Loading...
9/8/1986LL Q 34'7 MINUTES OF A R%GULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA September 8, 1986 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order at the Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California by Mayor Pernell at 7:30 p.m. Monday, September 8, 1986. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Murdock, Swanson, Mayor Pernell None Capt. E. Omohundro Ann Johnson Anne La Jeunesse Lawrence Welsh David Holt Daniel:Ginsburg Marilen Zinner Anthony Inferrera Douglas McHattie Dr. Lawrence Amberg Robert Barth Mr. & Mrs. C. Caldwell Mr. & Mrs. Wm. Cross Larry Delpit Mrs. Evelyn Hankins Mr. & Mrs. R. Hawkins Mrs. S. Hemmat Nicholas Hornberger Mr. & Mrs. T. Jankovich Mr. & Mrs. A. Kaiser Norman La Caze Mrs. C. Liu Mrs. C. Partridge Allan Roberts Mr. & Mrs. R. Rodriguez Leeuwenburgh, Sheriff's Station Los Angeles Times Peninsula News Daily Breeze Observer Observer Observer Architect So. Bay Engineering Residents Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh asked that the minutes of a regular meeting on August 25, 1986 be corrected in the last paragraph on page 4 by correcting the spelling of the name of the principal of Miraleste High School, Dr. Burnight. The minutes were approved and accepted as corrected on a motion made by Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh, seconded by Councilwoman Murdock and carried unanimously. PAYMENT OF BILLS Payment of Demands No. 1577 through 1595 and 1597 through 1605 in the amount of $24,690.51 from the General Fund and payment of Demand No. 1596 in the amount of $2,842.55 from the Municipal Self Insurance Fund were approved by unanimous concurrence of the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING, URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 51-U 915 Mayor Pernell opened a public hearing to consider adoption of an Urgency Ordinance extending a moratorium on the establishment, construction or installation of tennis courts. The City Manager explained that on July 28, 1986 the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance, No. U-50, which imposed a moratorium on construction and installation of tennis courts for a period of 45 days, to provide time for the City Council to assess the City's policies and procedures with regard to tennis courts. The City Council and Planning Commission met in joint session in mid-August and studies were conducted pursuant to that meeting, and it was determined that additional time is needed for study of the issue. 348 September 8, 1986 An ordinance which would extend the moratorium for an additional period not to exceed 10 months and 15 days was presented to the Council. Mr. Belanger said it was staff's recommendation that the ordinance be adopted to provide the additional time for study. Mayor Pernell invited comment on the Manager's recommendation. Mr. Norman La Caze advised the Council that he has been a resident of the Peninsula for more than twenty years, and recently purchased property at 24 Portuguese Bend Road in Rolling Hills. Mr. La Caze said room for construction of a tennis court was a major consideration when he purchased the property, and plans have been submitted for construction of a tennis court, with the required application for a Conditional Use Permit. Subsequent to the submittal, Mr. La Caze was advised that the location chosen is in the side yard as defined by the Municipal Code, and he agreed to relocate the tennis court rather than request a Variance. He has now determined that location in the rear yard would require removal of large mature trees, and Mr. La Caze has requested that he be permitted to return to the original site location, stating that he would install large (24" or 36") box trees as a condition of approval. Mr. La Caze said 36" trees would require a crane for installation; 24" trees planted on center would create a virtual screen, and he said he would be willing to bond as a guarantee that the planting would be done, stating that retaining the existing trees and planting additional large trees would maintain the natural atmosphere. In response to an objection by a neighbor to potential noise from the proposed court, Mr. La Caze said he had a sound engineer on the site while balls were struck, and the sound reading in decibels was less than from ambient noises. Mr. La Caze asked that his application be exempted from the moratorium in view of the work which has been completed on the application. Mr. Craig Caldwell, 1 Georgeff Road, advised the Council that he has been working on installation of a tennis court for two years, and has been advised that the Conditional Use Permit issued to him has expired. Mr. Caldwell asked that a time extension be granted, and that his tennis court be exempted from the moratorium. Mayor Pernell asked the City Manager how many tennis court applications would be affected by the proposed extension of the moratorium. Mr. Belanger said applications submitted by Mr. La Caze; Dr Hugo Caesar, 2 Pheasant Lane; and Dr. Mehdi Hemmat, 64 Eastfield Drive, have been held in abeyance because of the moratorium. He explained that the Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court on the Caldwell property was approved prior to consideration of a moratorium, and has expired. Mrs. Mehdi Hemmat said she was advised of the moratorium after she had paid her fees and submitted an application for a C.U.P.; she asked why applicants were not advised in advance of the possibility of a moratorium. The Mayor explained that the study is being conducted at the request of the Planning Commission, the advisory body to the City Council, because of the recent proliferation of requests for tennis courts, some of which are submitted for locations which do not comply with guidelines specified in the code. In order to provide the help requested by the Planning Commission, the City Council has imposed the moratorium to allow for the time necessary for an in-depth study of the issue. Councilman Heinsheimer suggested that consideration might be given to certain applications which are in progress, and on which time and money have been spent prior to imposition of the initial moratorium in July. Mayor Pernell said such considerations would be discussed following presentation of testimony by any persons who wish to be heard as part of the public hearing process. Mrs. Catherine Partridge, 69 Portuguese Bend Road, asked the Mayor to advise persons present of the background of the matter, and the number of times and length of time alloted to persons who wish to speak, stating that she has read information provided by the City, but does not understand what has precipitated the situation. -2- LO LL m Q 1 September 8, 1986 Mayor Pernell said that as previously mentioned, there was an acceleration of applications filed for tennis courts on lots which have grade problems and significant hillsides, and in order to' construct approximately 7200 ;-:,�,,. 7Y500 square feet of paved area on a hillside considerable grading is required. Because of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission regarding such construction a joint meeting with the City Council was held and the Council agreed to take the necessary action to provide a period of time in which the Planning Commission can conduct studies and obtain information necessary for developing reasonable factors to be considered in a consistent manner when reviewing applications for tennis courts. Councilman Heinsheimer said tennis courts have turned out different from the concept perceived when they were submitted, particularly with regard to landscaping, and the City's criteria for tennis courts appears not to be sufficient for the resulting development with regard to appearance, drainage, noise and other considerations. Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering, stated that he has been directly involved in many of the applications submitted, and he has also attended the meetings at which the matter was discussed. Mr. McHattie said a prime concern of the Planning Commission was the failure of applicants to complete the landscaping requirements imposed as a condition of approval, and he said there is a need for closer monitoring of such requirements. Mrs. Partridge said there was a problem resulting from sale of a property with a tennis court when the new owner removed the screening landscaping, making the tennis court on his property highly visible, and it is her opinion that that incident was what precipitated the current situation: Mrs.- Partridge rs:Partridge said monitoring of conditions of approval by the City would be more effective than a moratorium. Further, Mrs: Partridge said the moratorium, in combination with the landslide situation, will adversely affect real estate values in the entire community: She urged that landscaping and planning be used to control tennis courts. Nick Hornberger, 1 Open Brand, said that although he is president of the Rolling Hills Community Association, he wishes to address the issue personally. Mr. Hornberger said he is concerned about the amount of government in the community,. citing the large expenditure connected with development of a tennis court: Mayor Pernell said the City is concerned about the environmental impact of removing large areas from open space, explaining that each tennis court results in 7200 - 7500 square feet of hard surface which must be drained. The Mayor said the City Council is not opposed to tennis courts per se, but there is a concern about their appearance and visibility and the City is attempting to determine how to assist in the orderly development of private recreational facilities without adversely impacting the entire community. Mayor Pernell also said it has been determined that there is an annual turnover of approximately 20% in the community: 349 Mr. Robert Barth, 29 Portuguese Bend Road, said he purchased his property because it is large enough to accommodate a tennis court, and he plans to install a court sometime in the future: Mr. Barth said that although costly, the cost of a tennis court is small in relation to the cost of properties in Rolling .Hills. He said he considers the moratorium unfair, stating that a tennis court or room for a court aids saleability of properties. Finally,. Mr. Barth said applications in process should not be affected by the moratorium. Mr. Arthur Kaiser, 38 Crest Road East, said that he is having a tennis court built, and he said. safeguards exist in the County's requirements pertaining to grading, drainage and geology. Mayor Pernell closed the public hearing, and invited members of the Council to comment on the proposed extension of the moratorium. Councilwoman Murdock said that land use is the prime issue, and because the Planning Commission has asked that time be provided for review of the entire situation, the City should grant that time frame by extending the moratorium, since it can be terminated if the Planning Commission completes the review prior to the time limit imposed by the moratorium. -3- 350 September 8, 1986 Mayor Pernell asked the City Attorney to advise the Council regarding exemptions from the moratorium. Mr. Jenkins said categories can be exempted, but not individuals, explaining that if the Council wished to do so, they could act to exempt the applications for which fees have been paid and public hearings have been held, but no decision made. Mr. Jenkins said that state law provides for extension of the original forty five day moratorium for an additional ten month and fifteen day period, but the extension can be repealed at any time before the full period by action of the City Council. Councilman Heinsheimer asked whether the Council would have to act at this time to exempt certain courts, or whether they can take time to develop a policy for exemptions. Mr. Jenkins said it is not necessary to act at this time, other than to adopt an urgency ordinance extending the moratorium, if the Council wishes to do so. Councilwoman Swanson said the Council does not propose to prohibit tennis courts; they wish to provide a time frame for the Planning Commission to review the status and requirements for development of tennis courts on private properties, and she noted that the Council adopted a moratorium on' construction of tennis courts in 1980. Councilwoman Murdock said that a recent proliferation in the number of applications for tennis courts was a positive factor for concern by the Planning Commission, and she said she would be opposed to granting any exemptions to the moratorium. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh said she agreed that there should not be any exceptions, and the Planning Commission should have time to review all applications for tennis courts; she suggested that in certain cases a portion of fees could be refunded. Mayor Pernell said that although one property has been mentioned as generating the concern about visibility of tennis courts, decisions that have been made concerning courts were made in good conscience, and there is nothing personal in the decision that requirements for tennis courts should be reviewed. The Mayor said the issues that should be clarified are, in his opinion, exceptions to the moratorium, including applications in progress, and a time frame for the moratorium. MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE U-51 Councilwoman Swanson moved that Ordinance No. 51-U entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION OR INSTALLATION OF TENNIS COURTS, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF be adopted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Heinsheimer and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Swanson, Mayor Pernell NOES: None ABSENT: None MEETING RECESSED Leeuwenburgh, Murdock, Mayor Pernell recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. MEETING RECONVENED The meeting was reconvened at 8:50 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING, ZONING CASE NO.-329,-HAWKINS 1650 Mayor Pernell opened a public hearing on an appeal filed by Mr. and Mrs. Roger Hawkins, owners of Lot 241 -A -3 -MS, located at 37 Crest Road West following denial by the Planning Commission on August 19, 1986 of a request for a Variance for residence additions proposed to encroach into both side yards and into the established front yard. The Clerk reported that the notice of the public hearing was duly published as required by law, and a letter dated September 8, 1986 has been received from Mr. and Mrs. Joseph 011a, 41 Crest Road West. To a form letter to the Council stating that they have reviewed the proposed remodeling plans and.variance requests and do not object to their approval by -4- September 8, 1986 the City Council, Mr. and Mrs. 011a added: "We have no objection to the house plans we have been shown by Mr. Hawkins. However, we do have objections to the barn plans, as they affect our pool and' the trail easement. We. trust. _the Association and/or City will enforce,the CC&Rs and other 'deed�'I`Yestrictions as to the setback requirements." The letter was received for the file. The City Manager displayed the plot plan and defined the areas for which variances have been requested. Mr. Belanger noted that although the property is in the RAS -2 zone, it contains less than the square footage now required for a two acre net parcel. The existing residence currently is located 16 feet from the easterly property line and is 200 feet from Crest Road. The variances requested would extend the encroachment on the easterly side; would encroach to within 20 feet of the westerly property line, and would project approximately 80' into the established front yard, creating a 1201 front yard. The Manager said a barn shown on the plan is located 251 from the westerly property line, and he said the encroachments requested on the westerly side of the property are in compliance with requirements for properties (D in the RAS -1 zone. LD The City Attorney advised Mayor Pernell that the hearing 0) was noticed as a hearing based on the record; in the event it LL is determined that the matter should be held de novo the hearing CO could be changed to a de novo hearing at the request of the applicant or by a vote of three members of the City Council. Mr. Hawkins said he wished to request a de novo hearing, since he has new evidence to present. Mr. Hawkins said he spoke to Mr. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road just prior to the meeting, and Mr. Colyear said he was willing to withdraw all objections to the proposed variances. Mr. Hawkins reviewed the history of the property, and explained that when Mr. Colyear subdivided his property in the 1970s one of the lots created was essentially an RAS -1 lot in the RAS -2 zone. Mr. Hawkins said he wishes to retain the concept of the existing design, and when he purchsed the property he was shown plans which were approved for a former owner which incorporated the basic additions he desires, although the proposed encroachments which were approved were greater than those requested by Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins said the property has been neglected and has deteriorated badly; he expressed the hope that the City would work with him to make the property habitable, since he is requesting a less agressive remodel. Mr. Hawkins said it would be preferable to do the necessary structural, electrical and plumbing repairs as part of the planned residence addition. Further, he said expansion of the residence is limited by location of the cesspool, and it is not practical to expand to the rear because of the topography, and he said the requested expansion .to the east and west is based on a showing of hardship as required. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh asked whether there is access to the proposed barn., Mr. Hawkins said there are three trail easements which would provide access. Councilwoman Swanson asked whether the home is currently inhabited. Mr. Hawkins said the house is structurally sound and has a new roof, but is not in habitable condition. He said it is his intention to bring everything up to code, and in addition he wishes to develop a buffer between his property and the Colyear property to the east, stating that the access driveway to Mr. Colyear's property should have a buffer to eliminate noise. Further, he said he discussed the proposed additions with Mr. and Mrs.* 011a, and he has agreed to move the barn to a location 251 from the property line. He explained that this would remove the barn from the proximity of the swimming pool on the 011a property, but would locate it closer to the pool on his property. Councilman Heinsheimer suggested that location of the stable be removed from consideration at this time, with the understanding that if in the future the proposed location for the barn is not in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning ordinance, it will be necessary to apply for the necessary variances. Mr. Hawkins agreed to do so. -5- 351 352 September 8, 1986 In response to questions from Councilwoman Swanson about the current and proposed size of the house and garage, Mr. Hawkins said the house and garage now total approximately 2400 square feet. The proposed addition, including a five car garage, will bring the total size of residence and garage to approximately 5400 square feet. Mr. Hawkins explained that in addition to cars, he has a tractor and it is his wish to garage all vehicles, especially because of the location of the property on Crest Road. Mayor Pernell thereafter closed the public hearing. In discussing the matter Councilman Heinsheimer said he is familiar with the property, and he said he considers the proposed remodel an imaginative solution for expansion while keeping the front of the residence open and away from Crest Road. Councilman Heinsheimer said that if the stable is removed from consideration at this time it was his opinion that the variances could be approved, unless other members of the Council wish to make a trip to the property. Mayor Pernell said he does not consider the request for a variance on the east side a problem, since it would continue an existing encroachment on the side of the property where there is a need to buffer the residence from a roadway on an adjacent property. However, he said he would like to see the proposed addition on the westerly side of the residence redesigned to eliminate the encroachment. Councilwoman Murdock suggested that the stable be eliminated from consideration, and that the proposed additions to the west be altered to eliminate, if possible, the need for a variance. Councilwoman Swanson asked whether the Council could make specific recommendations for changes to the plan, or whether the Council was required to approve or deny the plan submitted. Mayor Pernell said the Council could offer constructive suggestions. The City Attorney said that if the plan is amended to eliminate the need for a variance on the west side, the Council's action would pertain to only the variances reqeusted. Councilman Heinsheimer suggested that the Council make a field trip so they could see the property and proposed areas of expansion before recommending changes. Mr. Hawkins said the property is staked to show the proposed changes. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh moved that a field trip be scheduled and that a de novo hearing be set. The motion was seconded by Councilman Heinsheimer and carried unanimously. Mayor Pernell scheduled a field trip to the site for Wednesday, September 10 at 6:30 p.m. and a de novo hearing for the next regular City Council meeting on September 22, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED, ZONING CASE NO. 328, JANKOVICH 2070 Mayor Pernell opened a public hearing on Zoning Case No. 328, which was continued from the last meeting. The Mayor explained that a request by Mr. Tom Jankovich, owner of Lot 49-RH located at 35 Saddleback Road, for a Variance for a residence addition encroaching into the established front yard was approved by the Planning Commission on July 17, 1986. When the Planning Commission's recommendation was reviewed by the City Council the matter was held on the agenda to give members of the Council an opportunity to make a field trip to the site. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh said she reviewed similar requests in the vicinity of the property and had determined that there is no instability in the area, other properties in the same vicinity and zone received approval of similar requests, and to grant the variance would preserve the applicant's property right and would not be detrimental to public welfare. Councilwoman Murdock said it was her opinion that the applicant did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate hardship as a basis for his request for a variance for encroachment into the established front yard. Mayor Pernell said that at a recent meeting with the Planning Commission the City Council emphasized the need for the Commission to be rigid and stringent in approving requests for encroachments into established setbacks, and with regard to other approvals in the same vicinity and zone, Mayor Pernell said previous bad decisions should not be used as precedents and reasons to approve a request. September 8, 1986 The Mayor said the applicant should be required to conform to established setback requirements in designing the residence which will be increased in size from 3500 square feet to approximately 8500 square feet; instead, he noted,w-the applicant is asking to increase the existing encroachment into the required front setback. Councilwoman Swanson said the wall as shown on the plan will provide privacy for the existing swimming pool area, both for the occupants of the property and as a screen for residents who pass by. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh moved that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a variance for encroachment into the required front setback on Lot 49-RH requested by Tom Jankovich, and that an appropriate resolution be prepared by staff. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swanson and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Swanson NOES: Councilwoman Murdock, Mayor Pernell ABSENT: None LO STUDENT AND THE LAW PROGRAM 2121 0) LL The City Manager said the Council deferred consideration Co of participation in the Student and the Law Program for information Q from Captain Omohundro about participation by other cities on the Peninsula, and for information about the cost of participating. Captain Omohundro said the original plan was to present the Student and the Law course at both Miraleste and Rolling Hills High Schools; however, it has not been possible to initiate the program at Miraleste during the first semester, since it has not previously been held at that school. It will be presented at Rolling Hills High, where the classes were conducted last year. Because the City of Rolling Hills has a commitment only to Miraleste and not Rolling Hills High School, the request for funding has been deferred. Plans have been initiated to develop the program for students at Rancho Del Mar, with all four Peninsula cities to be approached with a request for $500 for the modified program for continuation school students, which will cost approximately $2,000 for the 1986-87 school year. Captain Omohundro asked that the City of Rolling Hills allocate .$500 for the full school year program at Rancho Del Mar, and $588 for the course to be presented during the spring semester at Miraleste High School. The City Manager advised that there is money available in the Budget in the Public.Safety Account, should the City approve the allocation. A motion to approve allocation of funds to the Student and the Law Program as follows: $500 to Rancho Del Mar, $588 to Miraleste High School, as requested by the Sheriff, was made by Councilwoman Swanson, seconded by Councilwoman Murdock and carried unanimously. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL Cranston Information Seminar - Councilwoman Swanson Councilwoman Swanson reported that she and the City Manager attended a Cranston Information seminar on financing public facilities with tax exempt bonds. Councilwoman Swanson said more information will be presented as it becomes available. South Bay Corridor Steering Committee Councilwoman Swanson said the South Bay Corridor Steering Committee met prior --to a recent South Bay Cities meeting;- a request for an allocation of funds was made. Councilwoman Swanson said she would not recommend that the allocation be approved, and she wished to request that the item be placed on the next agenda so it can be discussed and appropriate action can be taken by the Council. -7- 353 354 September 8, 1986 Public Hearing, EIR, City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2196 Councilman Heinsheimer asked about response by the City of Rolling Hills to the Environmental Impact Report prepared by Rancho Palos Verdes. Mayor Pernell said the City responded in writing, and representatives of the City Council attended the public hearing. Councilwoman Swanson said the EIR does not address the most recent developments identified by geologists, and she asked that the Council meet in closed session for a discussion. MATTERS FROM STAFF The City Attorney and City Manager requested a closed session to discuss litigation. RECESS TO LITIGATION SESSION Mayor Pernell recessed the meeting to a closed session at 9:15 p.m. MEETING RECONVENED The meeting was reconvened at 10:50 p.m. and Mayor Pernell reported that matters pertaining to pending litigation were discussed in the closed session. MEETING ADJOURNED The meeting was adjourned to Wednesday, September 10, 1986 at 6:30 p.m. The Mayor asked members of the City Council to meet at the Roger Hawkins property, 37 Crest Road West, for a field trip, then prepare to recess the meeting, which would then be reconvened at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, for the purpose of adjourning to a closed session to discuss pending litigation. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Mayor -8- City Clerk