957, Addition & remodel of SFR, req, Resolutions & Approval Conditionsr
RESOLUTION NO. 1242
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM
THE REQUIREMENT THAT UTILITY LINES BE PLACED
UNDERGROUND IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF
AN ADDITION AND MAJOR REMODEL IN ZONING CASE NO. 957,
AT 5 FLYING MANE LANE, ROLLING HILLS (LOT 45-SF),
(WALKER).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. In February 2013, the property owner (Mr. Richard Walker) at 5
Flying Mane Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 45-SF) received administrative approval (over -the
counter) for a 992 square foot addition and major renovation to his residence. In June
2015, he received administrative approval for a new 790 square foot swimming pool. In
or around December 2018, the property owner completed construction and has since
been awaiting final sign off of the residential structure. Section 17.27.030 of the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC") states in part that "[a]ll utilities servicing the building
in question or any residentially zoned parcel shall be installed underground upon: (B)
[r]emodeling of a primary or accessory building which entails enlargement of the
structure or alteration of the building footprint."
Section 2. On March 7, 2019, an application was duly filed by Mr. Richard
Walker ("Applicant") requesting a variance from the requirement that utility lines be
placed underground. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code permit approval of a variance granting relief from the standards and
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property prevent the owner from making use of a parcel
of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity or
zone.
Section 3. The Planning Commission considered the application for the
requested variance and conducted several duly noticed public hearings on April 16,
2019 at a field trip and at its regular meeting and also on May 21, 2019 at its regular
meeting.
Section 4. Following Planning Commission approval of Zoning Case No. 957,
the City Council took jurisdiction of the case at its June 10, 2019 meeting. Pursuant to
Section 17.54.015 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, a review hearing for cases taken
under jurisdiction by the City Council must be conducted de novo.
Section 5. On July 2, 2019, the City Council held a duly noticed public
meeting in the field to conduct a public hearing and to observe the project. It reviewed
and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered the Applicant's request, took
brief public testimony, and considered other information on the record. The City
Council continued the public hearing to its regularly scheduled meeting on July 8, 2019.
Section 6. At the July 8, 2019 regular City Council meeting, the City Council
conducted a duly noticed public hearing during which interested parties testified and
the City Council considered all the information on record. The City Council directed
staff to consult with Southern California Edison regarding the safety of the low hanging
utility lines on the property and the available methods for undergrounding the utility
lines and also continued the public hearing to its regularly scheduled meeting on July
22, 2019.
Reso. No.1242 5 Flying Mane Lane
1
Section 7. At the July 22, 2019 regular City Council meeting, the City Council
conducted a duly noticed public hearing during which it reviewed and considered the
staff report, took brief public testimony, and considered other information on the
record. Staff reported that a Southern California Edison Planner visited the site on July
17, 2019 and made the following findings:
• The main utility lines between the lower pole and the upper pole are low due to
a very large tree branch leaning on them, not because of the ascending slope.
Edison would remove the brush around the lines but it would not cut such a
large branch.
• The main utility lines running from the lower pole to the upper pole are
telecommunication lines for 5 Flying Mane Lane and electrical and
telecommunication lines feeding other properties.
• It would be difficult to underground from Applicant's existing electrical panel to
the upper pole due to the shallow bedrock and soft, uncompacted dirt on the
surface of the slope.
• An alternate solution would be to install a new pole in the flat portion of the
easement between the lower and upper pole. Applicant could underground to
the new pole and eliminate lines currently feeding Applicant's residence from
the upper pole.
• Applicant would also need to relocate the existing electrical panel to the north
wall of the house.
• The two existing poles (the lower and upper poles) and the lines between them
(other than lines to 5 Flying Mane Lane) would remain since they feed other
properties.
• Edison would need an easement from the owner of 5 Flying Mane Lane to place
the new pole.
Based on the evidence in the record, the City Council directed staff to prepare a
resolution of denial for the requested variance.
Section 8. Applicant was notified of the public hearings in writing. The
Applicant's representative was in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was presented
by all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of City staff. The
City Council reviewed, analyzed, and studied the proposal.
Section 9. Having considered the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings of fact:
A. There are not exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same vicinity and in the same zone. Although Applicant consulted with several
experts, including T.I.N. Engineering Company (Geotecnical, Structural,
Environmental engineer), Checker Construction, Earth, Construction & Mining
(explosive manager), and Southern California Edison for opinions on
undergrouding the utility lines on the property and was advised that it would be
difficult to underground due to the soils condition over the slope between the
electrical panel on the residence and the upper utility pole on the property, an
alternate route for the undergrounding was identified as available to Applicant
by Southern California Edison making it feasible to underground the utility lines
with the use of a third pole. The alternative route would allow Applicant to fulfil
the requirements of RHMC Section 17.27.030. Hence, in view of the available
route, there is no exceptional circumstances or condition on the property that
would justify varying from the otherwise applicable Code requirement.
B. The requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and
zone, but which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance.
Applicant received permission to construct an addition to an existing single-
Reso. No.1242 5 Flying Mane Lane
2
family residence and to undertake a major remodel with knowledge that
undergrounding of utility lines is a necessary requirement. This requirement is
applicable to all other property owners in the vicinity and zone absent the
granting of a variance. Based on evidence presented by Southern California
Edison, Applicant is able to comply with the undergrounding requirement by
utilizing another pole and relocating the electrical panel on the residence.
Therefore, the requested variance is not necessary for Applicant's enjoyment of a
substantial property right as there is an idenified method for undergrounding.
C. The requested Variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located. The City is located in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone (VHFHSZ) where fires have occurred in the past. Many of the fires in
California have started from a spark or blown transformer from an above ground
utility line. Undergrounding of the utility lines would protect the property and
those in vicnity in case of a fire and would be beneficial to the public welfare, the
subject property, and improvements in the vicinity. Granting the requested
variance from the undergroudning requirement when there is method for
undergrounding would be materially deterimental to the public welfare and
injurious to the property and improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the
property is located.
D. The requested variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will not be
observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an
orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the
General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance requires undergrounding of utility lines.
Granting the variance would allow a property to maintain visible utility lines
and compromise the safety of the property and other properties in the vicinity by
posing an additional risk of fire hazard when such risk is not necessary due to an
identified method for undergrounding.
E. The requested variance would grant special privileges to Applicant. Section
17.27.030 of RHMC states in part that "[a]ll utilities servicing the building in
question or any residentially zoned parcel shall be installed underground upon:
(B) [r]emodeling of a primary or accessory building which entails enlargement of
the structure or alteration of the building footprint." Section 17.27.030 applies to
all properties within the City absent a variance based on exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property. Evidence was presented
by Southern California Edison that there is an identified method to underground
the utility lines. Granting the requested variance would provide Applicant with a
special privilege that is not afforded to other residents.
F. The requested variance is not consistent with the General Plan. One of the goals
of the Safety Element in the General Plan is to reduce threats to public safety and
protect property from brush fire hazards. Allowing Applicant to avoid the
undegrounding requirement even though there is an identified method to
underground the utility lines on the property would not contribute to reducing
threats to public safety or contribute to protection of property from brush fire
hazards. Instead, it would leave the property and surrounding properties more
vulnerable to the threat of brush fire hazards even when a method of
undergrounding has been identified.
Section 10. Having considered the evidence, the City Council denies the
request for variance from the requirement that utility lines be placed underground in
conjunction with construction of an addition and major remodel in Zoning Case No.
957.
Reso. No. 1242 5 Flvine Mane Lane
3
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPThD THIS 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2019.
Leah Mirsch U
Mayor
ATTEST:
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public
hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section
17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section
1094.6.
Reso. No.1242 5 Flying Mane Lane
4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
) §§
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1242 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIREMENT THAT UTILITY LINES BE PLACED UNDERGROUND
IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AND
MAJOR REMODEL IN ZONING CASE NO. 957, AT 5 FLYING MANE
LANE, ROLLING HILLS (LOT 45-SF), (WALKER).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Concil on August 12, 2019
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Black, Dieringer, and Mayor Mirsch.
NOES:
ABSENT:
Pieper and Wilson.
None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
Reso. No. 1242 5 Flying Mane Iane
5
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIREMENT THAT UTILITY LINES BE PLACED
UNDERGROUND IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CONSTRUCTION
OF AN ADDITION AND MAJOR REMODEL IN ZONING CASE
NO. 957, AT 5 FLYING MANE LANE, ROLLING HILLS (LOT 45-
SF), (WALKER).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDIt'R AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Application was duly filed by Mr. Richard Walker with respect to
real property located at 5 Flying Mane Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 45-SF) requesting a
Variance to not to underground utility lines on his property, after having made
improvements to the residence including an addition.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearing
to consider the application at their regular meeting on April 16, 2019 and at a field trip
on the same day. Neighbors within a 1,000-foot radius were notified by mail of the
public hearings and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on April 4, 2019. The
applicants and their agents were notified of the public hearings. One of the applicant's
agent was in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard and presented from all
persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff. No
one from the public provided input on this project.
Section 3. In February 2013, the property owners received an administrative
approval (over -the counter) for a 992 square foot addition and major renovation to the
residence. In June of 2015 an administrative approval was granted for a new 790 square
foot swimming pool. The applicant has completed the construction and is awaiting final
sign off of the residential structure. Section 17.27.030 of the Zoning Ordinance states in
part that "All utilities servicing the building in question or any residentially zoned
parcel shall be installed underground upon: (B) Remodeling of a primary or accessory
building which entails enlargement of the structure or alteration of the building
footprint, and (D) Relocating or increasing the electrical panel servicing a building or
parcel".
Section 4. The residence is located approximately 20'-25' below the level of
the utility pole from which the applicant is drawing power and cable service, and
currently the utility lines are strung above ground from the pole to the panel located at
the residence. The descending slope from the pole to the residence ranges in slope from
3/4:1 and 1.5:1 gradient and in some areas 1.5:1 to 2:1 gradient.
Section 5. Prior to applying for the variance, the applicant consulted with the
electrical company (Edison), a Geotechnical Engineering firm, a Trenching/Grading
Contractor and an Earth and Mining Contractor for an opinion of whether the slope
could be trenched in order to place the lines underground in the slope. The industry
experts submitted letters with their opinion that it would be a hardship and dangerous
to underground the utility lines below such a steep slope. The geotechnical report found
that there is 1' to 1.5' fill over the slope, and below the fill bedrock of several feet deep
was encoutered. Edison and other utility companies require that the trench for
undergrounding of utility lines be at a minimum 30" deep; a depth where in this case
the bedrock is located. The applicant explored several other alternatives with Edison
Co., such as allowing trenching in a different direction and connecting to the new panel
from a different angle or trenching closer to the surface. These alternatives were rejected
by Edison Co. The letters from Southern California Edison Co., T.I.N. Engineering
Company, Checker Construction Co. and ECM, Earth, Construction and Mining Co. are
on file, in support of the Variance.
Reso. No. 2019-09 5 Flying Mane Lane 1
• •
Section 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Action (CEQA) pursuant to Class 1, 14 CCR Section
15301: minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical
equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use; and
common sense exemption: 14 CCR Section 15061(b)(3): can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment.
Section 7. Variance. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code permit approval of Variances granting relief from the standards and
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property prevent the owner from making use of a parcel
of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity or
zone. A variance from the requirements of RHMC Section 17.27.030 (Undergrounding
of utility lines) is being requested to waive the requirement for undergrounding of the
utility lines. With respect to the aforementioned request for a variance, the Planning
Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same vicinity and in the same zone. In 2013, the property owners received an
administrative approval (over -the counter) for a 992-square-foot addition to the
residence and major remodel. One of the conditions of the approval was to
underground the utility lines as required by Section 17.27.030 of the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant consulted with Edison Co. for plans and specification
to underground the utility lines and, upon inspection by an Edison Co. Planner
was advised that the support soil on the surface and visible bedrock below are
of concern for undergrounding. The applicant then consulted a Geotechnical
Engineer, Trenching/grading Contractor and an Earth and Mining Company,
all of which found difficulties with undergrounding. Letters from these
companies are on file and are in support of the Variance. Alternatives were
discussed with the property owner and Edison Co., such as allowing trenching
in a different direction and connecting to the new electrical panel from a
different angle or trenching closer to the surface of the ground. Edison does not
permit this option even if the lines are encased in concrete as was offered. They
can only accept 30" deep trench. All of these alternatives were rejected by
Edison Co. Consequently, strict compliance with the requirements of Section
17.27.030 is simply not feasible on this property.
B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but
which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance. The
property owner desires an addition to an existing single-family residence. The
addition is otherwise permissible under the Code. Absent the variance, this
property owner would not be able to remodel the residence in a manner that
would result in enlargement of the structure or alteration of the building
footprint. These are rights that are afforded all other property owners in the
vicinity and zone —rights that should not be denied to this property owner solely
because of the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances discussed herein that
are beyond the owner's control.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in
which the property is located. Currently, the utilities are located on a utility pole
located on subject property, not in roadway easement or a neighboring property.
The lines are only visible from the subject property as they are screened by dense
vegetation, so that no other neighbors see them and they are not detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. In
fact, the status quo has been improved somewhat by the upgrading of the utility
Reso. No. 2019-09 5 Flying Mane Lane 2
panel. While undergrounding of the utilities would be ideal, the fact that it is
infeasible does not result in a detriment to the public welfare or to any nearby
properties. The Commission has considered the nature, condition, and
development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures, and the topography of
the area in evaluating this finding.
D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be
observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in
an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the
General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning
Ordinance or the General Plan. While undergrounding of the utilities would be
ideal, the fact that it is infeasible does not result in infringing on the spirit and
intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Rather, the variance will allow the property
owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners
in the vicinity.
E. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. To the contrary,
absent a variance, the property owner would be deprived of the same rights and
privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. Unique
circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the
property owner to comply with Section 17.27.030. The applicant's consultants
submitted letters testifying to the infeasibility of trenching for the
undergrounding, due to the Iocation of bedrock, soft fill on the slope, steep
gradient of the hillside between the pole and the residence and presence of
foliage and natural landscape that would be lost if trenching was done.
F. The variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for
hazardous waste facilities. The project site is not listed on the current State of
California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. It will not affect any
existing hazardous waste management facilities.
G. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. Although the variance
will waive the requirement to underground utility lines, it will allow the
property owner to continue the use of the property. Accordingly, the project is
still in line with the General Plan's requirement of low profile, low -density
residential development and is respectful of maintaing the community's natural
terrain. The proposed project, together with the variance, will be compatible with
the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General
Plan.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance in Zoning Case No. 957 not to underground the utility
lines, subject to the following conditions:
A. The approval of the variance applies only in connection with the proposed
project and it does not imply that or prohibit the present or new property owner from
undergrounding the utility lines in the future.
B. If any condition of this resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by
this resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and
upon receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed, if
any, on the subject property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by
the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the violation. The stop work
order will be lifted once the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City
Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the Applicant disputes the City
Manager or his/her designee's determination that a violation exists or disputes how the
violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City Council.
The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for
Reso. No. 2019-09 5 Flying Mane Lane 3
• •
which the agenda has not yet been posted; the Applicant shall be provided written
notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency
of the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of
this Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred
or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the Council will lift the stop work order. If
the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, the
Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no
construction work shall be performed on the property until and unless the violation is
cured by the deadline, other than work designated by the Council to accomplish the
cure. If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the
deadline at the Applicant's request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the
entitlements granted by this Resolution pursuant to Chapter 17.58 of the RHMC.
C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the
Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be
complied with unless otherwise set forth in this Permit, or shown otherwise on an
approved plan.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated February 13, 2013 except as
otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of
this Variance pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approval shall not be effective.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADO1'1'hD THIS 21st DAY OF MAY 2019.
'SEAN CARDENAS,
VICE-CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
CITY ¢LERK
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the
public hearing on this application must be filed within the time Iimits set forth in
Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.6.
Reso. No. 2019-09 5 Flying Mane Lane 4
• •
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS)
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2019-09 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENT
THAT UTILITY LINES BE PLACED UNDERGROUND IN CONJUNCTION
WITH A CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AND MAJOR REMODEL IN
ZONING CASE NO. 957, AT 5 FLYING MANE LANE, ROLLING HILLS (LOT
45-SF), (WALKER).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
May 21, 2019 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: CARDENAS, COOLEY AND SEABURN.
NOES: NONE.
ABSENT: KIRKPATRICK.
ABSTAIN: CHAIRMAN CHELF (RECUSED).
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offs
CITY CLERK
Reso. No. 2019-09 5 Flying Mane Lane 5