Loading...
10-23-17.pdf MINiTTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, OCTOBER 23,2017 CALL TO URDER �, A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hilts was ca�led to order by Mayor Black at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Porluguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmernberr's Present: Dieringer,Mirsch, Wilson, Pieper and Mayor Black. Cauncilmembers Absent: None. Others Present: Raymand R. Cruz, City Manager. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz,PIanning Director Juiia Stewart,Assistant Pianner. Yvette Hall,Interim City C1erk. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West. Marcia Schoettle,24 EastfieZd Drive. Tina Greenberg, 32 Parluguese Bend Road. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road. �PEN AGENDA-PUBLIC COMII�NT WELCOME None. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Cauncilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be ca�sidered under Council Actions. A. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. RepubIic Services Recycling Tonnage Report for Septernber 2017. RECONIlI�NDATION: Receive and file. . C. Brown Act Complaint filed by Lynn Gill. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and f le. Councilmember Mirsch moved that the Ci#y Council approve the iterns on the cansent cale�dar as presented with one correction to the minutes. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. CONgMISSION ITEMS Nane. PUBLIC HEARINGS SECOND READING, WAIVE FULL READ�NG AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 354 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL QF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO AMEND THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICII'AL CODE SECTION 17.12.220 OF CHAPTER 17.1.2 (DEFINITIONS); AND TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CHAPTER 17.2b (VIEW PRESERVATION) IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH AN ADVISORY PROCESS FOR THE REST�RATION OF VFEWS OBSTRUCTED BY VEGETATION, IN ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2017-0�. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staf�s comments. Planning Director Schwartz presented -1- for a second reading the View Preservation Ordinance. Planning Director Schwartz stated that a proposed view ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission to repeal the existing ordinance and introduce a new ordinance that recommended the City's role in the processing of view preservation cases be advisory and, other recommendations, was presented by staff at the September 25, 2017 City Councii meeting. Planning Directar Schwartz indicated that at that meeting the City Council asked staff to bring back the proposed ordinance with th�modification that the City Council take a quasi judicial position and be able to en�orce view preserv�tion cases that are ordered to be remediated. Planning Director Schwartz stated that at the October 9, 2017 City Cauncil meeting, the City Council asked staff to bring back the ordinance establishing an advisory process for �iew preservation cases and include additional minor modifications to the proposed ordinance which were non-substantive. Planning Directar Schwartz noted that correspondence was received from resident Lynn Crill, who expressed support to adopt the proposed ordinance that was recommended by the Planning Commission. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the process for rernediation of cases would be advisory and not be enforceable by the City. She ind�icated that if parties in the dispute avail themselves of binding arbitration,then the City would reimburse them in an amount up to $5,000. Planning Director Schwat�'z stated that the definitions related to "�iewing point" and "established view" allow multiple views from residences and that a view may also be established at the time the property was purchased or at any time tl�ereafter. Planning Director Schwartz exp�ai.ned the mediation pracess and the factors that needed to be consider�d when a case is reviewed by the Committee on Trees and Views and the new defmitions related to arboriculture. Mayor Btack called for public comment. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive, referenced an email tha.t she rec�ived regarding trust and the City Council. Ms. Schoettle discussed the history of the original view ordinance,the residents' request to have the rnatter placed on the City Council agenda to be amended, and the adoption of Measure B. Ms. Schoettle stated that there were many Planning Commission meetings held to discuss and modify the view ordinance in which a fmal version was recommended to the City Council. She expressed support for the view ordinance that was originally praposed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Schoettle stated that she hoped the City Council would keep the Planning Cornmission's proposed ordinance that the residents believe will be adapted when they vo#e on Measwre C. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West, expressed his dissatisfaction with the City Council's decisian. He stated that Measure B has caused many disagreernents between neighbors. Mr. Aicheie discussed variaus ways that praperty rights are taken away. Mr. Aichele stated that residents who purchased property prior to the 1988 view ordinance had no expectation that they could not grow their trees. Mr. Aichele commented that he felt it was iegalized stealing by the City when a resident is asked to remove trees from their property without compensation. Tina Greenberg, 32 PortExguese Bend Road, commented that she felt there was confusion among the residents over Measure C. Ms. Greenburg inquired if the City Council could amend the current ordinance at any time to adopt an advisory role and avoid litigation. In response to Ms. Greenberg's question, Mayor Black asked City Attorney Jenkins to respand. City Attorney Jenkins stated that Measure B was adopted to be a part of the previous view ardinance but the propased new view ordinance was drafted as a complete replacement fox the previaus ordinance. City Attarney Jenkins opined that the City Council could adapt an advisory clause in the current ordinance; however, if such a clause is incorporated into the ordinance, then other partians of the ordinance wauld have to be changed as well. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagan Road, commented that the proposed ardinance is an improvernent over the original I988 ordinance. Mr. Gill stated that if Measure C passes it will be straight forward and clear to implement the Planning Commission's documents. Mr. Gill asked the City Council to cansider irnplementing tl�e Planning Comrt�issior�'s proposed ordinance, presez ve Measure B's protections, and do not immediately change from an advisory role back to a quasi judicial role. Councilmember Pieper commented that he took an flath to provide the best service he can an beha�f of the City even when there are differences among the residents. Councilmember Dieringer clarified Section 8 of the proposed ordinance relating to Measure C. She stated that if Measure C fails to be adopted at the Nave�nber 7, 2017 Special Municipal Election, the proposed ordinance would be null and void. Councilmember Dieringer recommended that if, in the future, there ar� additional changes ta #he current ordinance that may be beneficial, the City Cauncil should consider Minutes City Council Meeting 10-23-17 -2- adopting them. Mayor Black noted that his name should be chaxiged from "Jim Black, M.D., Mayor" to "James Black, M.D., Mayor" on the afficia� ordinance. Mayor B�ack sta.ted he received a large amount of feedback fram residents indicating their disappointment with the City Council's support of an advisory role as it reiates to the view ardinance. Mayar B1ack indicated that he is opposed to the advisory role of the proposed ordinanc�. Councilmember Mirsch stated that the proposed ordinance �hat was brought forth by the Planning Commission after much compromise and discussion by the Ad Hoc Committee and the Planning Commission, and that this was the approach that was taken throughout the process. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she feels that the City Council has been responsive and supportive of the community's wishes as it relates to the proposed view preservation ordinance. Councilrnernber Mirsch read the following statement for the record: "I have been in�olved in the effort to revise the view ordinance since the inception over a year ago. I was one of the two Cozxncilmembers on the original Ad Hoc Committee where both sides worked in good faith to develop principles and concepts for a possible improved ordinance. Z encauraged Councilmembers to approve sending the Ad Hoc Cammittee's recommendations to the Planning Commission for their consideration. This is something very near and dear to me, and along with others, I put in considerable time and effort and have never wavered frorn the support of that at any time. As everyone laiows I disagree with the provisian that changes the City's xole to advisory, and I have nat changed that belief. At our September meeting I was one of the four yes votes to accept the ordinance from the Flanning Commission w�ith the exception of the advisory process. At our next meeting on October 9�'the motion was changed to reinstate the advisory pasitian, I voted no. I did so because I had to see if there was still support for that position because two weeks ago there was support for that position, 4-1, we supported getting rid of the advisory so now it was changed. I needed ta know where we stood and � do not know until the roll call is called whe�e these votes are going to go. We da not discuss wha is going to vote for what so I did that as a pracess to see where the vote was going to corne out. As it turned out, I did not prevail in getting enough votes. That is the process. i followed it and that is the way is goes. Although I disagree with the advisory'pxovision I still believe that even with that provision in place that the new ordinance is an improvement to what is existing and I support it � wholeheartedly as witnessed by my yes vote at the September meeting. I have nat, as alleged, changed my feelings or position on this at all, but my responsibility is to serve the community's best interest, nat just my own position. I feel that adopting this new ordinance that has been develaped over a year long process with multiple stakeholders is serving the best interest of the community." Following public comment and discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Councxl waive full reading and adopt on second reading Ordinance No. 354 and to include the provision in Section S of the Ordinance related to Measure C statang that in the event that Measure C fails to be adopted by the electorate at the November 7, 2017 Special Municipal Election, this Ordinance shall be automatically nu11 and void and of na force and effect. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the mation. Mayor Black called for a roll call vate an the aforementioned motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Dieringer,Mirsch, Piep�r, and Wilsan. NOES: Mayor Black. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. SECOND READING, WAIVE FULL READING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 355 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.450 AND 17.16.OZ0 AND ADDTNG A NEW CHAPTER 17.29 TO TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL MARIJUANA ACTIVITIES, ALLOW FOR TT� DELIVERY OF MEDICAL MARINANA, AND TQ REGULATE THE CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR --- PERSONAL AND MEDICAL USE WITHIN THE CITY, IN ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2017-02. Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staffs cornments. Planning Director Schwartz presented a second reading of the proposed rnarijuana oxdin.ance and summazy of the staff r�port. Mayor Black called for public commen� Hearing none,he asked for comments from the City Council. In response to Councilmember Mirsch's question, Planning Director Schwartz c�arified that the definition af"enclosed" is indoors ar in an accessory struc#.ure. Minutes City Council Meeting 10-23-17 -3- In response to Mayor Pro Tem Wilson's question, Planning Director SchwarYz stated that a green house would be considered an accessory structure and permitted. Mayor Black questioned California's rules and regulations perta,ining to impaired driving and that there was no definition of altered or impaired driving. Mayor Black indicated that impaired driving would pose a threat to the safety of residents. Following public comment and discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council waive fixll reading and adopt on secand reading Ordinance No. 355. Councilmember Dieringer seconded the motion. Mayor Black called for a roll call vote on the aforementianed motion. The rnation carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Dieringer, Mirsch,Pieper, and Wilson. NOES: Mayor Black. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS Counci�xnember Dieringer pravided the City Council with correspondence on Edison's Rule 20A Fund. Mayor B1ack requested that staff provide the following information on Edison's Rule 20A Fund: 1) Contact Edison to provide reading materials or schedule a presentation; 2} Re�earch the City's current allocation balance; and 3) Contact the City of Irvine to determine how much funding they have and what they will charge the City. Councilmember Dieringer cornrnented that she wouid be d.iscussing a matter related�o the Americans with Disabilities Act with City Manager Cruz. CLOSED SES5ION None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Black adjourned the meeting at 7:51 p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Manday, November 13, 2017 beginning at 7:OQ p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hali, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitt�d, Yv e Hall Interim City Clerk Approved, � James lac M.D. Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 10-23-17 -4-