Loading...
2/28/20001 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 28; 2000 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Pernell at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Hill, Lay, Murdock and Mayor Pro Tem Pernell. Councilmembers Absent: Mayor Heinsheimer (excused). Others Present: Craig R. Nealis, City Manager. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Lola Ungar, Planning Director. Nan Huang, Finance Director. Marilyn L. Kern, Deputy City Clerk. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. a. Minutes - (1) Adjourned Regular Meeting of February 9, 2000 and (2) Regular Meeting of February 14, 2000. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. b. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Financial Statement for the month of January, 2000. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. d. BFI Recycling Tonnage Report for January, 2000. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Councilmember Hill moved that the City Council approve the recommendations in the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Murdock seconded the motion which carried unanimously by those Councilmembers in attendance. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS RESOLUTION NO. 2000-02: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 605. Dr. Richard Sugiyama, 14 Outrider Road (Lot 75 -EF) City Manager Nealis presented the staff report providing background regarding the applicant's request and Planning Commission action relative to Zoning Case No. 605. Hearing no objection, Mayor Pro Tem Pernell ordered that Resolution No. 2000-02 be received and filed. TRAFFIC COMMISSION ITEMS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 599: AN APPEAL OF THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED REQUESTS: (1) VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE, (2) VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM TOTAL LOT COVERAGE, (3) VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DISTURBED AREA, (4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED GUEST HOUSE, (5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED TENNIS COURT, AND (6) SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE GUEST HOUSE, RETAINING WALL, TENNIS COURT AND GRADING AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. MR. AND MRS. JOSEPH GREGORIO, 16 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 68 -B -EF). Minutes City Council Meeting 02/28/00 -1- City Manager Nealis presented the staff report and information regarding the applicants' revised plans reducing the size of the court. He stated that the revised plans do not require the previously requested variances. Mayor Pro Tem Pernell opened the continued public hearing and called for testimony. Councilmembers discussed the proposed retaining wall. In response to Councilmember Murdock, Mr. Criss Gunderson, applicants' representative, explained that the proposed retaining wall assists in recessing the proposed sports court into the topography of the land. He also explained the Community Association's review of retaining walls and indicated that he feels that there would not be a problem with the Association review of this request. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Pro Tem Pernell closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Councilmember Lay moved that the City Council direct staff to prepare a resolution granting approval for a conditional use permit to permit the construction of a proposed guest house, a conditional use permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court, and site plan review for the guest house, retaining wall, tennis court and grading in Zoning Case No. 599 and that the resolution contain the findings and conditions adopted by the Planning Commission for consideration at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council to be held on Monday, March 13, 2000. Councilmember Hill seconded the motion which carried unanimously by those Councilmembers in attendance. ZONING CASE NO. 603: AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT GRADING AT 4 RINGBIT ROAD WEST (LOT 8 -A -SF) TO DEVELOP A DRIVEWAY AND A RETAINING WALL FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS TO AN ADJACENT PROPERTY AT 6 RINGBIT ROAD WEST (LOT 8 -A -2 -SF), ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA. City Manager Nealis presented the staff report providing background regarding the applicant's request, Planning Commission denial of the request and the applicant's appeal of that denial. City Manager Nealis stated that correspondence from the applicant's legal counsel dated February 28, 2000, has been placed before the City Council this evening. He said that the correspondence was received after the agenda materials were prepared and delivered to the City.Council. He explained the applicant's approved project at 6 Ringbit Road West, and ,the requirement that the applicant meet Fire Department engineering standards to construct a driveway access to that property. He commented on the negotiations between the applicant and the Fire Department that led to the plan presented this evening and other mitigation measures required by the Fire Department. City Attorney Mike Jenkins commented on procedural circumstances related to this case. He stated that the City Council approved a Site Plan for this project in March, 1998 and that the application was extended for another year. He said that this extension will expire on March 9, 2000 and explained that the Municipal Code provides for a second extension but that request would require review by the Planning Commission in a public hearing in the same manner as the original application. He said that this second review by the Planning Commission can be avoided if the applicant pulls the grading permit and commences construction activity before March 9, 2000. He explained that permits for the residential development cannot be issued without an approved driveway. Mayor Pro Tem Pernell opened the public hearing and called for testimony. Mr. Stan Lamport, applicant's representative, provided an overview of his correspondence dated February 28, 2000, relating to the history of the review of the residential development at 4 Ringbit Road West, and information regarding the current request for the driveway access to that approved site and the Los Angeles County Fire Protection Engineering review of the proposed driveway. He also provided comments on why he feels that there is no basis for the findings in the Planning, Commission resolution of denial relative to this case as stated in his February 28, 2000 letter. Councilmembers discussed with Mr. Lamport the proposed grading and the retaining wall for the driveway. Mr. Lamport pointed out on the plan where the cut and fill areas are proposed and explained the method of reducing the grade of the proposed driveway to meet the County Fire Department requirements. He also 'explained the need for the retaining wall to provide for a wider driveway for access to the property. In response to Councilmember Murdock, Mr. Ross Bolton, Bolton Engineering, explained that the maximum slope of the existing driveway is 237o and the proposed maximum slope is 20%. Minutes City Council Meeting 02/28/00 -2- Councilmember Murdock commented on.the City's requirement of a 12% maximum slope for driveways. In response, City Manager Nealis explained that the City defers to the County Fire Department's review and recommendations in such matters. He explained the additional mitigation measures required by the Fire,Depqq artm* enyt for this project. i , . rE��hc�:P.^a%.� i �+'i�:X?'vai''4=.'f�- • 4 ` . . . Discussion ensued regarding the drainage for the proposed driveway. Mr. Lamport pointed out on the plan how drainage will flow on the property at 6 Ringbit Road West and eventually be tied to the drainage plan for the project at 4 Ringbit Road West. Mr. Bolton explained that drainage plans for both properties have been reviewed by the County. Mr. Charles Raine, 2 Pinto Road, commented on Mr. Lamport's letter of February 28, 2000. He said that from his perspective of the discussions during the Planing Commission meetings, he feels that certain comments made in the letter were taken out of context. He expressed concern for the amount of grading required for the driveway in addition to the amount of grading for the residential development at 4 Ringbolt Road West and drew the Council's attention to the letter from other area property owners objecting to the amount of grading for the project. Discussion ensued regarding grading for other projects in the area. In response, Dr. Alfred Marrone, 17 Southfield Drive, stated that his project required just under 3,000 sq. yds. of cut and fill and explained the grading done for the residential development on his property. He stated that he feels that comments in the letter dated February 28, 2000 from Mr. Lamport are misleading. Dr. Marrone expressed concern for the amount of grading required for the driveway in addition to the amount of grading for the residential development at 4 Ringbit Road West and drew the Council's attention to the letter from other area property owners who were unanimously opposed to the amount of grading for the project. He 'stated that he feels that the residential development at 4 Ringbit Road would not have been approved if it were known that additional grading was going to be required to provide access to the property. In response to. Councilmember Lay, Dr. Marrone stated that his residence is located approximately 200 or 300 ft. from the proposed project. Dr. Marrone pointed out on the plan the location of his residence and explained what he feels are the differences between his project and the proposed project. He also expressed concern regarding the geology conditions in the area. Mr. Lamport expressed concern regarding the findings stated in the Planning Commission resolution of denial and explained the project parameters as they relate to each of those findings. He explained that there is no alternative location for the proposed driveway due to the existing terrain of the property. Mr. Lamport commented on the extensive geological and hydrology studies done on Ms. Tsou's property during the previous Planning Commission and City Council review of the approved residential development at 4 Ringbit Road West. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Pernell, City Attorney Jenkins stated that access needs to be provided for an approved project and the plan before the City Council seems to be the only location for a driveway to the approved project a 4 Ringbit Road West. Councilmember Lay commented on statements made during testimony that the residential development at 4 Ringbit Road would not have been approved if it were known that an additional grading was going to be required to provide access to the property. He said that the City Council would have preferred to review the total impact of the grading when the case was originally considered. Councilmembers discussed the access requirements for approved projects and the difficult position this case presents to the City Council. City Manager Nealis stated that this case would have been brought before the City Council as a major modification, even if it were all on one property. He explained that the Fire Department is taking a closer look and are more stringent for projects that are located in the County's urban wildlife interface zones, and discussed the fire safety mitigation measures required by the Fire Department. In response to Councilmember Murdock, Mr. Lamport stated that the Fire Department has indicated that further negotiations relative to this project would not be entertained. He also commented on the costs for the applicant associated with the implementation of the mitigation measures required by the Fire Department. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Pernell, City Attorney Jenkins reviewed the procedural circumstances related to this case due to the impending expiration of the Site Plan Review for the residential development at 4 Ringbit Road West. He stated that if the Site Plan were to expire, the applicant would need to submit a new zoning case for review and commence a new public hearing process. He stated that he advised the City Council two years ago that at Minutes City Council Meeting 02/28/00 -3- that time he felt that there was not sufficient evidence to support the complete denial of any development on this lot. He said that during the initial review of the project that the Planning Commission and City Council spent considerable time reviewing alternatives to this project and that the applicant received approval for a residence that is comparable to others in the community. He indicated that another review of the case may not uncover any further alternatives than those already discussed. He said that the City Council may wish to consider whether or not something new and different that may come from another complete re- examination of the project. Councilmember Hill commented on the safety issues relative to Fire Department's recommendations regarding this project and that he felt that the ability to place a fire truck on the driveway might increase the ability to combat a fire in that area. Further discussion ensued regarding the proposed driveway and the proposed grading for the project. Dr. Marrone, suggested, that the applicant may wish to consider reducing the size the building pad on the property at 4 Ringbit Road West in order to reduce the amount of grading. Mr. Lamport responded that this suggestion was considered during the original review of the project and it was found that the house size was not related to the pad size. Hearing no further testimony or discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Pernell closed the public hearing. Councilmembers reviewed the project and discussed the plan with the longer retaining wall that required less grading and compared it to the plan with the shorter retaining wall which required more grading. Councilmember Murdock stated that she feels that the shorter retaining wall when properly graded and landscaped would have less of an impact than the longer and higher retaining wall over time, and moved that the City Council over -rule the Planning Commission denial of the project and approve the plan as proposed. Councilmember Hill seconded the motion. Councilmember Lay stated that he feels that since the property at 4 Ringbit Road West is approved that access must be provided. He suggested that in if the future that such a situation occurs, it should be brought to the attention of the City as part of the site plan review process. City Attorney Jenkins stated that since the site plan review is scheduled to expire so soon, if it is the intention of the City Council to approve this case, he recommends that the City Council take a final action this evening. He stated that he has taken the liberty of preparing a Resolution in the event that it was the City Council's decision to approve this case this evening. He provided copies of the resolution to the City Council and interested members of the audience. Councilmembers and those in attendance discussed the resolution presented by the City Attorney. Mr. Charles Raine, expressed concern for the rush in meeting the deadline of the site plan review expiration. He said he feels that the Planning Commission should re -review the project in its totality. City Attorney Jenkins explained that the resolution contains the standard findings of fact associated with the approval of the driveway. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Pernell, City Attorney Jenkins explained that since the item is on the City Council agenda this evening, that the City Council may adopt a resolution relative to this zoning case. Discussion ensued regarding the Community Association's review of the proposed project. It was suggested that Condition T of the resolution be amended to read "The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit and prior to the issuance of building permits for the residence at 6 Ringbit Road West (Lot 8 -A -2 -SF) which is the subject of Zoning Case No. 545A." Mr. Lamport indicated that he has no objection to this amendment. Councilmember Murdock moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 876 as amended. Councilmember Hill seconded the motion which carried unanimously by those Councilmembers in attendance. RECESS Mayor Pro Tem Pernell recessed the meeting at 9:18 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at 9:28 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER OF THE CITY'S CURRENT SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE BY BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, TO ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION. Minutes City Council Meeting 02/28/00 -4- RESOLUTION NO. 874: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING AND CONSENTING TO THE ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER OF A SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE. CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED:51iYE,ARn EXTENSION TO THE EXISTING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE. RESOLUTION NO. 875: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A FIVE YEAR EXTENSION TO THE SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE. City Manager Nealis reported that staff has not been able to review appropriate documents relating to the transfer from BFI legal counsel, therefore, he suggested that both of these items be continued to the City Council meeting on Monday, March 27, 2000. Hearing no objection, Mayor Pro Tem Pernell continued the public hearing to Monday, March 27, 2000, beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. OLD BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COLOR SCHEME AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS RENOVATION PROJECT. City Manager Nealis presented the staff report providing background regarding the project. Ms. Lisa Hunnicutt, Hunnicutt Design Associates, explained that certain architectural features of the project such as glass for the entranceway, carpet and lighting fixtures must be selected so that plans could be prepared for the bidding process. She presented three carpet samples for review by the City Council. Councilmembers discussed the choices and selected one of the samples. Ms. Hunnicutt provided information regarding the lighting fixtures and drew the Councilmembers attention to the picture she provided. Councilmembers approved the sample that was presented. Ms. Hunnicutt then presented a sample of the glass for the entranceway. Councilmembers discussed the proposed glass and indicated that they would like to see a glass material that would require less cleaning maintenance, and directed staff to pursue this option. Discussion ensued regarding the draft plans and details presented by Ms. Hunnicutt. She explained that these plans were a boiler plate for the final plans that would be prepared for the bidding process and that the final plans would contain information only pertinent to this project. After a brief discussion regarding various components of the project outlined on the plans, the consultant and staff were directed to proceed with final plans and specifications for the project utilizing the carpet and lighting samples selected at the meeting and research the potential selection of an etched tempered glass material that will require less cleaning maintenance. NEW BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF BID FOR A HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IN THE YEAR 2000 AND GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS. City Manager Nealis reported that only one bid was received for this project and it was still being reviewed by staff. He suggested that the City Council hold his item on the agenda for presentation at the next meeting. Hearing no objection, Mayor Pro Tem Pernell continued this item to Monday, March 13, 2000, beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. OPEN AGENDA - APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME None. Minutes City Council Meeting 02/28/00 -5- MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Pro Tem Pernell commented on the Site Plan Review process and the review of driveway accesses in conjunction with these cases. MATTERS FROM STAFF City Manager Nealis reported that the date of April 3, 2000 has been selected for the City Council/ Planning Commission Joint Meeting. City Attorney Mr. Jenkins could not be in attendance on that date. After a brief discussion, April 5, 2000 was suggested as an alternative date for the meeting. MATTERS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY None. ADIOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Pro Tem Pernell adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m., to the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, March 13, 2000, beginning at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Approved, y Pernell Mayor Pro Tem Minutes City Council Meeting 02/28/00 Respectfully submitted, Marilyn- - Deputy City Clerk In 1