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