10-09-17.pdf MINUTES OF
A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE �
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, C'ALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 9,2017
CAL�, TO ORDER
A regular rneeting o£the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Black at
7:00 p.m. iri the City Council Chamber at City Ha11, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Dieringer, Musch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Black.
Councilmembers Absent: None.
Others Present: Raynlond R. Cruz, City Manager.
Nata%ie Karpeles, Assistant City Attorney.
Yola�nta Schwartz, Planning Director.
Yvet�e Ha11,I�terim City Clerk.
William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane.
Arur�Bhutnitra, 13 Buggy VV�ip Drive.
Jirr��ichele, 14 Crest Raad West.
John Nunn, 1 Crest Road West.
Fred Lorig, 1 Spur Lane.
Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive.
Roger Hawkins, 37 Crest Road West.
John B�azevich, 1 Buggy Whip.
Michael Sherman, 33 Crest Raad East.
Mike Shaettle, 24 Eastfield Drive.
---� Ellio�.Brunner, M.D., 26 Cinchring Road.
Monika Malone, 7 Chuckwagon Road.
Kath.�Nichols, �4 Crest Road West.
Hank Pickar, l.X Bawie Raad.
Burt Balch, b Hacka�more Road.
Chri�.tine Greenb�rg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road.
Daniel Marco, 2b Georgeff Road.
V'Etta Virtue, 4 Mavearic�Lane.
Richard Colyeax, 35 Cresf Raad West.
Jill Srnith, 10 Georgeff Road.
Ann;Vlurrell, b Packsaddle Road East.
�PEN AGENDA-PUBLIC COl�,�MENT WELCOME
Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Koad VVest, thanked the Planning Commission (PC) for the work they did with
the Ad Hoc Committee's draft of the view preservahon ordinance. Mr. Calyear apined that the draft was
a good madification to the City's Municipal Code as it relafes to views.
Mayor Black informed Mr. Colyea�-that this section of the agenda was for matters not on the agenda arid
that Mr. Colyear could comment during the public hearing on the view preservatian ordinance.
CONSENT CALENIDAR
Matters which rnay be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request
removal of any item from the Consea�t Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions.
A. Financia.l Statement� for the Months of July and August 2017.
RECOlYZMENDATION: Approve as presented.
S. Payment of Bills.
RECOI�IMENDAT'ION: Approve as presented.
Counci�nember Mirsch moved th.at the City Council approve the items on the Consent Calendar as
presented. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried withaut abjection.
-l-
COMMISSION ITEMS
CONSIDERATI�N OF AN EQUESTRIAN SERVICE DRIVEWAY APPROACH AT 1
MYDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH.
Mayor Black introduced the item and asked far sta�s comments. Planning Director Schwartz presenteck
the staff report stating that the project was a request for a service driveway for equestrian access and
equestrian faciiities. Planning Director Schwartz indicated that tlae Traffic Commission and Traffic
Engineer reviewed the project. She stated that the Traffic Engineer recommended approval of the project.
Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council approve the Traffic Commission's recommendation
in support of the applicant's request for a service driveway for equestrian access and equestrian facilities
as presented. Councilmember Dieringer secanded the motion,which carried without objection.
Mayor Black requested that Item 6-C be talcen out of order and discussed at this juncture. Hearing no
objection, Mayor Black so ordered.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
WAIVE FULL READING AND INTRODUCE ON FIRST READING ORDINANCE NO. 354 -
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE O� THE CTTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 4F
ROLLING HILLS TO AMEND THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
17.12.220 OF CHAPTER 17.12 {DEFINITIONS); AND TO REPEAL AND REPLACE
CHAPTER 17.26 (VTEW PRESERVATION) IN �RDER TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR
THE RESTORATI�N OF VIEWS OBSTRUCTED BY VEGETATION, IN ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT NO. 2017-a1.
Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staffls comments. Plarining Director Schwartz stated this
is a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance that City Council requested to be brought back from
the September 25, 2017 City Council meeting. She stated that the PC is recommending an ordinance that
replaces the existing view preservation ordinance, and in the proposed ordinance from the PC the
recommendation is that the role of the City be advisory and not quasi judicial. She indicated that the
revised ordinance, as presented, is recommending that the role of the City be quasi judicial. She reviewed
the additional modifications that were made by the PC as follows: 1} Remo�al of a disjointed view and
addition of a panoramic view; 2) Inclusion of definitions for views; and 3) Definitions of inetho�s of
trimming such as lacing, crown reduction and others. Planning Director Schwartz fixrther stated that at the
aforementioned meeting the City Council requested that staff bring back the same ordinance that the PC
recommended except for the rernoval of the advisory role of the City and the addition of a quasi judicial
role of the City. Planning Director Schwartz e�plained that there were two ite�ns presented in the staff
report, the orc3inance that was recomrnended by the PC with a strike-i�hrough of modifications as r�quested
at the last meeting, anc� a clean version of the same ordinance.
Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive, cornmented on a past resident's view preservation case#hat occurred
on Saddleback Road in 2012. Ms. Schoettle expressed concern for this resident who lost a view
preservation case filed against her and subsequently had her trees cut down. She indicated that residents
were most concerned with the City's role in view disputes and were in support of an advisory role for the
City. She e�pressed concern with the financial consequences of lawsuits and the use of residents' tax
monies to give views to other peop�e. Ms. Schoettle comrnented that a successful compromise was
reached between the PC and the residents; therefore, �the residents expect the proposed ordinance to be
adopted.
Ann Murrell, G Packsaddle Road East, commented that a view complaint was filed against her by the
Rolling Hills Community Assaciatian (RHCA) and that she has cut many trees in an ei�ort to create a
view far her neighbors. She cammented on the $500,00�judgment payment tl�at was paid by the RHCA
for losing the view complaint lawsuit filed against her. She recommended that the City nat get involved
financially in any view preservation cases as it affects every taXpayer. Ms. Murrell cammented that if
there is a City Councilmember who would profit from the City supporting their personal view complaint,
the City Cauncilmember should recuse himself from any City Council support.
Roger Hawkins, 37 Crest Road West, commented that he is opposed to the prapased ordinance for the
following reasons: 1) It is not fiscally responsible to potentially indebt the community with a huge
litigation expense; 2) Residents will be more apt to engage in litigation if the City is paying for if; and 3)
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-Q9-17 -2-
Litigation will cause resentment a�nong neighbars and the City. Mr. Hawkins expressed support for the
City to adopt an advisary rale as re�omme�ded by the PC.
John Blazevich, 1 Buggy Whip, commented that he reviewed the�amphlets and both opposing arguments
and noticed that the acquisition of title was an issue. He commented that the acquasitian of title and
"mature" need to be more defined. Mr. Blazevich recommended that new residents take photographs on
the day they move in and both the owner of#he property and the City should keep copies. Mr. Blazevich
stated tha.t the photographs will sh��w exactly wha,t is there and from that point on that is what should be
kept as a gi.Fideline for any tree trx�nming thaf needs to be done in the future. Mr. Blazevich stated he is
not in favar of litigation.
Michael Sherman, 33 Crest Road East, questioned why residents did not compla,in decades ago about their
views. He commented on the importance of preserving the soil supporting trees whose removal would
geologicaliy weaken the soil and predispose residents' property to landslides frarn rainfall. He comrnented
on his view preservation case and sta.ted that his �ega1 e�penses to defend his property between 2Q14 and
2415 exceeded $1 d0,000. He expressed opposition to allowing an unlimited number of viewpoints in or
near his property, various accessor;T structures and to Measure C.
Arun Bhumitra. 13 Buggy Whip Dr:ive, cammented that he highly values trees. He commented on his
view preservation case and explaained that he tried fo work with his neighbor; however, he was not
successfiil. Mr. Bhumitra expresse�l support for the City to take a quasi judicial approach.
Mike Shoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive, comrnented on values, trust and transpaz�e�cy within the community.
He stated that he believed the City Cauncil has taken the side o£the view seeker in past cases. He sta.ted
that the PC's recommendation came from an open process and that their proposal takes the City out of the
dispute and encourages the affected community members to work it out. Mr. Shoettle expressed support
for the City acting in an advisory role.
Elliot Brunner, M.D., 26 Cinck�ri�g Road, commented on the City of Rancho Patos Verdes' (RPV) view
ordinance and indicated that their ardinance is mare rest�xcnve than wha.t the City Council is considering.
He discussed the differences between the City of RPV's ordinance and the City of Rolling Hills. He
expressed support of the PC's pr�posed ordinance with the City acting in an advisory role. Dr. Brunner
expressed opposition to Measure C,
Mor�ika Malone, 7 Chuckwagon Road, expressed opposition to the ardinance that City Cauncil is
considering with the City acting in a quasi judicial role. Ms. Malone indicated that if the praposed
ordinance is adopted and the City bears the cost of having trees trimmed to enhance her view, she is in
support of this action. Ms. Malone commented that litigation may be costly£o:r the City.
Kathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road W�est, referred to an e�rka.zbit in the staff report that discussed a study
�egarding ninety percent of Cities rejected an enforcement role. She expressed opposition to the City's
consideration o�a quasi judicial role in vievw preservation cases.
Hank Pickar, 11 Bowie Road, cornmented that his neighbars informed him that some of h�is trees were
blocking their view and he was sue�essful in resolving the matter without further legal actian. Mr. Pickar
expressed opposition to the City's Gonsideration of a quasi judicial role in view preservation cases.
Burt Balch, 6 Hackamore Road, expressed opposition to the Measure C. He sta�ed that he believed tha�
the City has sided with viewseekers many tirnes. He commented that trees are an asset to the City. Mr.
Balch indicated that he has a sizeable view because all the trees died on his property. He expressed
cancern with growing his trees because his neighbars may have an issue with the trees blocking their
view. Mr. Balch expressed o����sition #o the City's consideration of a quasi judicial role in view
preservation cases.
Christine Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road, stated that she submitted a letter ta the City Councii. She
read a portian af her letter regarding the reason's why she feels the City Council would like to continue to
pay for litigation and view expens�s due to their view t�a� thexe is a financial disparity among residents.
She commented on her and her n�ighbor's view case. She commented tha.t if the City takes a quasi-
judicial role in view preservation cases this would create an unlevel playing field for residents. Ms.
C'rreenberg expressed opposition to the City's consideration of a �uasi judicial role in view preseryation
cases.
William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane, commented that he did not support the City Council's decision to
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-09-17 -3-
place on :� ballot measure on the special election after the Ad Hoc Committee and Planning Commission
proposed a plan for improving Measure B that would be equitable to all members of the City. He
discussed his view preservation case. Mr. Hassoldt expressed opposition to the City's consideratian of a
quasi judicial ra�e in�view preservation cases and Measure C.
Daniel Marco, 26 Georgeff Road, commented that if the City Council does not adopt the PC's
recommendation of an advisory role this action demonstrates a lack of leadership and trust in the
appointed commissioners. Mr. Marco expressed opposition to the City's consideration of a quasi judicial
role in view preservation cases.
V'Etta Virtue, 4 Maverick Lane, commented on the history of the City beguuung with the City's
incorporation. She stated that she has lost most of her view o�er the years and that history was repeating
itself with the proposed ballot measure. Ms. Virtue expressed opposition tfl giving residents a view from
any place in their yard.
John Nunn, 1 Crest Road, commented that when the original ordinance was in place, there were virtual�y
no arbitrated settlements because view seekers knew they could get whatever they asked for. He
commented on Measure B's set limits. He e��ressed opposition to allowing an unlimited number of
�iewing points. Mr. Nunn expressed support of the City adopting an advisory approach to the view
ordinance.
Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road We�t, expressed opposition to Measure C. He commented that Measure
B should be preserved to ensure that vievcr cases are resolved fairly.
Fred Lorig, 1 Spur Lane, commez�ted on Councilm�mber's Dieringer letter that was mailed �o the
community. He stated that the letter ha.d an effect on the community and that she requested residents who
apposed Measure C and support Measure B ta attend the City Council meeting this evening. He
commented that there is a lot of misunderstanding of the ordinance that should be clarified. Mr. Lorig
discussed the history of the view preservation ordinance. He referenced the General Plan and stated the
plan requires preservation of bath trees and views. Mr. Lorig stated that Measure B as a matter of law
cannot oveiride �the City's General Plan and that the City shou�d not be concerned with lawsuits as they
have not occurred for 24 years.
Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West, commented that the ordinance as written was good. He commented that
the proposed ordinance gaes further than the original ardinance by allowing views from anywhere on the
property. He noted that there are over 19,000 incorporated cities in the United States and very few have
any typa af view ordinamce.
Jill Smith, 10 Georgeff Raad, concurred with Mr. Lorig's previous comments. She stated that the Trees &
Views Committee ago�izes over�vievv preservation decisions for both the viewseeker and tree keeper. She
stated that she felt Measure B made it di�ficult far the Trees & Views Committee to make decisxons. Ms.
Smith commented that the proposed ordinance is a compromise to satisfy both proponents and opponents
of the issue. Ms. Smith asked that the City Council carefully consider the new ordinance.
Mayor Black closed the Public Hearing.
Councilanember Pieper commented that the proposed ordinance is not perfect; however, the rnajority of
the ordinance is placed in the right direction and noted that it can be refined over time. Councalrt��mber
Pieper stated that many hours of work and effort were put inta the ordinance, as well as several meetings
with the PC, community, and Ad Hoc Carnmittee.
Councilmember Pieper moved that i�he City Council adopt Ordinance No. 354 amending the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code Section 17.12.220 of Chapter 17.12 (Definitions}; Repeal and Replace Chapter 17.26
(View Preservation) in Order to Establish a Process for the Restoration of Views Obstructed by
Vegetation, in Zoning Te� Ame�dment No. 2017-01; act in an advisory role in view obstruction cases;
and if Measure C fails to pass at the Municipal Election on November 7, 2017, i�his ordinance is null and
void and wi11 not take effect. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson seconded the motian.
Councilmember Dieringer commented that one of the major issues is whether the City should pay for
enforcernent costs. She expressed concerns with staffing levels. She would like the ordinance to pratect
the residents and offer a fair process where residents can come and resolve issues related to views and
trees. She indicated suppart af adopting an advisory role for view cases. She discussed the past legal fees
incurred totaling $SS,ODO. She stated that she does not support unlimited viewpoints. She recommended
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-09-17 -4-
that the City Couricil extend the view preservation moratorium until the proposed ordinance can be
modified further. Councilmember Dieringer noted that other cities ha.ve opposed paying for legal costs
excepfi for Cities that have an ordinance voted on by the electo�rate.
Mayor Pro Terr� Wilson concurred with Councilmember Pieper's comments regarding the importance of
how much work and effort was put into the ordinance. He stated #hat he believed that a majority af the
public comments macle were in sul�port of the original dacurnent. Mayor Pro Texxa Wilson stated that the
ordinance is balanced enough and should be passed saoner rathe�than later due to the upcoming election
and that it is only fair�o the voters to have something in place that can be relied upon, based on the results
of the electian.
Discussion followed concerning the addition of amendments, view preseivation moratoriu�n, nuinber of
viewpoints and conducting a cost assessment ta hire additiflnal staff.
Councilmember Mirsch s#ated that this ordinance was a complicated issue. She discussed the
collaboration process of the Ad Hoc Committee and the PC and tha# there were compr�ses o� both sides.
She stated that she believes there is a majority o� residents in support of fihe fi�tnal document that was
recommended by the PC with the �ity Counczl acting in a,n advi.sozy xole. Councilmember Mirsch stated
for the record that she never suppc�rted the advisory position and she has never change�.her opinion. She
add�essed concerns with the costs associated with an advisory body and stated that the majority of the
funds that have been expended by the City were not far enfarcement or to defend a positian, they were for
heari�g cases that came before Ci1ry. She commented that she does not agree that additional staff would
be needed based on historical fact. Councilmember Mirsch stated that she had no financial involvement
with any of the cases that have co:°ne before the City Council and expressed concern with not supporting
an ardinance that was recommended by PC.
Mayor Elack commented an the regulation policy differences between the City and the RHCA. He
clarified that the Murrells' view i�sue was reviewed by the RHCA. He sta.ted that he believed the City
was much less likety to be open to lawsuits versus the RHCA. He indicated that the lawsuits that accurred
since the original ordinance went into effect were two lawsuits totaling $55,000 in 1ega1 fees. Mayor
BXack dxscussed past view preservation cases that came before the City and that a majority were settled in
rnediation. He indicated tl�at he kias observed many views diminish and that he is not aware of a resident
creating a view by going to �he City and demanding a view. Mayor Black expressed opposition to the
City's role as an advisary body.
In response to Councilmember Bie�inger's inquiry, City Attorney Jenkins provided clarification on a
resident's vested right to have a proceeding under an ordinance if the ordinance changes midstreas�. He
stated that if the ordinance changes du.r�ing a case, the resident would nat have a vested right to have their
view application adjudicated based on the langi.�ag� in the ardinance that was �in place at the time they
applied.
Discussion ensued concerning the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission and pravisions
that were stricken from this ordinance.
Councilmember Pieper resta.ted his rnotion. Councilmember Piepex moved that the City Council adopt
Ordinance No. 354 amending the. Rolling Hills Municipal Code Sectivn 17.12.220 of Chapter 17.I2
(Defuutions); Repeal and Replace Cha.pter 17.26 (View Prese�rvat�on) in Order ta Establish a Process for
the Restoration of Views Qbstructed by Vegetatxon, in� Zoning Text Amendment No. 2017-01; act in an
advisory rale in view obstruction cases; and if Measure C fails to pass at the Municipal Election on
November 7, 2417, th�is ordinance is n.u11 and void and will not take effect. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson
seconded the motion. The motion�ras previously seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Wilson.
Discussion ensued concerning whethex ta adopt tkie PC's xecammended ordinance or to a�end the
ordinance.
Mayor Black called for a roll cG;ll vote on the aforementioned motion. The mo�ion carried by the
following roZl call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers I�ieringer, Pieper, and Wilson.
NOES: Councilm�mber Mirsch and Mayor Black.
ABSENT: Nane.
ABSTAIN: Nane.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-09-17 -5-
City Attorney Jenkins clarified that this ordinance cannat take effect unless Measure B is repealed and that
Measure B can only be repealed if Measure C passes on Navember 7, 2017. He stated that the reason that
this ordinance cannot take effect if Measure C fails is because it is inconsistent with Measure B, and that
the City cannot adopt an ordinat�ce that is inconsistent with Measure B because Measure B was adopted
by the vote of the people. City Attorney Jenkins advised that a new section would be a.dded ta the very
end of the ordinance that will state that if Measure C fails this ordinance sha11 be null and void and not
take effect.
ORDINANCE NO. 356 - CONSIDERATION OF AN INTERIM ORD�NANCE OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS EXTENDING A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ORDTNANCE TO
TEMPORARILY PLACE A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE AND/OR
PROCESSING OF ANY APPLICATION SOUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER
17.26 (VIEW PRESERVATIOl� OF THE ROLLING HTLLS MUNICIPAL CODE AND
DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF.
Mayar Black introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz presented
the staff report and stated this matter is a public heai'ing to consider extending the rnoratorium on the
acceptance and/or processing of view preservation applications. She indicated that on Novernb�r 28, 2016
the City Council passed a moratorium because there was a need to adopt a new view preservation
ordinance, and further stated that an Ad Hoc Committee was formed. Planning Director Schwartz stated
that the moratorium ordinance was approved for 45 days, then on January 9, 2017 the moratorium was
approved for an additional te� manths and 15 days as allowed per law, and expires on November 28,
2017. She stated that the ordinance as presented provides an opportunity to adopt it again for an extension
of one year as allowed by law. Planning Director Schwartz indicated that the moratorium cauld only be
extended two times up to a#otal of two years, which would extend the moratorium to November 2Q19 and
could be repealed at any time.
There were na members of the public who requested to make a public comment.
Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council take no action on ex�tending the moratarium on the
acceptance and/or processing of view preservation applicatior�s and nat adopt 4rdinance No. 3Sb. Mayor
Black seconded the motion. Further discussion followed this mation.
Councilmember Dieringer recommended that this matter be postpaned to the October 23, 2017 City
Council meeting to allow time for this issue to be discussed. She expressed concern with the unknown
amount of view complaints that could be fi�ed. Councilmember Dieringer recommended that the City
evaluate whether additional staff would be needed if a significant number of view complaints are fi1ed.
Councilmember Mi�sch commented that since 1988 there have not been a significant number of view
preservation complaints filed and she does not expect a large amount to be received.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Wilson's question, Planning Director Schwartz stated that one resident
inquired abotxt filing a view impairment case since the moratoriutn has been in effect.
Mayor Black called for a roll call vote on the aforementioned motion. The niotion carried by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Mirsch, Pieper, Wi�san and Black.
NOES: Councilmember Dieringer.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
WAIVE FULL READING AND INTRQDUCE QN FIRST READING ORDINANCE NO. 355 —
CONSIDER.ATION OF AN ORDINANCE NO. 355 AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND
17.16.020 AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 17.29 TO TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL MARI�[JANA ACTIVITIES,
ALL�W FOR THE DELIVERY OF MEDiCAL MARIJUANA, AND TO REGULATE THE
CULTIVATION �F MARIJUANA FOR PERSONAL AND MEDICAL USE WITHIN THE
CITY, IN ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2017-Q2.
Mayor Black introduced the item and asked for staffls comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated this
item is a public hearing to consider the Planniilg Comrnission's (PC) recornmendation to adopt an
ordinance regarcling a new law that passed in June of 2017 allowing the use of marijuana for personal use.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-09-17 -6-
She indicated this is a first reading and introduction of Ordinance No. 355. She explained that the law
allows cities to deve�op their own ordinance. She stated that the City needs to be specific when adapting
an ordinance and should include items such as whether the City would like to prohibit commercial use and
commercial activities such as transportation and mobile delivery. She indicated that the City is required to
notify the state what type oF ordin�nce was adopted, otherwise, as of January 1, 2018 the state wi1Z be able
to issue licenses to residents in th� City unless an ordinance is adopted that specifically states that the City
does not allow cammercial marijuana or trausportation of marijuana. Planning Director Schwartz also
explained that there are certain provisions that must be aZlowed and that the PC is recommending an
ordinance that would allow the minimum that could be adopted based on state law. Planning Director
Schwarkz reviewed the proposed ordinance as follows: 1)A new Title was added to the Zoning Ordinance
on Marij uana Use; 2) Included section that specifies that certain activities are prohibited, which are
commercial cultivation, dispensation, and mobile dispensing of marijuana related to the commercial
aspect of it; 3) Definition� were added and taken directly from �he state law; 4} Medical marijuana and
personal use a�re allawed based on s�ate law which states that anyone over 21 years of age or older can
possess, process, purchase, transport, and obtain a certain amount of marijuana which is 28.5 grams of uri-
concentrated and $ grams of concentrated; 5) Engaging in personal cultivation indoor and autdoor— The
state does not dictate whether a City allows indoor or outdoor cultivation; however, this recommendation
came about from a previous City Council ordinance that allowed autdoor marijuana; however, the City
does not have to allow it; 6) The City must a11ow a maximum of six piants; 7) The City can limit the area
of where the plants are grown as this is allowed by the sta.te. The minirnum is SO square fee#; however,
the recominendation is for lOQ square feet; and 8) The area where the plants are grown should be
contiguous. Planning Director Schwartz indicated that the State Water Board is creating their own rules
and regu�atians and one of their �egulation.s will require that the area be contiguous. She sta.ted that this
provision is included in the proposed ordinance. She discussed another regulation that is being imposed
prahibits pIan�ing an slopes that are more than ten percent to mitigate water and runoff. She s#ated that
the recornmendation is to ailow this only on parcels with :residential units and not on vacant lots. She
stated that the pZants cannot be visible from the easements, trails, or any other property. She stated that
another recommendation is to keep the plants in a locked area if they are kept outdoors or if it is kept in an
accessory structure that it be locked. Planning Director Schwartz fiuther stated that if the plants are kept
outdoors they must be enclosed by a five-foot wall.
Councilmember Dieringer commented that she received the legal memo from the City Attorney. She
indicated that in the memo the City Attorney made it clear that the City cauld ban all outdoor cultivation
and adopt reasonable regulatians. She recommended that a condition be considered for residents to notify
the City o£indoor or outdoor cultivation and obtain a permit. She stated that a-provision could be added
to conduct an inspection to erisure the resident is complying with fire, electrical, ventilation, wate�r usage,
health and building codes. She recommended that the City place limits on the plant height and width
because currently under the statut� there is no size limitation to the six plants. Counciimember Dieringer
indicated that it would be he�pful for the City to have knowledge of which residents ha.ve a permit in case
a complaint is received.
Pianning Director Schwartz stated that whe�this item was brought to the PC staff did include registxation;
however,the PC did not support this recommendation and felt the provision could not be enforced.
Discussion ensued concerning residential structure requireznents, number of plants allowed, indoar and
outclaor cultivation,plant height, a�:�d wall enclosures.
There were no members of the public who requested to matce a public comment.
Following discussion, Councilmer.�nber Pieper moved that the City Council waive full reading, introduce
on first reading the ordinance as presented with an amendment to allow cultiv�tion indoors only, and to
bring the ordinance, as amended, for a second reading and adoption. Counci�nember Dieringer seconded
the motion.
In response to Mayor Black's question, City Attorney Jenkins advised �hat there is no provision in the
state law to determine if a person is irnpaired by marijuana.
Mayor Black called for a roll ca1F vote an the aforementioned motion. The motion carried by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Mirsch, Pieper,Wilson and Black.
NOES: Mayor Black.
ABSENT: None.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-09-17 -7-
ABSTAIN: None.
OLD BUSINESS
NONE.
NEW BUSINESS
NONE.
MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPURTS
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIREC'T�OIV �N ALLOWANCE OF CONSTRUCTION
FENCING ONLY V�I�N REQUIRED OR APPROVED BY THE CITY OR C�UNTY
BUII.DING OFFICIAL. (ORAL)
Mayor Black indicated that he requested a discussion on this matter. He expressed concern that there
were no regulations far construction fencing, in parkicular when there is no construction taking place.
Pianning Directar Schwartz recommended that a standard condition be included in the resolutions of
approval and not amend the�oning ardinance.
Discussion followed concerning construction related fencing versus aesthetic fencing, consideration af
adop�ing a standard condition to not allow construction fencing, except for specific purposes, wi�h
Planning Commission approval.
Mayor Black opened the public discussion.
Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West, comnnented that he concurs with the City Cauncil's concerns related to
construction fencing. He recommended that construction fencing be required around the construction area
only not the entire pxoperty.
Councilmember Dieringer comrnented that the City should not prohibit residents from having a
construction fence. She indicated that there could be safety issues, such as a hole in the graund that would
require fericing. Councilmember Dieringer stated that prohibitian of fencing could create a liabiliiy issue
far the City.
Planning Director Schwartz stated that it would be difficult not to put a fence around the entire property
because more room is needed for staging on the praperty and to prevent storm water runoff. Planning
Directar Schwartz did not recommend a resttiction to allow fencing in the construction area only.
Discussion followed concerning the adoption of an ordinance for one praperry and the process fox
extending construction permits.
By City Cauncil consensus, no action was taken on this matter.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION ON 70INING TAKING BACK OUR
COMMUNITY COALITION. {ORAL)
Councilmember Dieringer presented information on joining the Taking Back Our Cornmunity Coalitior�
organization. She indicated tl�at the coalition is comprised of local governments to provide public
education and advocacy related to the unintended adver�e pub�ic safety impacts of recent changes to
Califomia's criminal law. Councihnember Dieringer indicated that the City would be required to
contribute mernbership dues.
Discussion ensued concerning the administration, funding and objectives of the program.
Mayor Black mo�ed that the City Council jain the Talcing Back Our Community Caalition organization
and contribute membership dues. Councilmember Dieringer seconded the motion. Mayor Black called
for a roll call vote on the aforementioned motion. The motion failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmember Dieringer and Mayor Black.
NDES: Councilrnembers Mirsch, Pieper and Wilson.
Minutes
City Couricil Meeting
10-09-17 -8-
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
City Mana.ger Cruz indicated that he would not be in attendance at the next City Council meeting due to
his attendance at the International CitylCounty Management Association's conference. City Manager
Cruz provided an update on the City of Rolling Hills vs. California Watex Service case. He indxcated that
a preliminary hearing was held w�itli the Public Utilities Commission and tha.t another hearing was
scheduZed for December 1 S, 2017.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing na further business before the City Council, Mayor Black a.djourned the meeting at 9:59 p.m.
The ne�rk regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, October 23, 2017 at 7:OQ
}�.m, in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
RespectfuX�y submitted,
��
Yve e Hall
City Clerk
Approved,
�T Patrick ilson
Mayor
Minutes
City Council Meeting
10-09-17 -9-