reparted that the two other cities in the Regianal Law Cantract have appxoved the proposal and the objective is to have the additianal detective in place in a month. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS Mayor Pieper suggested that the City Cauncil test staxting the meetings at an earlier time beginning in March. Following brief discussion, staff was directed to notify residents via the citywide newsletter that beginning with the March 14�`City Council meeting,the start time will be rnoved to 7:04 p.m. In respanse to Councilmember Black regarding the water usage reductions imposed by the State, City Manager Cruz stated that the City has submitted several comment letters and is continuing to monitor the status of the issue. PUBLYC COA�IlVIENT UN CLOSED SESSION ITEMS None. CLOSED SESSION �-- None. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Pieper adjourned the meeting at 10:43 p.rn. The next regular meefing of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, February 8, 2016 Minutes City Council Meeting Q 1-25-16 -7- beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the City Councii Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Luce City C1erk Approved, J ieper ayor Minutes City Council Meedng 01-25-16 -8-