Loading...
5/26/1987W MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS May 26, 1987 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 Swanson at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, May 26, 1987. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Pernell, Mayor Swanson Councilmember Leeuwenburgh Terrence L. Belanger Michael Jenkins L. D. Courtright Kathy Uros Dr. Maurice Lam Mrs. Maurice Lam Dr. Mark Minkes Dr. Mehdi Hemmat Mrs. Shalah Hemmat Mrs. Carole LaCaze Mr. Norman LaCaze Mr. James Hansen Mr. Richard Linde Mr. Terrence Carroll Murdock, City Manager City Attorney City Treasurer Secretary Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Architect, Linde & Associates Councilman Heinsheimer moved that the items on the Consent Calendar be approved. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Murdock and carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of a meeting on May 11, 1987 were approved and accepted as presented. PAYMENT OF BILLS Demands No. 2082 through 2116 in the amount of $20,914.54 were approved for payment from the General Fund, and Demand No. 2084 was voided. STATUS OF FLYING TRIANGLE Mayor Swanson reported that a joint meeting was held between the representatives of the City of Rolling Hills and the representatives of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes regarding HR -6. The basic points of agreement during that meeting were: (1) that the two cities will work cooperatively in seeking funding for the reconnaissance study of the Peninsula Landslide, and (2) that the Technical Committee (Staff) and the Policy Committee will meet on a regular basis monthly, and (3) that the two cities agree to share in lobbying expenses for the reconnaissance study that the representatives from the City of Mr. Heinsheimer and the City Manager were asked if there was anything they wished to add to the report; both concurred with Mayor Swanson's statements and the information was ordered filed. The Mayor then asked whether any efforts should be taken regarding our lobbyists. The City Manager stated that his recommendation would be to not only 429 enter into negotiations with the lobbyist, but also to set a "not -to -exceed" figure in terms of the negotiations. Councilman Heinsheimer agreed that negotiations should proceed but expressed desire that we take;cognizance of the letter that we received from the Rolling Hills Community Association and make sure that no contract that we enter into is not in the best interest of the Community at large. Councilman Heinsheimer asked the Council to get in touch with the Community Association attorney and make sure that the action the Council is about to take is in the best overall spirit of the Community's best interest. Mayor Swanson . agreed, stating that she had spoken with the Association President and attourney about this matter, and that once they were assured that this was a study only, they were satisfied, but that they would like to hear from the Council in writing. Mayor Swanson inquired if there was a not -to -exceed figure recommended. The City Manager recommended a not -to -exceed figure of $5,000. Councilman Heinsheimer moved that a not -to -exceed figure of $5,000 be approved. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Murdock and with no further discussions or objections was so ordered. CONTRACT AMENDMENT: ASL CONSULTING ENGINEERS RE: AERIAL MAPPING LO SERVICES 0) LL The City Manager presented a recommended agreement between the m City of Rolling Hills and ASL Consulting Engineers. ASL was Q retained by the City in April to perform a feasibility study in regards to sanitary sewers and other alternative methods of waste water disposal. Subsequent to that approval, aerial mapping of the City was pursued through proposals to aerial mapping firms. At that time, ASL contacted the City that they had a preexisting quote regarding aerial mapping that was in fact less than any of the bids that the City had received from the other firms. As a result we entered into a short negotiation with ASL regarding their amending of their agreement, assigning them the responsibility to do the aerial mapping. ASL has agreed to this amendment, and has begun that process. City Manager recommended that the City Council approve the amendment to the agreement in the amount of $20,000 for the purpose of being provided aerial photographic base maps by ASL Consulting Engineers. Related to the aerial maps, the Rolling Hills Community Association took action approximately a month ago to share in the cost of those aerial maps, up to $10,000 or 50%, whichever is lesser. Councilwoman Murdock moved that the Council accept the amendment to the agreement. Motion was seconded by Councilman Heinsheimer; with no further discussions or objections the motion was so ordered. LETTER OF RESIGNATION FROM S. D. WEIMAN City Manager stated that Mr. S. D. Weiman, a member of the City's Traffic Commission, has submitted his letter resignation, indicating that he would like to continue public service to the community of Rolling Hills, but that his preference would be to serve in a different capacity. Mr. Weiman indicated that he would continue to serve on the Traffic Commission until he is replaced. City Manager recommended that the City Council solicit applications from interested residents and go through a similar process that the Council implemented in replacing the member -at -large of the Environmental Quality Board. There being no objections from the Council, the Mayor so ordered, requesting that the file of past applications for the Traffic Commission positions be researched so that when the final number of applicants are considered all are looked at. Mayor requested preparation of a letter for her signature to Mr. Weiman thanking him for his service and that we would like for him to continue until a replacement is found. -2- 430 CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS Mayor Swanson stated that everyone's input was sought regarding City Council appointments; but since not all input was received, and with Councilmembers Leeuwenburgh and Pernell absent, asked if this subject should be retained on the agenda for one additional term. It was decided to retain subject of council appointments on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS Zonincr Case No. 340, James Hansen, 41 Eastfield Drive Prior to discussion of the first zoning case, Councilman Heinsheimer questioned whether Zoning Case 340 and Case 341 were public hearings, but rather actions that were taken by the Planning Commission which are routinely before the Council. It was stated that the Council had taken jurisdiction on these two cases. They are so listed without any constraints on freedom of action for the Council. The City Manager stated that Zoning Case No. 340 is an application for a zoning variance to the established front yard. The Hansens have asked that they be able to encroach into the front yard at this location at 41 Eastfield for the purpose of building a pool, spa and deck. The encroachment is approximately 26 feet from the corner of the house into the front yard, which would leave a remaining front yard setback from the roadway easement of 68 feet. The Findings and Report lists the conditions that were placed on this particular variance. The City Council called this matter up to discuss the issue of easement clearance. Mayor Swanson explained that the concern of the Council was that there is a possible easement obstruction around the Hansen property and view obstruction caused by some of the trees in the area where the swimming pool is proposed to be put in. The Council asked Mr. Hansen whether he would have any objection to working with his neighbors regarding view obstruction. Mr. Hansen did not feel that his easements needed clearing. The Mayor answered that that could only be determined upon viewing the property. Councilman Heinsheimer indicated the Council was concerned with just the view obstruction; leaving the issue of the condition of the easements to the Association. Councilwoman Murdock said that the conditions of approval established by the Planning Commission includes Condition No. 5 which says that "the improvements as set forth in Exhibit A shall respect, preserve and reinstate if necessary the existing topography, natural landscaping and Rolling Hills Community Association easements." The matter of the clearing of the easements has already been addressed by the Planning Commission. Mayor Swanson asked whether any member of the Council had any problems with the manner in which the Planning Commission stated their findings. Councilman Heinsheimer stated that the Council should consider putting broader conditions on the view obstruction part of the findings because view obstruction has to do with the entire property. Councilwoman Murdock said that this subject had been discussed in general and not in detail. Her inclination would be to address view obstruction throughout the City and with a general examination of the problem; rather than, specifically addressing it now. Councilwoman Murdock indicated that view obstruction is a problem that is very commonplace in the City and it should be addressed, but not through this method. Councilman Heinsheimer said that one of the advantages of doing it this way was that when residents apply for variances or conditional use permits, they are requesting something of the City and their neighbors, therefore the City is in a stronger position to request something back. -3- Councilman Heinsheimer suggested that the Council modify the condition of No. 2, Paragraph 3 where it refers to the landscaping plan to include , appropriate wording on the elimination of view obstructions on the property. Staff would be requested to give Council exact wording. Councilwoman Murdock asked the City Attorney's opinion as to the propriety of proceeding this way. The City Attorney stated that his opinion has not changed regarding a certain element of ambiguity in the process due to the fact that there is not anything in the Zoning ordinance that deals with that issue. Mr. Jenkins stated that he did not feel that this was an unreasonable condition to add to a discretionary permit issued by the City for this . type of improvement. Hence, with respect to the proprietary of the issue, he did not have a problem. As regards the clarity of the condition, he agreed that something more comprehensive and more definite should be looked at for future use. Councilman Heinsheimer stated that the current condition was that a landscaping plan be approved, but that the landscaping plan did not have any criteria with it of what should be in the plan. He suggested that standards for landscaping could include view (D obstruction. LD To clarify the issue, Mayor Swanson said that when a (3) variance case such as this is before the Council, it is a time LL when the Council is being asked to do something unusual and that CO if view obstruction is creating a problem for some of the Q neighbors, that it only stands to reason that is when the problem be taken care of. Mayor Swanson invited testimony from Mr. Hansen. Mr. Hansen asked who complained of the problem with the view. Dr. Basque attended the last Council meeting, stating the problem with the view. Councilman Heinsheimer responded that his reaction is not in response to any particular complaint, but rather to deal in general with the problem of view obstruction. Mr. Hansen stated that one of the trees causing the complaint was going to have to be removed for the pool installation and that he would trim the other tree down to whatever height is deemed appropriate. Mayor Swanson said that the City Manager would be instructed to make a determination of the obstruction. Councilman Heinsheimer clarified that view obstruction pertained to all of the property and not just the variance area. Landscape planning usually deals with the landscaping of the improvement itself. The attempt here is to eliminate any view obstruction that any of the overall property may have. Mr. Hansen mentioned that he had some view obstruction from his neighbors, to which the Council responded that they are trying to handle this situation. Reference was made to Councilman Heinsheimer to the ordinance that Rolling Hills Estates is considering on view obstruction. Records were noted that Councilman Pernell joined the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Mayor Swanson expressed appreciation of Mr. Hansen's cooperation and stated that his variance would be processed as expeditiously as possible. Councilman Heinsheimer moved for approval of the variance with the modification of Paragraph 2 to read: "Landscaping Plan, including the elimination of view obstruction, if any, on the property, be approved by the Planning Commission." . . . as written, be approved by the Planning Commission. . . for the cost of "insert" installation and maintenance of such landscapinq . . . (remainder of the paragraph as is) ." Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Murdock and carried by the following roll -call vote: -4- ig 431 43.2 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers Swanson None Heinsheimer, Murdock, Mayor Councilman Pernell ABSENT: Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh Zoninci Case No. 341. Alan Johnson, 7 Crest Road East The City Manager stated that Zoning Case No. 341 would allow for a guest house to be constructed at 7 Crest Road East. Reference was made to a list of conditions relating to this proposal. Conditions had been set forth in a report finding approved by the City Planning Commission. Case No. 341 was brought into Council jurisdiction to consider the placement of an additional condition on this application regarding viewscape. Mr. Richard Linde, the project architect, of 200 Alma Porto Court, Torrance, California represented the subject property for Mr. Johnson. Mr. Linde felt that Mr. Johnson would be very cooperative regarding the viewscape problems. The trees on the property were brought up at the Planning Commission and Mr. Johnson expressed his desire to cooperate. Councilman Pernell inquired if compliance would be needed regarding a draining system. Mr. Linde stated that there would be no problem, as discussed with the Planning Commission. Condition No. 11 regarding the drainage of water from the pool was discussed since the conditions listed require that all drainage of water from the pool would be accomplished by pumping the water into a tank truck and disposed of outside the City of Rolling Hills. Concern was expressed over where the water would be deposited. Staff commented that an extension of this condition would be the development of a plan of disposal along with a precise method of disposal. Mr. Johnson would need to agree with subject arrangement. Councilman Pernell posed the question of the City's liability due to inability to enforce this condition of proper drainage. The City Attorney said that under this theory the City was not liable. If this is warranted as a water problem, then an ordinance should be adopted that would essentially supersede a condition such as this; one that would deal with pool drainage under similar circumstances. It was suggested that the Council may want to direct Staff to consider a proposal for pool drainage in general in sensitive areas. Councilman Heinsheimer moved for approval of the modification of condition 8, Landscaping, to add the words including the elimination of view obstruction, if any, on the property, all the . . . cost of and include installation and maintenance of the landscapinct. plus 15% for a period not less than two vears. . . Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Murdock. The City Attorney suggested that the sentence at the end of Paragraph 11 should read "water disposal plan should be submitted by the City with any application submitted for a building permit for a swimming pool." Councilmembers Heinsheimer and Murdock moved and seconded this plan, and motion was carried unanimously. Staff was directed to have at the next meeting a recommendation on how to handle inclusion of conditions regarding pool drainage in fragile areas on pending applications before the Planning Commission. -5- 433 OPEN AGENDA Mayor Swanson invited members of the audience to address the City Council on any items which were not on the agenda. There was no input from the audience, and the meeting proceeded according to the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) Tennis Court Moratorium The City Manager discussed the Planning Commission report regarding the construction of tennis courts within the City of Rolling Hills. Tennis court construction has. been in moratorium since July 28, 1986. The Planning Commission also forwarded to the Council recommended language which would amend the Zoning Ordinance section that addresses the conditional use permit for tennis courts. The Ordinance was set for hearing at the Council (D meeting of May 11, 1987 and is on the agenda for the purpose of Lo receiving testimony. Before review, the City Manager pointed (T) out one change to the draft ordinance: LL No. 11 of the draft reads: "All retaining walls, whether CO interior or exterior, incorporated into the court shall not be Q greater than four feet in height." Revision: Eliminate "whether interior or exterior". Add a second sentence: "Exposed exterior retaining walls are not permitted." No. 11 will now read: "All retaining walls incorporated into the court shall not be greater than four feet in height at any point. Exposed exterior retaining walls are not permitted. Councilman Pernell addressed the issue of clarifcation that was needed regarding "viewscape" and "easement obstruction". The City Attorney concurred with the necessity for clarification so that there would be no question that the clause "owners of the property" relates to owners of the property in close proximity to the proposed court. The words "close proximity" and "adjacent" (properties) were questioned. Mayor Swanson requsted to keep the wording general until after public testimony is heard. At this point the meeting was recessed to give the residents time to acquaint themselves with the ordinance. The Council Meeting reconvened at 8:59 p.m. with Councilman Heinsheimer absent. Mayor Swanson invited the audience to step forward for comment. Dr. Maurice Lam, •-68 Saddleback: Dr. Lam stated that they already have a conditional use permit for tennis court construction that was filed prior to the moratorium. He questioned that if the requirements differ in this ordinance from the requirements used to approve his current permit, how does this impact on his proceeding with construction when the moratorium is lifted? The City Attorney responded that this is a matter entirely within the discretion of the City Council and is not addressed in the ordinance. The permit would have to be reopened and modified as long as construction had not commenced on the tennis courts and was not substantially in progress; unless the Council decides to "grandfather" it. RM Mayor Swansn confirmed that the Council can, if they so desisre, include the requirements in the permit. Mr. Lam noted that when the moratorium issue is resolved he may need to consult with . his engineer and construction personnel to see if he is in compliance with the new ordinance. Dr. Mark Minkes, 44 Chuckwagon Road: Dr. Minkes first noted that Paragraph E of the proposed ordinance was not grammatically correct. The City Attorney responded that the paragraph is in order, that the paragraphs preceding and following Paragraph 5 give explanation to the sentence. Dr. Minkes, in comparing the ordinance draft with the previous zoning code, asked if the reference made to standards for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto is a correct reference, or a change from current zoning. Councilwoman Murdock explained that the reference is the same as stated in the current zoning code. Dr. Minkes asked whether the proposed ordinance deals with lights and noise pollution? Mayor Swanson stated that lights are not allowed in the City at all. The City Manager stated that they are not included in the existing ordinance; lights, as a matter of policy, are proscribed. Noise is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Essentially the stated 11 conditions must be met before the application can proceed. Noise generation or abatement is not part of the conditions, primarily because the City doesn't have an ordinance that sets forth the appropriate criteria. Mayor Swanson inquired if Dr. Minkes felt there should be something relating to lights and noiss. Dr. Minkes said that although he had no plans of building a tennis court, he was interested in allowing his neighbors enjoy their property. He expressed favor in allowing tennis courts to be constructed, but reiterated his concern over noise pollution and lights. Councilman Pernell explained that there are certain almost amphitheater -like sites that amplify and direct noise so that there is potential for annoyance to other properties. In the past, the Council has asked for environmental impact reports so that matters could be addressed at the correct level. The City Attorney saw no reason why noise and lights should not be included. The City Manager recommended that a discussion of noise and lights be dealt with separately from this ordinance. In order to address it separately the issue would have to revert back to the Planning Commission. The City Attorney, in response to an inquiry from Mayor Swanson stated that in this instance the City Council would have the right to make such amendments without returning it to the Planning Commission. Dr. Minkes summarized by saying that as a resident of this community he was very much in favor of allowing his neighbors to build tennis courts; and after reading this ordinance, feels that it is very constructive. Mr. Norman LaCaze, 24 Portuguese Bend: Mr. LaCaze stated that he bought property in the City almost a year ago with the specific intention of building a tennis court, but unfortunately was caught in the moratorium.He stated that he had had a sound engineer on his property and the decibels of noise taken registered lower than those of a barking dog. One of Mr. LaCaze's concerns regarded retaining walls. He said that it was stated that retaining walls could not be visible and said that if you do a cut, you can fill the bottom side but you cannot put dirt back in a court. How do you not show a slight cut in a retaining wall. City Manager responded that the inside cut would essentially be the interior wall and that that can be exposed. Mr. LaCaze expressed his hope for expeditious processing of this ordinance so that the moratorium will be lifted. -7- 435 Dr. Mehdi Hemmat, 64 Eastfield: Dr. Mehdi agreed with the previous speaker and personally hopes that the moratorium will end. He has personally been waiting;,fo.,r-.landscaping and plans for over a year. He mentioned that there are always items in a resdential area that neighbors have to cope with; and that if, perhaps, noise is to be an issue, a time frame for tennis playing could be established. Mrs. Shalah Hemmat, 64 Eastfield: Mrs. Hemmat mentioned that they have lived in the City for five months; that her neighbors have a tennis, court and that she has never heard any noise from the court. She felt that there were other sources of concern (such as dogs, swimming pools), and confirmed her husband's suggestion of a time restriction being placed on tennis playing. Mayor Swanson recommended continuing the public hearing. After discussion among the Council members the ordinance is to be returned to Staff for final draft, being brought back to Council at the next meeting. Councilman Pernell asked Staff if No. 9 of the ordinance would (� be the proper place to address the volume issue, since this is the L) section that covers areas and slope, as far as number of cubic feet that could be moved. The City Manager stated that our grading ordinance addresses size of slope, but not volume. A figure was not LL listed in the ordinance because it was much easier to work with the square footage and thereby limit the amount of filling that would Q take place. Councilman Pernell requested that the area _of volume be explored. The City Manager stated that the volume, along with noise and light matters would be reviewed. Mayor Swanson requested that the hours of use be incorporated into the ordinance. The City Manager responded that the hours would not be included in the ordinance but that they could be on the application. The City Attorney said that there were a number of alternatives: (1) a statement that the Planning Commission shall in its considerations be aware of potential noise and leave it to the discretion of the Commission in any given case of what needs to be done, (2) to establish a decibel level from the property line, (3) to establish your basic nuisance standard with minimum condition that "noise shall not disturb neighbors in the ordinary use and enjoyment of their property. An hour limitation might be hard to enforce. Councilwoman Murdock asked if the ordinance could still be completed in the time frame that we had originally set. The City Manager said that the date of passage would be the second week of June instead of the first week. Mayor Swanson addressed the item that Dr. Heinsheimer asked her to present in his absence. Comments pertain to Section 1, Article 5. ". . . providing for adequate screening of the court. . . (add) "and for the elimination of view obstruction created by landscaping anywhere on the property." Conditions shall. . .and perpetual maintenance of the (insert) "tennis court" landscaping (strike the words "and to") (add) "anywhere" elimination of view obstruction. Revised Article shall read: "The application for a tennis court conditional use permit shall be accompanied by a landscape plan, providing for adequate screening of the court, and for the elimination of view obstruction created by tennis court landscaping anywhere on the property. The court shall have an area adequate in width on all sides for the planting of landscaping;" Councilman Pernell commented that rather than putting view impairment into every one of our ordinances, would it not be appropriate to have it as an overriding consideration; that the Planning Commission shall consider in every case where there is a variance or a conditional use permit applying to all applications. 10 436 Councilwoman Murdock noted that at the last City Council meeting it was addressed that view impairment should apply to all properties, regardless of whether they are asking for a conditional use permit or a variance. Staff was directed to look into this. In response to Dr. Pernell's inquiry, the City Manager stated that specific instructions were given to look into applying view obstruction of all properties, and to recommend ways of implementing this. The City Attorney said that if handling these matters on a case-by-case basis as they arise, perhaps they should be excluded, here and dealt with on a separate, independent ordinance. Further discussions by the residents ensued with the primary concerns being: Expeditious moving forward of the lifting of the moratorium. Mayor Swanson noted that this is the intent, but that since the Council had received so many suggestions both from the public and members of the City Council, it is only fair that the Council see it in a final written form prior to adopting it. And the Council will still treat each case on its own merits. One of Mrs. Hemmat's reasons for expeditious processing was so that landscaping could begin on her yards. It was explained by the Council and by the City Manager that only grading as it pertains to tennis courts is affected. If the grading plan in any way depends upon the incorporation of the tennis court into the total plan, then that could delay the approval of your grading. Dr. Minkes stated that he felt the noise issue should not encompass the concept of a decibel or an hour, he supported it being considered a nuisance issue. Dr. Minkes also asked if the ordinance addressed the distance of a tennis court to a neighbor's actual residence. City Manager commented that distance is governed by another ordinance. Currently the closest distance is designated as 40' minimum in a one -acre zone and 70' minimum in a two -acre zone. The Council continued the matter of the zoning ordinance amendments regarding tennis courts to the June 8, 1987 City Council Meeting. SUPPORT OF BILL 1158 Mayor Swanson presented correspondence Block requesting support on Bill 1158. This bill those who have been sexually assaulted (who we assault); that legislation would allow the cou cause, to order the County health officer to charged with the commission of certain sexual transmitted diseases. Sheriff Block is asking the author of the Bill in support of it. It letter be prepared for Mayor's signature on beha FISCAL YEAR 1987-1988 BUDGET from Sheriff Sherman addresses testing of re victims of a sexual rt, upon showing good test the defendant offenses for sexually the cities to write was directed that a Lf of the Council. Presentation of Budget postponed. Staff still first public hearing for budget be set for June Swanson so ordered. recommends that 8, 1987. Mayor CLOSED SESSION The Council went into closed session for discussion of potential litigation. Meeting reconvened at 10:05 p.m. The City Attorney reported that the City Council discussed matters of pending litigation. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Swanson adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday, June 8, 1987. LO 0) LL m Q APPROVED-;.: Mayor -10- City Clerk 437