Loading...
6/28/2010MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2010 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor 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: Black, Heinsheimer, Hill, Lay and Mayor Pernell. Councilmembers Absent: None. Others Present: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Heidi Luce, Deputy City Clerk. Malcolm Sharp, Clerk, PVPUSD Board of Directors. Kelly Johnson, Principal, Peninsula High School. 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 -Regular Meeting of June 14, 2010. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Allied Recycling Tonnage Report for May, 2010. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. D. Correspondence from Southern California Gas Company regarding Notice of filing of the Gas Cost Incentive Mechanism (GCIM) Application No. A.10-06-006. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Councilmember Heinsheimer moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar. Councilmember Hill seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Special Presentation to Kelly Johnson in recognition of his retirement from the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Mayor Pernell presented Mr. Johnson with a City Council Commendation congratulating him on his retirement; and in recognition of his 40 years of dedication to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District and his outstanding service to the community of Rolling Hills. COMMISSION ITEMS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 783; An appeal to the City Council of a Planning Commission decision to uphold City staff's administrative approval of a request to renovate and remodel a stable structure and to construct an adjacent corral at a property owned by Dr. Stephanie Culver and Mr. Victor George, located at 76 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA. The appeal is filed by Ms. Julie Walter and Mr. John Walter at 92 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills, CA. Minutes City Council Meeting 06/28/10 -1- Mayor Pernell introduced Zoning Case No. 783. City Manager Dahlerbruch stated that before the City Council is an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to uphold staff's over-the-counter approval of a barn on the Culver property. He stated that approval is a precursor to construction permits for a request that the structure, which had not been used as a barn, would be used again as a barn. He further stated the process was ministerial, in that the Municipal Code specifies what is required for over-the-counter approval, staff verifies whether or not the request meets the criteria and staff is required to grant approval if it does, if not, the request is sent back to the applicant. Planning Director Schwartz presented the staff report for Zoning Case No. 783 stating that there are building permits on record showing that in 1963, a 1,344 square foot stable was constructed in the location depicted in the plan. She stated that although the structure was originally used as a stable, subsequently it had not been used as a stable. She stated that a previous property owner remodeled the structure, finished some of the rooms and used it as other than a stable. She stated that the current property owners, purchased it as is and are using the structure as a recreation room and hobby shop. She stated that on May 2, 2010, the current property owner's agent, Mr. Bill Howe came to the City with a request for approval to convert the structure back to a stable with no expansion. She stated that the approval was granted over the counter under the Zone Clearance chapter of the City's zoning ordinance She stated that the chapter lists the projects that are to be approved over-the-counter and stables and corrals are included in the list. She stated that staff verifies that the structure meets applicable sections of the zoning ordinance. She stated that the request was approved over-the-counter and subsequently appealed to the Planning Commission. She stated that the Planning Commission upheld staff's decision and the approval was subsequently appealed to the City Council. In response to Mayor Pernell's request to clarify and narrow down what is before the City Council, City Attorney Jenkins stated that the issue before the City Council is very narrow. He stated that the question is, in determining whether or not the specific request met the code requirements, did staff make a mistake. He stated that when staff is presented with an over-the-counter approval, all they do is look at what is being proposed to determine if it satisfies the Zoning Code. He stated that it is not a discretionary approval like a CUP. He stated that it is ministerial and does not involve discretion and that the only question on appeal is, did staff make a mistake in determining that the request satisfied the requirements when granting approval. City Attorney Jenkins stated that all of the correspondence that has been submitted, has been distributed to the City Council and the City Council has had an opportunity to review the information. Council Member Black stated that he has not reviewed the correspondence that came in today and was placed on the dais. The City Council took a brief recess to review the information. Following the recess, Mayor Pernell opened the public hearing and called for public testimony. Andrew Kienle, addressed the City Council stating that he represents John and Julie Walter, 92 Crest Road East. He stated that his letter of June 24, 2010 gives an overview and all the provision of the Municipal Code that they believe legally should have been considered but weren't. He stated that he will summarize a few of the critical issues as addressed in his letter. He stated that when looking specifically at the Zone Clearance Ordinance, which governs here, their position is that as a result of the use of the structure and the construction or reconfiguration of the structure the plans should not have been approved because of the fact that it was illegal in so many respects and in violation of so many of the applicable Municipal Codes dealing with the rec room/hobby shop, exclusive uses of barns, sizes of the stable as noted in his letter. He stated that it is all of these provisions, within Chapter 17, which had to be considered and if they were, considered in detail as it applies to the proposed structure it would have never been approved. He stated that the most important aspect of the appeal is the facts that they learned after the Planning Commission hearing of May 18, 2010. He sated that at the hearing there were a number of questions, as pointed out in his letter, from various Commissioners as to what would happen if the construction proceeds according to plan relative to the use of the structure — would they really have to use it as a barn in total; can they use it as a rec room or hobby shop? He stated that based on information received from City staff since that hearing, the answer is that it will be used and kept in a manner exactly as it has been since prior to the Georges purchasing the property. He sated that the use is the concern; if it is working barn, and nothing but a working bark then there is no issue. He sated that if the Georges are allowed to keep a vast majority of the structure as it is, that will be the problem. He said the Walters will continue to face the problems with noise and smells as they have over the last two years. He stated that the Walter's will also face decreased property value if the structure is allowed to remain as is. He stated that the basis for the appeal is two -fold; first, failure to consider the objective criteria as noted in his letter and more importantly, that the decision was made by the Planning Commission based on misinformation which was confirmed after the Planning Commission hearing. He Minutes City Council Meeting 06/28/10 -2- further stated in response to the letter from the Georges, that there is no substantive argument which challenges any of the positions set forth in his June 24`h letter. He stated that the Georges are taking advantage of a process that the City Council is in the process of changing as they consider of a new barn ordinance which would eliminate over-the-counter approval of barns. He stated that at a minimum, he would request that the issue be tabled until the ordinance moves forward so that this structure, along with all others are treated in like manner. John Walter, 92 Crest Road East addressed the City Council stating that when he moved here, the structure next to his property was a barn - used as a barn and he had no objection to it. He stated that when the structure began to be used for other uses it changed his standard of living noting that the barn is closer to his house than it is to his neighbors. He stated that if the barn is returned to a barn with horses and used as a barn, he would be happy but he doesn't believe it will used as a barn. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Lay's request for clarification regarding Mr. Kienle's reference to misinformation. Mr. Kienle stated that there were a number of questions at the Planning Commission hearing regarding the use of the structure and how it would be enforced that the structure would be used as a stable. He stated that at the meeting, Planning Director Schwartz stated in response that the structure would not be approved with chandeliers and hardwood floors in place. He stated that the e-mails between Julie Walter and City Manager Dahlerbruch, which are attached to his letter, conflict with the Planning Directors statement. He stated that City Manager Dahlerbruch's response to Julie Walter's question if the George's would be required to get rid of the chandeliers, hard wood floors etc., was no. Victor George, 76 Eastfield Drive, addressed the City Council stating they his family moved in in 2005. He stated that this is the third of four appeals by the Walters. Mr. George reviewed the timeline and outcome of the appeals including those to the Rolling Hills Community Association. He stated that this appeal is an appeal of an appeal to the Planning Commission which they lost 5-0. He stated that the appeals often include attacks on individuals, this one being against city staff. He further stated that the issue was originally set for mediation, but Ms. Walter cancelled the mediation stating that she would like to speak to a lawyer. He sated that tonight, there is only one question, did city staff make a mistake? He stated that as City Attorney Jenkins stated, there is no discretion. He stated that he believes that in reviewing the Walter's submission, that there is nothing to indicate that city staff made a mistake. Beth King, 9 Wideloop Road stated that she feels the Walters and Georges should have been able to resolve this issue without it going this far. She stated that she feels that given the situation, a big mistake has been made in approving the structure as it exists currently. Mr. Kienle responded to Mr. George's comments stating that they have never directly attacked any specific person. He stated that they have gone through the processes available to them and there have been no personal attacks. He stated that Mr. George is taking everything out of context. He stated that the Walter's would be willing to mediate and that he has sent several correspondence to Mr. George suggesting that they resolve the matter to which Mr. George did not reply. He stated that the Walters want the windows in the back closed and the open areas closed so that their property is not impacted by what is done in the structure. Mr. George stated that the items Mr. Kienle discussed are irrelevant to what is before the City Council tonight. He stated that what is before the City Council is did city staff err in approving the structure. Mayor Pernell asked City Attorney Jenkins to reiterate the issue and clarify the relevant points submitted during the public testimony. City Attorney Jenkins stated that Planning Director Schwartz approved the request as presented with the conditions noted on the plans, so the question before the City Council is, did it meet the code or did it not meet the code. He stated the IVMr. `Kienle has asserted that it did not meet the code. He stated that while there is a lot of history surrounding the relationships between the two neighbors and prior use of the barn, those issues are not the focus of the inquiry before the City Council tonight. He stated that he question is — is what is on the approved plan consistent with the requirements of the code. He noted that another questions is what is the intended us of the barn and is that clear. He stated that the City is not in a position to approve plans that allow the barn to be used for anything other than animal keeping. Discussion ensued relative to the approved plans and Council Member Heinsheimer reviewed the conditions noted on the plans. Further discussion ensued concerning final approval and enforcement relative to the use of the structure. Minutes City Council Meeting 06/28/10 -3- Following discussion and public testimony, Mayor Pernell closed the public hearing. Councilmember Heinsheimer moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1087 upholding the Planning Commission's denial of an appeal of the administrative approval of a request to remodel a stable structure and construct an adjacent corral at 76 Eastfield Drive to be used for animal keeping purposes as required by the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and pursuant to Chapter 17.44 Zone Clearance of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Mayor Pro Tem Lay seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Black, Hill, Heinsheimer, Lay and Mayor Pernell. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. OPEN AGENDA - APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Council to say thank you on behalf of the Caballeros for the budget appropriation recently approved. He stated that the funds will be used to do some work on Hix Ring. MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL None. MATTERS FROM STAFF None. MATTERS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY No closed session was held. City Attorney Jenkins provided a brief oral update relative to the implementation of the remediation at #1 Poppy Trail. He stated that the project is progressing and that they will continue to keep the parties informed as to the progress. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Pernell adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, July 12, 2010 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Approved, Minutes City Council Meeting 06/28/10 Respectfully submitted, Heidi Luce Deputy City Clerk -4-