8/12/1986MINUTES OF AN
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
August 12, 1986
An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of
Rolling Hills, and a special meeting of the Planning Commission
of the City of Rolling Hills, was called to order by Mayor Pernell
at the Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling
Hills, California at 7:38 p.m., Tuesday, August 12, 1986.
PRESENT: Councilmembers Murdock, Swanson, Leeuwenburgh,
Heinsheimer (arrived at 7:45 p.m.), Mayor Pernell
Commissioners Bundy, Frost, Hankins, Lay,
Chairman Roberts
ABSENT: None
ALSO PRESENT: Terrence L. Belanger City Manager
Ginger Blake Secretary
Douglas McHattie South Bay Engineering
Mr. Jankovich Resident
Mrs. Dottie Lay Resident
PUBLIC HEARING, ZONING CASE NO. 328 - JANKOVICH 45
Mayor Pernell opened a public hearing on an application
by Mr. and Mrs. Jankovich, for a Variance for residence to encroach
into established front yard, at 35 Saddleback Road. The City
Council has gathered field testimony and Councilwoman Murdock
noted that there appeared to be structures on the property that
Council does not have mach.history on. Policy has been to be certain
that- there is _no violation on the property. It is necessary to
know what the structures are; and, if they should be grandfathered
into the application, or conditions need to be placed on those
structures. Mayor Pernell asked the City Manager if he had any
information on the above mentioned structures. Mr. Belanger
indicated that he had done a cursory search and was unable to
find any data as to the existing fence construction which was
viewed on the site. Mayor Pernell requested that staff investigate
further, and report at the next regular meeting any information
that might be obtained as regards the background of the development
of site structures.
Mayor Pernell continued the public hearing to Monday, August
25, 1986 at 7:30 p.m., at the Council Chambers, 2 Portuguese Bend
Road, Rolling Hills, California. The Mayor directed that a report
from the City Manager be prepared for the next regular City Council
Meeting.
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION 101
Mayor Pernell stated that the Planning Commission, which
acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council, has requested
to meet with the City Council to discuss planning and zoning issues
of mutual concern and interest. Mayor Pernell stated that it
is important to be sure that the Commission is in concert with
the perspective of the Council.
ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF TENNIS COURTS
The City Council is concerned with the number of tennis
courts that are being contemplated, planned, applied for, and
ultimately approved. Recently, the City Council denied a
conditional use permit for a tennis court, that had previously
been approved by the Planning Commission.
August 12, 1986
333
Mayor Pernell said that" it, is important to protect our zoning
and use of land ordinances. There is roughly 7,000 to 8,000 square
feet of hard, unabsorable surface on each tennis court. In
addition, the height of the fence, grading, noise, sight, water
flow, and many other ramifications need to be considered. Great
care must be taken in the planning and use of tennis courts; not
every property that has room to put 8,000 square feet of hard
surface is appropriate for a tennis court. There are approximately
47 private tennis courts in the City, or almost 10%.
Chairman Roberts noted that the Planning Commission has
operated on the assumption that all tennis courts that were approved
would be well hidden with landscaping. They have found, however,
that this is not always the case. This is one of the factors
that prompted the Planning Commission's concern, that the conditions
for approval are being circumvented; by whatever means; and the
need for enforcement is evident. Mayor Pernell suggested that
t,he Planning Commisison not depend on the landscaping, that they
be sure that the courts can pass approval without the landscaping.
LO Councilwoman Murdock expressed her concern that perhaps
the Planning Commission has not had an opportunity to be reinforced
LL in some way, of their interpretation of the code. The guidelines
CO
that were drawn up in the code set forth minimum requirements
Q which had to be met before an application could be considered.
Because an applicant meets those minimum guidelines, does not
mean that a Conditional' Use Permit must be granted. The granting
of a Conditional Use Permit is a discretionary action. A
Conditional Use Permit is not a right; but rather, a privilege.
There is nothing in the Municipal Code or law that says when you
meet the minimum standards, you must then be granted a permit
to have a tennis court. It is a discretionary use that is within
the power of the Planning Commission to approve or deny. Each
property is to be considered separately, on its' merits. The
same premise applies to a Variance. An applicant must show
hardship; and, must show that they are being denied a property
right that exists on surrounding properties.
Commissioner Bundy asked that the Planning Commission be
given written interpretation of the Code. The Commission needs
some kind of written interpretation, so that they can guide by
it. Councilwoman Murdock stated that this could be provided by
the City Attorney.
Mayor Pernell asked the Commission in which areas would
they like some direction. Commissioner Bundy stated that the
Commission would like some definitions of the following words:
canyon, grading, steep, hillside, valley and noise. Mayor Pernell
noted that the more language one has, the less discretion one
has.
Councilwoman Murdock noted that swimming pools and trails
do not require Conditional Use Permits. They are accessory uses
that are permitted without additional approval, whereas tennis
courts require discretionary review and decision.
Councilman Heinsheimer stated that the intent of the Code
is to set a list of minimum conditions that must be met before
an application can be considered further; however, he feels that
the way it reads is that if all the criteria are met, then the
Planning Commission is under obligation to approve the Conditional
Use Permit. Councilman Heinsheimer stated that it is important
to decide which of the two interpretations is to be followed. And,
perhaps the Council should consider not .having tennis courts as
a permitted use.
Commissioner Bundy noted that the community is changing.
The new residents are more affluent, and looking for larger homes
with total lot development, i.e.; pools, cabana, tennis courts,
and stabled. The rural environment of the City is being endangered
by overdevelopment of property. ,
2
334
August 12, 1986
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh took the position that the
Commission should look at a tennis court as a second structure.
A lot must be large enough to accommodate two structures; a 7,200
square foot concrete pad is not in keeping with the rural nature
of the City. The alteration that tennis court makes in one's
life are numerous; included are the sound factor, the amount of
ground coverage, and imposing one's lifestyle (not desired) upon
neighbors. In Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh's opinion, the restrictions
should be even greater for a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis
court. Tennis courts are not a part of the rural environment.
Commission Frost suggested environmental impact reports,
that would show how a court affects everyone around it. He also
feels that tennis courts are not part of the rural environment,
and also noted that there is no way that one can screen a tennis
court 100%.
Commissioner Lay stated that until recently, he was under
the impression that the zoning requirements and the requirements
for a Conditional Use Permit were an enabling process. If an•
applicant passed the required conditions of approval, then it
was the responsibility of the Planning Commisison to approve the
application. Commissioner Lay suggested that the requirements
be extended so that it will be more difficult to meet them, or
do away with Conditional Use Permits altogether. The Planning
Commission needs to be more consistent, and have definitions of
key words, as they have an obligation to be consistent with each
case.
Doug McHattie, South Bay Engineering, noted that he had
received numerous calls from families within the community who
are interested in installing tennis courts for the purpose of
keeping their children close to home.
Councilwoman Murdock stated that it is important to make
it clean what the intent of the Conditional Use Permits are, and
that they are entirely a discretionary permit by the Planning
Commission.
"The City Manager stated that the County reviews all drainage
plans for tennis courts, and if they feel additional information
is necessaryih a problem area, i.e., soil studies, they will require
it. The problem with this process is that it tends to be remote.
Unless a communication network or some kind of checking system
is created with the City staff, then the City Council and Planning
Commission are usually unaware of that process. There needs to
be a more active participation at the very beginning with the
City staff working with the County, to assure that the requirements
of the Council and Planning Commission are, in fact, being met.
Councilwoman Murdock stated that a policy could be initiated
by staff, that when an application is filed for a tennis court,
that plans, specifications and technical reports must be submitted
as suporting documents before the application is processed. The
City Manager stated that it appears that there has been a tendency
to submit the bare minimum, which typically is a blue line, plot
plan that shows where the court is on the plot plan in relationship
to easements and to other structures. There are many plans,
reports, drawings and specifications here that are required as
minimum conditions, that typically aren't completed until after
the Conditional Use Permit is granted. There may be certain
situations of which we are unaware, that become problem areas
subsequent to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit. We have
reached the point in time where the property owner who wishes
to put in a tennis court needs to provide a full range of data,
the type which would be necessary for an environmental impact
report. All of this information would then be evaluated as a
part of the process. So when the Conditional Use Permit is
considered, one would have reviewed comprehensive information.
The requirements may also discourage speculative applicants because
of the initial expenses.
3
C
August 12, 1986
335
Commissioner Bundy noted that "after the fact" enforcement
is a problem. The City Manager stated that that is a problem
of enforcing the conditions. You enforce the conditions, by
requiring the architectural and,,technical information before tennis
court application be considered at'"a public hearing. Landscaping
plans would be a part of the submittal.
The Mayor reviewed several items that have been expressed
so far, which include: 1) the desire for greater definitions;
2) the expansion of the criteria; 3) the deletion as a permitted
use; and 4) some awareness or focus of the discretionary nature
of a tennis court as it relates to the families or owners right
to have it.
Councilwoman Swanson noted that the residents see tennis
courts as a status symbol and economic improvement of .their
property. Tennis courts are changing the area greatly. The City
is now at a pivotal point, where we are turning from a rural area
to a suburban city. After new residents have lived in Rolling
Hills for a few years, they begin to appreciate the rural qualities
of the community. If the Council were to not allow tennis courts
as a permitted use, it would give the City a better environmental
view at the future of the community, and provide an opportunity
LO to preserve the rural quality of the community. If tennis courts
0) were only permitted under extraordinary circumstances, that would
LL be a more preferred policy.
CO Commissioner Hankins asked whether there. were any legal
Q ramifications that the City could assess upon properties that
did not conform with the conditions of approval. Mayor Pernell
said that the City would not do that without first consulting
with the City Attorney. Commissioner Hankins also requested greater
definitions of key words, as they are presently so subjective.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh asked whether it would be possible
to lower the percentage of lot coverage in an effort to control
the proliferation of tennis courts. Councilwoman Murdock noted
that the percentage of lot coverages is currently 20% and 35%,
and that the problem with that is that you are taking the total
overall acreage, and not useable land. Councilwoman Murdock pointed
out _that the General Plan calls for preserving the rural
environment.
Mayor Pernell stated that there is currently a 45 day land
use moratorium on the construction of tennis courts, Council has
the option of extending the moratorium for another 10 months,
15 days; and for another year after that. This might be a way
of testing the demand pressure, and reducing impulsiveness of
newer residents to rush to build tennis courts.
Councilman Heinsheimer restated the importance of clarifying
the application process. Either by saying, that when one meets
certain rules then a Conditional Use Permit would be issued, and
remove the discretionary judgement out of the process as much
as possible; or, eliminate the vague process entirely and eliminate
tennis courts as a permitted use.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh stated that actions must be taken
now to tighten up conditions, or set aside money to defend Council
decisions.
Councilman Heinsheimer suggested that at the end of the
45 day tennis court moratorium, that Council have a public hearing
on two options, that 1) the moratorium be extended, and; 2)
eliminate tennis courts as a permitted use.
Mayor Pernell directed staff to: 1) clarify, define, and
expand on the words valley, steep, canyon, etc; and 2) expand
the criteria as well as clarifying the criteria; one of the criteria
that was discussed and not included in the list is the factor
of the grade of the property; and 3) to consider deleting tennis
courts as a permitted use. Mayor Pernell requested staff to consult
with the City attorney as to the enabling language that might
be used. Councilman Heinsheimer also requested that the discussion
of the pros and cons of the two policy and procedure interpretations
be addressed.
4
August 12, 1986
336 The City Manager restated the two appraoches, i.e., the
discretionary approach whereby each lot stands on its own, and
although there is minimum criteria, the differences in the
properties in the community dictate a certain amount of discretion
on the part of the Planning Commission and the City Council. The
other approach is setting forth a set of criteria without taking
into consideration the differential in the lots in the community,
and would have a permit issued without discretion. The Manager
stated that he would compare and contrast these two approaches.
PLANNING ISSUES OF MUTUAL INTEREST AND CONCERN
COMPLIANCE
1102
Mayor Pernell addressed the issues of compliance. On numerous
field trips, the Council has noticed the problem of inconsistencies
with the City Building and Zoning Codes, in other areas of the
property and improvement. Mayor Pernell asked the legal and
administrative staff to look into how these items would have to
be disclosed before the Commission or any other official body
would take up an application for a Variance, Conditional Use Permit,
or anything else that is a favor granted by the local government.
Councilwoman Swanson noted that the major problem comes
about with the change in ownership.
Mayor Pernell stated that there are some communities that
require as a condition of passing title, removal or complying
with all the regulations or codes.
Councilman Heinsheimer suggested that a certificate of
compliance as part of the escrow process be developed, indicating
that the property is in compliance with City Codes that were in
effect at the time of construction, and as part of an application
for a Variance or Conditional Use Permit, that a similar inspection
or certification of compliance that says that anything that has
been done has been done according to the rules and regulations
that existed at that time. Could this be made a prerequisite
for receiving an application, and require that this type of
certification be done, either by the applicant, or by the City
and Association, with costs paid by the applicant.
- The City Manager stated that this suggestion seems to be
appropriate, and this could be done in our community.
Councilwoman Murdock stated that she had a problem with
this interpretation that just because a structure was already
there, if you now want to improve the property and remove all
but a portion of the building that would not be allowed, that
you allow them to have that. When you are starting with basically
a bare piece of property, it ought to comply with the ordinances
that are in effect at the time, and not get the benefit of some
extenuating circumstances or mistakes that occured prior.
Councilwoman Murdock stated that she would like to see no further
encroachment. It was noted that residents leave a portion of
a wall, and thereby a major reconstruction project can be considered
a remodel, for the purpose of assessments. The City Manager
reported that the Building Code provides a certain amount of
definition. Councilman Heinsheimer stated that at the very least,
the City should have a code compliance, and define what a remodel
is. If you take down more than 50% of a structure, you've destroyed
it (or any other figure). The City Manager stated that this would
benefit the City due to a higher property assessment and taxation.
Mayor Pernell suggested that the Council might consider
having an amnesty period, in order to get as many as possible
"as built" items taken care of, without penalty, and then from
hereon out, having stringent enforcement of all codes. It was
requested that staff report back on the compliance issues to
Council.
5
IIS 1
I�I
I
August 12, 1986
337
Mayor Pernell summed up the -discussion on the compliance
issues, and requested staff to_l " '"tig ate the following: 1) require
Iftyes
the certification of applicants , for special conditions from the
City for Variances or Conditional Use Permits and require staff
to have the applicant define all items on the plot plan, using
a check list; 2) investigate how we can intercede with the change
of ownership to gain our ends; 3) consideration of an amnesty
period for grandfathering in previous constructed structures,
and; 4) inspection for code compliance.
Councilman Heinsheimer touched on some points regarding
the inspection of compliance and asked: 1) what are the changes
of the state of the property that trigger the inspection (sale,
application); 2) who does the inspection; 3) who certifies the
inspection; 4) what does the inspection cover and not cover; 5)
how are violations dealt with by the City and/or applicant that
are discovered; 6) what is the process for dealing with the
violations (amnesty?), and 7) should you consider uses.of property
or` only measurable improvements. Councilman Heinsheimer suggested
that the Planning Commisison work on these 'issues and come up
with some recommendations as regards policy and an appropriate
draft ordinance that Council can consider in the future. Mayor
Pernell so ordered.
Commissioner Hankins also requested that sub -divisions be
included in the inspection of compliance, along with the Variances
and Conditional Use Permits.
Councilwoman Swanson expressed concern that the Council
might be creating too restrictive an environment upon property
owners regarding a code compliance.
Councilman Heinsheimer stated that we want to protect private
property rights, assure compliance with the zoning and sub -division
codes and protect the buyer.
Councilwoman Swanson asked what the cost for this enforcement
would be to the City, and Mr. Belanger replied none, that it would
be paid by the applicants.
ZONING INTEGRITY
1418
Commissioner Hankins brought up the question of what to
do when there is no easement noted on a property. Chairman Roberts
stated that the Planning Commission has the option of requiring
an easement as a condition of approval, and requesting that the
applicant dedicate aneasement to the Rolling Hills Community
Association.
Councilman Heinsheimer suggested that a legal interpretation
be obtained from the City Attorney, as it may not be legal to
impose an easement where one hasn't existed before. Mayor Pernell
so ordered.
Mr. Belanger stated that the burden is on the applicant
to show that the property shown is in compliance, as regards
easements. If there is a question, then it should be resolved
by the applicant or staff before itcomes before the Commission.
INSPECTION PROCESS 1487
Commissioner Lay asked what happens once conditions are
established and what the process is to insure those conditions
are met. Mr. Belanger reported that it is staff's responsibility
to insure that the work is being done; however, at the present
time, it is very fragmented, and the communication is "Spotty"
at best. What is needed is the reiteration of the fact that the
City of Rolling Hills has a superior position with the County
of Los Angeles. The County is subordinate to the City, as our
contractor. A process needs to be developed, whereby the City
reviews all informatin that relates to plan submittal/plan check
process.
N.
MW
August 12, 1986
Councilman Heinsheimer suggested that the Planning Commission
conduct a workshop on the question of procedures for inspection
and invite people (like Mr. McHattie) such as engineers,
contractors, City, County and Association representatives, who
are a part of this development process, to discuss how the
development process can be improved. At the Planning Commission's
convenience, present a report to the Council that clearly defines
the process. Some of the questions that should be addressed are:
are we disjointed in our procedures; do we know what information
packages are needed; how does information flow; how do inspections
get done; who does them ; how often do they get done; and, how
are they reviewed? Mayor Pernell stated that there may be some
aspects of the process that are barriers to effectiveness; and,
they might be uncovered in this proposed workshop.
Commissioner Lay stated that there is different criteria
that comes from different organizations, and he didn't feel that
all this information gets put into one place or one check list.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh noted that the County has the ability
to stop a project for violations, whereas the Association does
not.
Mayor Pernell asked staff to address the issues of the
inspection process, and to work with the Planning Commission
in setting up a workshop/forum.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh also reminded the Planning
Commission that if they had a difficult planning case, the City
Attorney is available to assist them.
GRADING
1583
Councilwoman Swanson expressed concern over the grading
conditions. Conditions require a 2:1; however, as grading proceeds,
the applicant may find that the soil is unstable, and much more
grading is needed than anticipated. The County will then require
further grading, i.e., 1:1 grade. The City seems to have little
control over it. How can the City protect the community and the
applicant from excessive grading, and expense? How can the City
establish control over what is happening? It was noted by Chairman
Roberts that the Planning Commission does not see the grading
plans, after approval, if there has been a problem in the field.
Mayor Pernell noted that if it is anticipated that there is an
extensive amount of grading, maybe there ought to be a bonding
requirement, so that it can be returned to some reasonable state
in the event that it's prolonged extraordinarily.
Mr. Belanger stated that in order to properly bond, the
City must have a primary role in reviewing what is to be graded.
Mayor Pernell requested staff to investigate and advise Council
how to do this, and effectively protect the community.
REGIONAL MEETINGS FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
1638.
Mayor Pernell stated that it was Council's desire to expand
the Commission's knowledge, information, and the exchange of
information in the subject area in which they are operating as
Planning Commissioners.
Mayor Pernell indicated that there are regional' meetings
for planning directors and commissioners. He suggested that the
Planning Commissioners attend these meetings, as they might prove
useful. It is Council's desire to encourage the Commissioners'
attendance at meetings of this nature.
Mayor Pernell also noted that there are sessions sponsored
by the League of California Cities that orient new planning
commissioners, and it would be wise to have the City sponsor
attendance at one of these meetings.
The City Manager reported that the Annual League of California
Cities Conference will be held in Los Angeles this October, at
the L.A. Convention Center. The Planning Division of the League
h
--9
6-
�1
LO
0)
LL
m
Q
August 12, 1986
will be having a series of workshops - and seminars. Mayor Pernell
requested that the City Manager make the necessary arrangements
to have the Planning Commissioners attend, if they so desire.
Chairman Roberts reported that the Planning Commission had
received an invitation to attend a four -city information session
to discuss planning items, of mutual concern. Mayor Pernell
suggested that, if the Commission felt the meetings were useful
regarding the exchange of information and the knowledge of what
other resources are available to you, he would encourage the
Commission to participate.
Councilwoman Murdock reiterated. the importance of
interpretation and clarity of the zoning ordinances. It is
important to protect it's integrity, and to preserve the rural
environment of the community (protect the integrity of the canyons,
the topography, etc.). If the Planning Commission ever questions
or; feels that they are being compromised in some way, and kept
from enforcing what they feel is an appropriate interpretation,
then she would encourage them to speak with the City Manager,
the City Attorney or any Council member. Mayor Pernell stated
that the liaison between the Council and the Planning Commission
is Councilwoman Murdock.
Mayor Pernell expressed his sincere and deep arreciation
for a job well done. When the Commission is doing a good job,
it protects the community, reduces the work load of the Council;
and makes everyone look good.
ADJOURNMENT
1720
The joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 9:55 p.m., to the next regular City Council meeting
on Monday, August 25, 1986 at 7:30 p.m., and to the next regular
Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, August 19, 1986, at 7:30
p.m.
Mayor
Chairman
City Clerk
E-3
339