1242.pdf i
RESOLUTION N0. 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 sunilar properties in the same vicinity or
zone.
Section 3. The Planning Coinmission 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
i 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
j 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]11 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 Flying Mane Lane 3
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2019.
�� � G'�i./
Leah Mirsch
Mayor
ATTEST:
�'�,,
�:
City Cl�.rk -
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 SE PLACED UNDERGROUND
� IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSTRIJCTION 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: Pieper and Wilson.
ABSENT: None.
ASSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
I
�v -
_ ,
CIT'Y T�
�
t
�_
I
Reso.No.1242 5 Flying Mane Lane 5