09-25-17 MINUTES OF
A REGULAR MEET�NG
OF THE
CITY COUNCII. OF THE
CIT'Y OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
SEPTEMBER 25,2017
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor
Black at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber af City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling
Hills, Califarnia.
ROLL CALL
�ouncilmembers Present: Dieringer, Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Black.
Councilmembers Absent: None.
Qthers Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager.
Natalie Karpeles, Assistant Ciry Attorney.
Yolanta Schwa.rtz, PXazining Dixector.
Julia Stewart, Assistant Planner.
Yvette Ha11,Interim City Clerk.
Dan Artnendariz, District Manager, California Water Service.
Jay Levifus, Praject Ma.nager, California Water Service.
William Hassoldt, 15 Partuguese Bend Road.
Cathy Nichols, 14 Crest Raad West.
Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road.
Arun Bhumitra, 13 Buggy Whip Drive.
Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West.
--- John Nunn, 1 Crest Road West.
Fred Lorig, 1 Spur Lane.
Cli�t Patterson, 22 Geoxgeff Road.
�DPEN AGENDA-PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
NONE.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes — 1) Regular Meeting of August 28, 2017; and 2) Regular Meeting of
September 11, 2017.
RECOMMEloTDAT�ON: Approve �s presented.
B. Payment of Bills.
RECOMMEIOTDATION: Approve as presented.
C. Republic Services Recycling Tonnage Report for August 2017.
RECOMMEI�TDATION: Receive and file.
Councilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council approve the items on the Consent
Calendar as presented with rnodifications to the August 28, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes.
�ouncilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which caxried without objection.
� PRESENTATION
Ptesentation by California Water Service on Palos Yerdes Peninsula Water Reliahility Project
Dan ,Armenclariz, District Manager, California Water Service, introduced Jay Letivus, Project
Manager, and informed the City Council that Mr. Levitus would make the presentatian.
Jay Lev'itus, Project Mana.ger, California Water Ser�ice Company, provided the City Council
with an overview of the Peninsula Water Reliability Project in the Czty of Rolling Hills; and an
update on the schedule and next steps of the project.
In response ta Mayor Pra Tem Wilson's question, Mr. Levitus stated that the construction
-1-
schedule for the segment on Palos Verdes Drive North was stili pending and that alterna,ti�e
schedules were being considered which varied from two weeks to two months.
Mr. A�nendariz stated that they have provided the City of Rolling Hills Estates with various
options for the road closure for their consideration. He indicated that California Water Service
was holding a public workshop in conjunction with the City of Rolling Hills Estates to discuss
the options. Mr. Armendariz stated he could bring back information from the workshop to the
City Manager to share with the City Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Wilson commented that a suggestion was made by the City of Rolling Hills
Estates to allow public access through the City of Ro�ling Hills' gates during the road closure.
In r�sponse to Councilmember Dieringer's question, Mr. Levitus stated that the estimate in extra
rate to residents is $1 per day per household or $30 per rrionth. He indicated that he would
follow up with more current information as the Public Utilities Commission is currently
preparing a general rate case. Mr. Levitus stated he did not know if there would be a rate
increase, decrease, or if it would stay neutral.
In response to Mayor Black's inquuy, Mr. Levitus stated that the constr�zction route does not run
along Pa10 Verdes Drive North. Mr. Levitus indicated that the City of Rolling Hills Estates
informed California Water Service that they could not close this segment. He explained they
were avoiding cons�uction on Palos Verde� Drive North to eliminate tlie impact to the
carnmunity and due to the hydralagy of the project. He sta#ed there was a significant financial
cost to avoid Palos Verdes Drive North.
Discussion ensued concerning the City's storage capacity and the number of water tanks and
reservoirs that were in the City.
COMMISSION ITEMS
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-16. A RESOLUTION �F THE PLANNING
COMMYSSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST
FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL GARAGE ADDITION AND NEW
STABLE AND CORRAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 931 AT 7 MIDDLERIDGE
LANE SOUTH, LOT 249-A-UR, (MCCARTHYICHENG). CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES CLASS 3, SECTION 15303.
Mayar Black introduced the item and asked for staf�s comments. Assistant Planner Stewart
stated that the praposed project consists of a new stable, corral and a garage addition. She stated
that there is an existing 336 square foot stable that will be deFnolished and the new stable is
partially located over the existing stable footprint. She indicated that the reason why this
proposal needed a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit was because with the garage
addition there was a previous approval for 972 square feet in 2416, therefore; with the additional
square foo#age for the garage the applicant exceeded their administrative approval limits and the
Conditional Use Permit for the stable and corral exceeded the allowable limits. Assistant
Planner Sfewart stated that for the Site Plan Review the existing garage is 472 square feet
attached to the residence and the addition is 475 square feet for a total of 947 square feet an the
garage and which increases frorn two spaces to four spaces. She sta.ted i�hat for the Conditional
Use Permit the stable is two stories at 1,608 square feet with 520 square feet of covered porches,
and the footprint is SOS square feet wi#h a 68$ square foot loft. She stated that all of the
coverages and the dis�turbance for the proposed project fell within the limits of the zoning code.
Assistant Planner Stewart indicated that there were two neighbors that expressed concern with
the proposed project. She stated that one neighbor was concerned with the proximity of the
corral to the residence, however; the residence was appro�mately 135 linear feet away. She
stated that she went on a field visit with the first neighbor who had no further concerns with the
distance after she visited the site. Assistant Planner Stewart indicated that the second neighbor
was concerned with the location of stable, however; after he went to the field visit they had no
further concerns with the praject. Assistant Planner Stewart indicated that the project was
categorically exernpt frorn CEQA and that staff is requesting that the City Council receive and
file the resolution.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
09-25-17 -2-
�n response ta Councilmember Mirsch's question, Assistant Planner S#ewarE explained the
standard onsite parking requirements; however, these standard parking requirements were not in
the resalutian.
Mayor B1ack inquired if a condition could be added to the resolution indicating tha.t no vehicle
parking is allowed except on site during construction. Assistant Planner Stewart indicated that
the project must be taken under jurisdiction to make that modification.
Discussion ensued among Assistant City Attorney Karpeles, City Council and staff concerning
�vhere vehicles will be parked during construction. As a result of this discussian�, the standard
paxking requirements during construction were added as a condition of approval�or the project.
�ouncilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council receive and f le Planning Commission
�esolution No. 2017-16, with a requirement that standard parking requirements durir�g
construction be added as a condition of approval, and granting approval of the applicant's
xequest in Zoning Case No. 931 at 7 Middleridge Lane South. Mayar Pro Tem Wilsan seconded
tlie motaan,which carried without objection.
]PUBL�C HEARINGS
A HEARING REGARDING NUISANCE ABATEMENT AT 15 PORTUGUESE
BEND ROAD (LOT 78-RH} AND CONS�DERATIQN OF A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DECLARING
NONCOMPLIANCE VVITH CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. �19b T� BE A
NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE ABATEMENT THEREOF. OWNERS:
JUDITH AND WILLIAM HASSOLDT.
Mayar Black intxoduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz
stated that this was a public hearing to deternune if a violatian af a previausly adapted resolntion
by the City Council is a nuisance and should be abated. She stated that this was a view
presezvatzon case that came before the Committee on Trees and Views {CTV) in 2014 and that
�-- the applicants were the property owners at 18 Portuguese Bend Road and ma.de a corriplaint
about the property owners at 15 Portuguese Bend Road. She indicated that the case went
through mediation, the CTV, and then was appealed to the Cxty Council. She stated that the City
Council upheld the CTV's resolution to remediate nine trees, as it was determuied that the nine
trees did obstruct the views from 1 S Portuguese Bend Road. She indicated that the Hassoldts,
property owners of 1 S Portuguese Bend Road, obtained an arborist that the Nuccions of 1 S
Portuguese Bend Road paid for and that the Nuccions Finley's Tree and Landscape, Inc.
performed the work. Planning Director Schwartz stated that following the wark done in May o£
2017, the Nuccions came before the City Council and comp�ai�ed fhat not all the txees were
trimmed per the resolution that was adopted by the City Council. She stated that the City Council
directed staff to look into the matter. She stated that an arborist visited the praperty and
praduced a report of which a copy was pravided to City Counci� tk�at states that one of the trees
that was in question was cut to 46 feet as required by Resa�utxon Na. �196 and that an �lxve �ree
was not trirnmed as required by Resolution No. 1196. She indicated that pursuant to the City's
Ordina.nce 5ection $.24, �he �ity Manager can determine that the vivlation of a resolution or a
pertnit is a nuisance, which the City Manager has done so. She stated that the City Manager has
issued a no�ice af vialatian to the Hassoldts and gave them 15 days to abate the nuisance to lace
the Olive tree. Planning Director Schwartz indicated that this action has not been taken by �he
Hassoldts. She stated tha.t the City Manager could request that the City Council make a
deternunation if the violation is a nuisance and whether they would like to order the violation be
abated. She indicated that a resolution was included in the staff xeport tha.t staff prepared if the
City Council determined that the violation is a nuisance. She indicated that the resalutioz� states
tl�af the City gave the proper�y owners 45 days to abate the nuisance and should they nat do so,
the City has the autharity, without the concurrence of the �roperty owner, to go on site to the
property and remediate the violatian. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the resolutior� also
states that the property owners will be asked to pay within tez�days of obtaining a bid to perfortn
the remediation and should they nat provide the City with plans the City could go on the
property to remediate and p�a.ce a lien on the property.
Mayor Black opened the publzc hearing.
William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane and 15 Portuguese Bend Road, pravided a map of tree
Minutes
City Counci�Meeting
09-25-17 -3-
locations and correspondence to the City Council. He stated that Tree # 7 was trimmed and
groomed at the crown. He stated that there was no obstruction of any view to go back into old
cuts ar�d that all the trees are old �ees, approximately 60 or 70 years old. He stated that they
have been trimmed many times and that there are old cuts up and down every tree on the
property. He indicated that this same issue e�ists on his street and that the tree is not obscuring
any view. He referenced the document from Finley Tree Trirnrning and discussed the trees that
the Nuccions wanted to be �rimmed were not the trees related to the issue per the City staff. He
discussed an Olive tree indicated by an "X' on his docurnents was being confused with Olive
Tree #7 and stated that this Olive tree "X" was trimmed, however; it was nat required to be
trimmed. He commented that the idea of the view and View Committee was to provide a view
and to preven�any obstruction of a view and that it does not state that trees should be removed or
cut down unreasonably. He stated that Oli�e Tree #7 at that time was trimmed and when i�his
was cornpleted the Nuccions complained about the trimming. Mr. Hassoldt stated that at that
time it was found that the Eucalyptus tree and Pepper tree were not part of the abatement. He
indicated there was a meeting an site and that staff kept referring ta the tree in the southeast
corner as the tree that the Nuccions were complaining about and not Olive Tree#7 because Olive
Tree #7 daes not obscure any view. He indicated there was cor�fusion over which tree was to be
trimmed. He stated that if he is required to go back to the old cuts the whole tree will be ruined
and the value of his property will be affected. Mr. Hassoldt stated that the report given by Mr.
Applegate is not accurate regarding Olive Tree #7 as this tree is being confused with another
tree.
Mayor Black closed the Public Hearing.
In response to Councilmember Dieringer's question, Assistant City Attorney Karpeles stated that
the City Council does not have any legal authority or jurisdiction to make modifications ar
revisit issues related to Resolution No. 1196 once the City Council has approved the resolution
and the appeal period has passed.
In response to Mayor Black's question, Planning Director Schwartz stated that there was no
confusion over the trees because they were tagged.
In respanse to Mayor Black°s inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Karpeles advised the City Council
that it was a City Couz�.cil decision to determine whether a nuisance condition exists and, if so,
staff would move forward with the abatement. In response ta Mayor Black's question, Planning
Director Schwartz stated that staff found the trimming was done to the standards of the
resolution.
In response to Councilmernber Dieringer's inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Karpeles clarified
that the nuisance condition before the City Council is whether or not Resolution No. 1196 has
been violated. She stated that it is not the condition of the tree itself. She furtlier ciarified that a
nuisance is the fact that Resolution No. 1196 was adopted and an order was issued, and because
the order was not complied with this is where the nuisance lies.
Following public comment and discussion, Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council
adapt Resolution No. 1216 declaring the non-compliance with City Council Resolution No. 1196
a nuisance and ordering the abatement thereof. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion.
Mayor Black called for a roll call vote on the aforementioned motion. The motion carrie�by the
following roll ca11 vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Dieringer, Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Black.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 354 REGARDING APPROVAL OF
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2417-01 TO THE ROLLING HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND SECT�4N 17.12.220 OF CHAPTER 17.12
(DEFINfTIONS); AND REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 17.26
(VIEW PRESERVATION) IN QRDER TO ESTABLISH AN ADVISORY
PROCESS FOR THE RESTORATION OF VIEWS QBSTRUCTED BY
VEGETATION.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
09-25-17 -4-
Mayor Black introduced the item and as�Ced for staff s comments. Planniug Director Schwartz
stated�kza.t this was the f�rst public hearing regarding the view preservation ordinance. She stated
that the recommendation is to adopt a new view preservation ordinance and repeal the existing
view preservation ordinanc� and make amendments to pertinent sectians of the zoning
ordinance. She stated that staff is requesting that the City Council review the staff report, take
publ�c test�mony, waive fu11 reading of the ordinance and provide direction to stafF. She stated
tb.at the Plaauiing Coinmission held several public hearings and several public forums and
received rnany public comments from residents. She reviewed the staff report and exhibits and
indicated that the exhibits included all the docurnents that the Planning Commissxon received in
the preceding meetings.
Assistant City Attorney Karpeles reviewed the changes that were made to the view ordinance as
�ollows: 1} Zoning Ordinance - Removed view related definitions from the General Definitions
in the Zoning Ordinance into the View Preservation Chapter; 2} Principles and Intent-Various
definitions were added, modified, or removed from the existing View Preservation Ordinance; 3}
Established View/Pre-Existing View definition created by the Pianning Commission - The
language in th� current ordinance is silent as to what point in time a viewseeker is required to
establish the existence of a view; 4) The definition of "View" was modif ed; S) "View
Impa.irment" defuution was modified; 6} "Viewing Point" was expanded based on the
suggestions made by the ad hoc committee, the Karpf Ordinance and Measure 2017 on where
views may be enjoyed from a property; 7) Dispute Resolut�on Process - The Planning
�omrnission determined that in order to effectua,te a more expeditious process it is recornrnended
Ya change to an advisary process; S) Cansiderations far Applying the View Preservataon
Oxdinance-This section lists certa.in considerations which may be a.c�opted by a decisiozz xnaker,
such as an arbitrator, a mediator, the CTV or the City Council; 9) Restorative Action - The
ordinance proposes an order of least to most severe restorative actions which would be most
appropriate on a case by case basis; �d) Litigation - At any point in time the parties can
determine to Iitigate or enter into arbitration, if the parties do enter into binding arbitration the
ordinance proposes to compensate the parties up to a certain amount that the City Council can
determine whether they want tlus to be hased on a sliding scal.e, meaning that the sooner that the
parties enter into arbitration the more the City wi11 compensate them for their efforts, or whether
�-�- the City Council would �ike to set a cap. This amount would need to be determined if the City
Council chooses to adapt the proposed ordinance; 11} Enforcement and Liabzlity - Because the
current ordinance tha.t is befare the City Cauncil is praposing an advisoxy anly opinion the City
wauld not be responsible for enforcing any of the resolutions or decisians that were rendered as a
condition of this process; any mediation or arbitration award or litigatian judgement would be
enforceable by a court. The City would not be involved in enforcement and ensuring that the
parties comply with any type of a resolution, mediation or court order; 12} There were some
miscellaneous pravisions that were discussed at the Plaruiing Cornmission level. In general they
related to the creation of a view database that would be created and maintained by the City,
different mechanisms to be created by the City in order to deternune when a property has been
transferred or is going to be purchased so that staff can go on the property and m�alce a
c�etermination whether view impairments exist and to docuznent tliem. Additional provisions
■Nhich would allow the Planning Commissian and the City Council to requixe a vegetation owner
to aremove vegetation as a conditaan of appraval fox new constructian and the establishment of
educataonal pxogxams by the City. These misce�Xaneaus provisions were considered by the
Planning Commission, however; they were ultimately determined not to be included in the
proposed ordinance; and 13) Retroactivity - It was determined that the new view preservation
ordinance would not be retroactive and would apply moving forward, should it be enacted by the
City Council.
Mayor Black opened the Public Heazing.
Cathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West, expressed concern that Section 17.26.03Q View Impairment
was buxde�some. She stated that the proposed ordinance does not take into consideration that a
persan can plant trees in their own view on thei� property but then go to each of the neighbors
and demand that they restore the view back. She expressed concern regarding the 60 day
response time.
Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon, commented on the �ollawing ma.tters related to property rights: 1)
The right to the view that you purchased; 2) The right to maintain the trees and vegetation at the
same height as when an owner purchased the property; and 3} That praperty t�es not be used an
litigation.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
09-25-17 -5-
Arun Bhumitra, 13 Buggy Whip Drive, comrnented that he previously had a 360 degree view
when he rnoved to the City 18 years aga. He stated that a neighbor's trees have grown on the
narthwest section of his property. He indicated that he has discussed the options of dispute
resolution and mediation with his neighbors and has had this same discussion every year. He
suggested the City Council apply a common sense approach such as limiting the height of trees
to the roofline.
3im Aichele, 14 Crest Road West, connmented that under common law no person is entitled to a
view. He stated that there were only a few ways to take away rights from a property owner,
which include by covenant, easements, and legally by the government. He stated tiiat he felt it
was illegal to take trees away from property owners without compensation.
John Nunn, 1 Crest Road West, commented �hat he has been involved with the View
Preservation Ordinance discussion since the beginning. He indicated his support of one viewing
point. He stated he supports Measure B's provision "that wha,t you ha.d when you moved in is
wha.t you are entitled to." Mr. Nunn indicated that there are some features of Measure B that
should be maintaiiled.
Fred Larig, 1 Spur Lane, commented that the City's General Plan is suppased to preser�ve scenic
views and that it requires the City to facilitate the preservation and restoration of viewscapes
through the rernaval of obstructions. He recornmended that the City not adopt an advisory role
and maintain its enforcement capabilities.
Clint Patterson, 22 Georgeff Road, thanked Mr. Lorig for his comments and indicated he is the
Chairman of the Roliing Hills Community Association(RHCA)View Committee. He stated that
the RHCA View Committee did not have enforcement capabi�ities and suggested that Mr.
Lorig's aforementioned comments be considered.
Mayor Black stated that he appreciated the efforts of the Planning Commissioners partic�larly
since they are voiunteers.
Councilmember Mirsch indicated that an circle page 6 of the staff report, under Principles and
Intent, that the wording"unreasonable obstruction"was subjective.
Assistant City Attorney Karpeles responded that the Planning Cornmission did discuss whether it
was an unreasona.ble obstruction or a significant obstxuction and that the idea was that it could
not just be any obstrucdon, it wauld have to be a meaningful obstruction and that is why it is
articulated under the Principles and Intent Section.
In response to Councilrnember Mirsch's question, City Attarney Karpeles explained that the
wording "a visually impressive scene or vista" on circle page 7 of the staff report was added to
e�plain and clarify the definition of"view."
Councilmember Mirsch stated that she is opposed to the City having only an advisory role. She
stated that if the City has adopted an ordinance then it should be enforced; however, she does not
want to subject the City to iegal costs. She stated that mediation would have to be stricken from
the proposed ordinance if the City changes to an advisory body.
Mayor Pro Tem Wilson noted that the word "crowing" on circle page 4 was misspelled and
should be corrected to "crowning." He inquired a�out the reference to trees and any vegetation
on circle page 8 as it relates to view impairment.
Assistant City Attorney Karpeles responded that her interpretation of the Planning Commissian's
directive was that it is any vegetation.
Mayar Pro Tem Wilson noted tha.t there was a reference to trees on circle page 8. Assistant City
Attorney Karpeles indicated that she would rnake tkat change to remove the references to trees in
the proposed ordinance as it relates to "view impairment."
Mayar Pra Tem Wilson sta�ed that he is generally in favor of the proposed ordinance.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
09-25-17 -6-
Mayor Black stated that he appreciates the effort everyone has put into the proposed oxdiz�ance.
He indicated that he appreciated some af the definitians as they are helpful and up to date. He
indicated �hat he did not support ttxe idea of the City being an advisary body and that he would
�ike to protect those residents that cannot afford to be involved in this type of matter. Mayor
Black stated he would not support the City being an advisory body. He stated he is in support of
eliminating the view corridor but keeping the panoramic view section.
Councilmember Dieringer sta.ted that signif cant improvements have been made to the ordinance
and discussed the costs of litigation. She spoke in favor of an advisory role for the City and
stated that the City could ha.ve significant legal costs if enforcement of the view ordinance by the
� City is continued. She indicated that the City has limited resources and those resources could be
reduced if view cases are litigated.
Mayor Black sta.ted that the past costs of litigation were not significant.
Councilmember Dieringer indicated support of an advisory role for the City but that the City
shauld contribute sorne funding towards arbitration costs. She expressed cancern with the City's
ability with its limited sta£fing xesaurces to provide the work �eedec� to handle the view
complaints, especially since, under the proposed ordinance, there was no limitation on the
number of viewing points that a view seeker could request for their properiy. She discussed the
definition of a preexisting view and that it should be limited to view e��isting at �tl�e time of fhe
vi.ew seeker's date o�property pwrc�ase or acquisitian, wh�ich would be clear and more easily
proved based on multiple listing real esta.te data, etc. Councilmember Dieringer suggested that
the view seeker should be requi�ed, at time of filing, to pro�ide proof or documentation of the
factars that will be considered in appiying the view preservation ordinance, as listed in Section
17.26.050. She expressed cancern that there was no time limitation within which a view seeker
would be required to file a view complaint to restore a view. Councilmember Dieringer sta.ted
that the proposed ordinance should have a provision to indicate what type of arborist can be
hired, that such arborist should at least have the credentials of a consulting arborist or greater,
and inquired why there was no retroac�ivity clause in the proposed ordinance.
--� Assistant City Attorney Karpeles stated that the current ordinance is proposing that tkxese ruies
�vill apply to new cases moving forward and will not apply to any cases which have been
previausly decided.
�ouncilmember Pieper stated that the proposed ordinance can be modified over time if there are
provisions that need to be adjusted. He indicated that it is important going farward not to delay
any changes if needed. He expressed concern with the affordability as it relates to litigation. He
indicated support for a majority of the proposed ordinance exce�t without the advisory body role.
He indicated support for a quasi judicial body. Councilmember Pieper discussed Measure C's
impact on the proposed ordinance.
Assistant City Attorney Karpeles provided clarxficatian to �he City Council pertaining to the
upcoming election. She stated the City Council has two options, the f�arst option is to introduce
the proposed ordinance at this City Council meeting and not adopt it until after the election. She
indicated that the ordinance will go into effect only if Measure C passes. She stated the second
option is to adopt the ordinance before the election and add a clause that states that the ordinance
urill only take affect if Measure C is enacted by the voters.
�o�ncilmembex Pxepex expressed support o£tlae second aptioz�.
Mayor Black inquired what options are available as it relates to an advisory and quasi judicial
body.
Assistant City Attorney Karpeles advised that �kie City Council could vote on whether the City
Council wi�shes to have an advisary ar �{uasi judicial procedure and then introduce the ordinance
and consider adopting the ordinance at the next meeting based on the changes tha.t the City
Council would like to malce.
Discussion ensued among the City Council concerning the options that the City Council has
regarding adopting an advisary or quasi-judicial procedure.
Assistant City Attorney Karpeles advised that staff could prepare an alternate version af the
Minutes
City Council Maeting
09-25-17 -7-
ordinance removing the advisory procedure if that is the direction of the City Council or leave
advisary as is and make the changes that were expressed by the City Council.
Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council direct staff to modify and bring back the
proposed ordinance eliminatin.g the advisory opinion process and adding a quasi judicial
advisory procedure. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion.
Discussion ensued among the City Council and the Assistant City Attorney regarding adopting
an advisory or quasi judicial procedure.
Mayor Black called for a ro11 call vote on the aforementioned motian. The motion carried by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmernber Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Black.
NOES: Councilmember Dieringer.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTATN: None.
Assistant City Attorney Karpeles requested that the City Council review certa.in provisions of the
proposed ordinance ta provide suggestions. There were no objections from the City Council.
Assistant City Attorney Karpeles revierxred the following items:
Established View/Pre-Existing Vaew
Assistant City Attorney Karpeles indicated that there was a discussion by the Plaiuiiiig
Commission as to whether the view should exist at any time.
Mayor B�ack and Councilrnember Mirsch indicated that no changes be rnade to this section.
Councilmember Dieringer indicated her objection to the proposed definition of a view as being
the view that existed at time of acquisition or at any time thereafter. She stated that this
definition would not be good pu�lic policy for the City, as it would discourage residents from
trimming their trees at the request of their neighbors, based on their concern that their neighbors
would thereafter file a view compla.int against th�m and obtain a deed restriction on their
property, requiring them and all fu�re property owners to pay for the costs of maintaining the
neighbors' views. She stated that having a definite point in time for the established view, such as
the date when the property was purchased, would be clear and would encourage neighbors to
trim their trees without the concerns mentioned.
Multiple and Panoramic Vaews
There was consensus by the City Council majority to leave as is and allow panoramic views from
multi�le areas.
Signifacant 1'mpafrment
Assistant City Attorney Karpeles inquired if"significant impairment" should be put back in the
proposed ordinance.
Discussion ensued arnong the City Cauncil concerning whether to add "significant impairment"
back into the language of the proposed ordinance and it was agreed that this phrase should be
added.
The City Council concurred that the applicant provides findings to the Plaiu�ing Cornmission
upon the initial filing of the view complaint.
Time Limatation to Fale a Vaew Complaarat
The City Council majority concur�ed not to place � time limitation on the filiang of view
com�laints.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
09-25-17 -8-
Dispute Resolutfon Process
Assistanf City Attorney Karpeles discussed her understanding of the City Council's direct�on in
terms of the dispute resolution process as follows: 1) An initial reconciliation process; 2)
Mediation; 3) Quasi judicial step; 4)Arbitration; and 5) Li�igatzon.
Mayor Black sta.ted that if inediation is part of the process then arbitration is not need�d.
�ouncilmember Mirsch indicated that there is a difference between mediation and arbitration.
� She sta.ted that mediation is not bind�ing and suggested that if both parties agree to binding
arbitration that the City would be willing to reimburse the parties to encourage a�rbitratian.
�ouncilmennber Dieringer indicated that residents would nat want to enter into arbitration if the
City wili pay for the court costs and utilize the Ciry's attorneys.
Mayor Black asked the City Council if arbitration was needed any longer.
Assistant City Attorney asked the City Council i£az�bi�ratian should be talcen out.
Discussion ensued among the City Council concerning the reimbursement of arbitration costs up
�o a ma�cimum of$5,000.
Assistant City Attorney Kaxpeles clarified that the City Council would like to maintain the option
of arbitration between the parties at any time prior to appeal to City Council with a cap of
$5,040. The City Council concurred ta keep this option in the propased ardinance.
Councilrnernber Dieringer recommended that �he City Cauncil cansidex including the language
on circle page 123 that permits the view impairment evaluator to consider as a fac�or whether the
view seeker delayed filing a view preservation case and for how long they have done so in
determining the view seeker's rights to have their requested view restored.
Assis#ant City Attorney Karpeles reviewed the inclusion of the langua.ge on circle page 123.
Discussion ensued among the City Council concerning adding provisions for the decision rnaker
to consider and examples of past view cases.
Councilmember Pieper and Cauncilmember Nlirsch indicated support of adding language tha.t
addxesses the delayed filing af a view preservation case.
Following discussion, there was consensus among th� City Council to postpane the proposed
ordinance to the neXt City Council meeting and direct sta.ff to modify the ordinance as discussed.
Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council direct staff to modify proposed Ordinance
No. 354 per the City Council's direction and continue the public heazing to the October 9, 2017
City Council Meeting. Councilmember Pi�per seconded tha motion. Mayor Black called for a
roll ca11 vote on the aforementioned motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vate:
AYES: Councilrnember Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Black.
NOES: Councilm�embex Dieringer.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
OLD BUSINESS
NONE.
NEW BU5INESS
NONE.
Minutes
City Couzxcil Meeting
09-25-17 -9-
MATTERS FROM THE CITY C�UNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
Mayor Black cornplim�nted staff for their efforts on abating coyotes. He stated that a dog being
wa�ked by a child was recently attacked by a coyate on Eas�eld Drive.
Mayor Pro Tem Wilson commented that the City of Rancho Palas Verdes approved a budget of
up to $1 million dollars to litigate Senate Bi11229 regarding accessory dwelling units.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
NONE.
CLOSED SESSION
NONE.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the City Council, Ma�or Black adjourned the meeting 9:32
p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Cauncil is scheduled to be held on Monday, October 9,
2017 at 7:00 p.rn. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Ha11, 2 Portuguese Bend Raad,
Rolling Hills, California.
Respectfully submitted,
�
Yvette Hall
Interim City Clerk
Approtre
James ack, M.D.
Mayor
Minutes
City Council Meeting
os-zs-i� -lo-