Loading...
1/21/1985 �lU MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL � ROLLING HILLS PLANNING C0:"Il�'IISSION • January 21y 1985 A joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order at tlie Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California by Mayor Leeuwenburgh at 7 :30 p.m. Monday, January 21 , 1985 . � ROLL CALL . CITY COUNCIL PRESENT : Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Murdock, Pernell, Swanson Mayor Leeuwenburgh � ABSENT : None � PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENT: Commissioners Bundyy Fielda Hankins, Chairman Roberts ABSENT: Commissioner Frost (arrived at 8 :00 p.mo) ALSO PRESENT: June Cunningham Deputy City Clerk Richard Anderson Regional Planning Don Bailey Southern California Edison Co . Mayor Leeuwenburgh introduced Mr. Don Bailey, District Manager for - Southern California Edison Company, and she invited Mr. Richard Anderson - of the Regional Planning Department to join members of the City Eouncil and Planning Commission at the table and participate in the discussion. DISCUSSION OF GRADING PROCEDURES IN ROLLSNG HILLS 1925 � Cha3_rman Roberts said that �on behalf of the Planning Commission he wished to thank members of the City Council . for their guid�ance and support, ancl he suggested that a joint meeting be �scheduled from time to time to discuss matters of mutual concern such as grading procedures, planned for discussion at this meeting. Chairman Roberts said the �� County' s District Engineer, Harry Kondo, attended two Planriing Commis- sion meetings and provided valuable information to the Commission by reviewing the County' s procedures concerning grading� Since all grading permits do not come before the Planning Commission, some problems oc- curred because of mis-interpretation of the City` s requirements regard- ing height limitation of 30' for slopes unless a variance is obtained. Copies of the .._County` s Grading Correction Sheet were reviewed by the � Planning Commission� and City Council and following discussion members � of the Council and Commission a,greed to abide by �the procedure followed by the County which requires that when grading is done as a corrective measure the soil which is removed, recompacted and returned may be re- turned to the existing grade, i.e. the grade which was in existence.. be- fore the corrective work. was initiated. The City' s requirement' for 2 :1 grading was discussed, and it was agreed that enforcing the 2: 1 limit ' � on a problem lot where corrective grading is �required could result in a need for .huge retaining walls and small building pad. Chairman Roberts said it was the consensus of inembers 'of the Planning Commission that if soil is recompacted the topography should be returned to the � pre-graded slope; if. a new slope is created it � should be 2:1 in con- formance with the City°s gradix�g ordinance. . Members of the Council concurred with the interpretation. ' COMMISSIONER FROST ARRIVED AT 8 : 00 P.M. Chairman Roberts said that in reviewing plans the Planning Com- mission has noted that many requests for variances are made because � the parcel on which an improvement is being planned is too small to accommodate the proposed development. He said in many cases the solution is to make the proposed development smaller in size to ' elim- . inate the need for extensive grading. . - I 117 January 21, 1985 Mayor Leeuwenburgh addressed grading currently being done on Chuckwagon Road, and she said it is her understanding that the cor- rective grading that is being done to stabi.lize the road is being keyed with 12:1 grading, and other grading being done on the lot will be 2 :1 . The Mayor said all grading being done on that partic- ular lot is in accordance with requirements of the County geologi�� . . because it �aas determined that the �lot contained debris from grading when Chuckwagon Road� was built.. Mr. Anderson explained that the County Geologist is concerned ab.out stability artd safety on the lot . and the City is concerned also about esthetics and impact of the extensive grading on�neighboring properties . Councilwoman Swanson said such matters should be reviewed by the -� . � City, stating that the corrective grading was required by the Countg geologist based� on findings by Lockwood-Singh the owner' s geologists : She said the need for extensive grading was not brought to the City' s attention, but .�he wor�k has been go.ing on five days a week for five and one half montlis . Councilman Swanson. said there is a need to de- velop a process by which the City will review such grading projects, and also a need to protect neighboring proPerties, stating that the � plans do not show retaining walls to protect adjacent properties al- ` � though the slope is in excess of that permitted by the City's ordinance. � Chairman Roberts said the County should have contacted the City when it � was determined that the slope would be in excess of thirty feet, ` and � � - � that the grading would not comply with the City` s ordinances if rei _ �. Q turned to the original grade. Commissioner Bundy said it is very costly for the property owner when brought to the attention of the City after so much work has been done, and he suggested that review take place in advance of �the work. Chairman Rober.ts asked for suggestions abaut how the matter should be handled. Councilwoman Swanson said a variance should be required �for all grading which does n�t confarm to the City' s 2 : 1 . . . requirements . Councilman Heinsheimer said it was �previously agreed . that restored slopes must �be the same after corrective work as when - grading was started, and that created slopes must conform to the ordinance. � Councilman Pernell said he agrees. with Commissioner Bundy that revi�w of grading plans should take place in advance of start of. the work. . N�r. Anderson said the City could require a set of plans from the engineer which shows the existing grade and the proposed grade. Ma.yo.r Leeuwenburgh said she was advised tha� a grading inspector who made inspections at periodic time periods could keep the City informed about. progress of a job and compliance with 'the City.`s requirements. Mr. Anderson said such inspections could be contracted with a private - grading inspector through the County, and he said the grading engineer should also have• an idea before starting how long the project will take. Mayor Leeuwenburgh said that after grading was started on the - Chuckwago� Road lot it �was discovered that there was landslide debris on the lot, and the thirty. day estimate for grading was no longer valid. The Mayor said there has been long time grading on three .sites for new h.omes in the City:� Chuckwagon Road, =Poppy Trail and Saddleback _ Road: Mr. Anderson said a bonding requirement could be set up, with penalties for non-completion, but lack of money is one of the reasons grading is grolonged. He, suggested that the City Council and Planning Commission work with a member of the Engineering staff to review the current process and atteinpt to develop a solution where needed. , _ .� Councilwoman Swanson said that when the County approves a grading plan on behalf of the City perinits are issued and work is started. She asked whether gradin� plans can be r.eviewed by the City before they are submitted to the County. Mr. Anderson said cities have had problems with that type of review if changes are made after the nlan has been reviewed, since it becomes necessary� for the city to repeat the revie�a process and stamn the plan with each change. Commissioner Field said the matter being discussed is an exception, and the problemswere en- counter.ed after-: nl�ans were approved and gradin� v�as started. He said by and large grading is. approved and nroceeds accarding to the .nlan, and in conformance with the requirements of the City of Rolling Hills . Councilman Heinsheimer said the County will issue permits for anything that Izas been apnroved by the City, and since the City of Rolling Hills does not have anyone qualified to inspect arid ap:prove grading plans, he suggested that the City not become involved in the apnroval of grading • -2- �1� � - �° � January 21, 1985 o� plans , and re-affirm with the County the importance of following the � � established procedure and the need to advise the City of any grading _ "creativity" that occurs in the field. Councilwoman Murdock said the ° ' City should be alerted _to any deviation frotn the apnroved plan. Coun- cilwoman Swanson suggested that the County be reminded that the City' s � . ordinances supersede County ordinances . Mr. Anderson sa�id the poTicies ' and nrocedures should be reinforced annually. Following the discussion Mayor Leeuwenburgh asked Councilwoman _ Murdock and Commissioner Field to meet with Mr. Anderson and repre- sentatives of the Los Angeles County Engineer' s office in Lomita to • discuss the City' s procedures and the need to alert the City to any deviation from established procedures; the need for Variances ap.proved by the Planning Commission and reviewed by the City in cases where _ the requirements cannot be meta and the need� to alert the City to any failure ta comply with any conditions imoosed by Variance. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE 2435 � � Chairman Roberts said it appears that there are three areas which should be discussed relative to proposed amendments to the Zoning Ord- inance, including antennas , dual driveways and-use of easements for . driveway purposes. 1`�r. t�nderson said changes in state law shoulcl also be addressed, including changes in environmental laws pertaining to time limits, response time, etc. and local jurisdiction resporisibility for code development regarding guarantee pertaining to changes wi�thin specific periods of time. Mr. Anderson said� the new laws will requ-ire amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances , and he suggested that the City wait for information from the City Attorney regarding the needed amendments . � Councilwoman Murdock said antennas are not apprbpriate for Rolling Hills, and she suggested that the Planning Commission schedule a �hear- ing to determine whether they sfiould continue to be a permitted use � with a Conditiona.l= Use Perm�t . At �present there is no ref�rence to � . dual d�iveways in the Municipal Code, although the Community Associa- tion has a policy which..requires that requests � for a dual driveway must be referred to the City, and the City.' s Traffic Commission dis- courages dual drivewayse Commissioner Murdock said dual driveways and use of easements for driveways should be clarified to help ..the residents understand �development standards, and the use of easements -- should .be discussed with �he Community Association. Councilman Hein�sheimer said dual driveways present ques�ions of _ safety and e.sthe�ics, and he suggested that a request for more than one driveway to serve a �roperty should require a Variance. Council- : man Pernell said the City should not get involved with Association regulations regarding use of easements, and could. address the matter� -� � by permitting only one "curb cut" for driveway purpo'ses without . a - Variance, while permitting a property owner to develop other drive- ways upon his propert,y. � Mr. Anderson suggest.ed that the: City consider a Conditional Use Perm'it for additional driveway access rather than a Variance, so conditions could be attached to��any approval, and the need to demonstrate hardship would be eliminated. Councilwoman Swanson said there are many .dual driveways in the community, and she suggested that in some cases they can be an advan- tage. Councilman Pernell said most dual drives were installed before � the City was incarporated, and as the City has b�een developed and traffic has increased; increased driveways have increased hazards . Councilman Heinsheimer said the requests should be considered from a� standpoint of esthetics, as well as traffic safety. A hearing on the proposed amendments to the .Zoriing Ordinance was set for the next regul.ar meeting of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 19, �985 . � � TRAFFIC COMMISSION . � ' Mayor Leeuwenburgh opened a discussion of the roles and responsi- � bilities of the Traffic Commission. Chairman Roberts said the Planning Commission refers certain matters , including requests for dual drives, -3- � I . . ` � 119 . January 21 , 1985 to the Traffic. Commission for review and recommendation, and he ex- � plained that he considers this a service to the applicarit, since it provides additional input, stating that in certain cases before the Planning Commission .items have also been referred to the Landscaping Committee of •the Association for recommendation. Mayor Leeuwenburgh - said the usual procedure is for the Architectural Committee to refer � requests for. dual driveways to the Traffic Gor.unission, and recommend- ations by the Traffic Commission are then made to the City Council as well as to the Architectural Committee, since the City Council has jurisdict'ion over matters of Traffic Saf�ty, while the Architectural Committee deals solely with the esthetics of the request . Councilman Pernell said both the Planning Commission and Traffic Commission are community resources appointed by the City Council , and when the Plan- ning Commission calls on the Traffic Co:nmission for assistance by re- ferring a request, the recommendation should .be made to the Planning Commission. � In a recent presentation to the Planning Commission, a request for two driveways was referred by the Commiss�ion to the Traffic Com- (� mission, but the �rec.ommendation to deny the request was made to the � City Council rather than to the PTanning Commission. Councilman Per- � nell said the application should have been considered_ as a whole. � � Chairman Roberts said he agreecl that the request should not have been � "fractured", and 'he said amendment of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to the number of driveways permitted would strengthen the position of Q the Planning Commission. . Mayor Leeuwenburgh said that as Chairman of� the Traffic Commission it is her opinion that the Traffic Commission� should be authorized to hire a �professional for aclvice. Councilman • Heinsheimer moved that the Traffic Commission be authorized to hire a Traffic Engineer for technical support, at a cost not to exceed $2 , 500 - per year. The motion was �seconded by Councilman Pernell and carried - by the following ro1T call vote : ` AYES : Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Murdock, Pernell , Swanson Mayo....r Leeuwenburgh NOES : None ABSENT: None OTHER MATTERS TO COME BEFORE THE MEE'I'ING � SAFEGUARDS TO PROTECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES 700 Council�woman Swanson asked whether any protective neasures .have been built into City procedures to protect neighboring pronerties in cases where something like extensive grading over a long period of time could advers_ely affect adjacent property. Mr . Anderson said tlze City' s Zoning Ordinance is designed to protect neighboring properties, as well as the Building Code, which also regulates safety on a con- . struction site._. Mr. Ander�son explained that County Ordinances do. not control anything done. in Rolling Hills, stating that in some cases the City has adopted a County Code by reference so that it becomes. an ordi- nance of the City. Mayor Leeuwenburgh said .a letter received from a resident regarding work on aiijacent property and his concern about potential damage to his property has been referred to the Department of Building Safety for review by the County acting as City Engineer. ENVIRONMENTAL Ii�'IPACT REPORT - SCHOOL DISTRICT 771 Mayor Leeuwenburgh reported that the Environmental ImPact Report prepared by the Palos �lerdes Peninsula Unified School District has been received and is avai.lable for .review in the City Manager ' s office . MEETING WITH A. G. KEENE, GEOLOGIST 775 ;layor Leeuwenburgh advised the City Council. that a closed meeting < with Art Keene, County Geologist, will be scheduled for Monday, Janu- � aryp28, 1985 at the close of regular Council business . . -4- . . 120 January 21 , 1985 MEETING ADJOURNED ' Mayor Leeuwenburgh thanked members of the Planning Conmission for attending the joint meeting, and adjourned the meeting at 10: 00 p .m. The City Council meeting was adjourned to ZZonday, January 28, 1985 at 7 : 30 p .m. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned to Tuesday, Febru- ary 19, 1985 at 7 : 30 p.m. � - , ' City rk .v v. �.�. � V Mayor Chairman, Planning Commission -5- . I -