5/9/1988MW
kin1:11
MINUTES OF A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
May 9, 1988
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling
Hills, was called to order at the City Hall /Administration Building,
2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, by Mayor Murdock
at 7:30 p.m., on Monday, May 9, 1988.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilwomen Leeuwenburgh, Swanson,
Mayor Murdock
Councilmen Heinsheimer, Pernell (excused)
Terrence L. Belanger
Michael Jenkins
Betty Volkert
Capt. Dennis Gillard
Ann Johnson
Anne La Jeunesse
Mrs. Ann Carley
Mr. Bill Cross
Mr. Roger Frost
Mr. John Husnak
Mr. Major Langer
Mr. & Mrs. Yu -Ping Liu
Mr. Allan Roberts
Mrs. Emily Schleissner
Mr. P. Shu
Mr. Roy Stinnett
City Manager
City Attorney
Deputy City Clerk
Sheriff's Lomita Station
Los Angeles Times
Peninsula News
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Residents
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Mayor Murdock removed the minutes of April 25, 1988, from the
Consent Calendar because they were not ready.
Councilwoman Swanson moved that the Consent Calendar be approved,
with the exception of the minutes. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh seconded
the motion, and it carried unanimously. -
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of April 25, 1988, were ordered held on the agenda
because they were not ready at the time of this meeting.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
Demands Nos. 2846 through 2875, in the amount of $38,774.59,
were approved for payment from the General Fund.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED
This public hearing is to consider a proposed ordinance entitled
"'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF
TREES ON AND VIEWS FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY".
The City Manager reported that this public hearing is continued
from the City Council meeting on April 25, 1988. At that meeting
the Council received public testimony from residents regarding a
proposed policy that would be established by ordinance, whose purpose
would be to preserve and restore views on private property within
the City.
The City Manager explained that the draft View Preservation
Ordinance has been amended to reflect the Council's comments and
concerns that were expressed at the April 25, 1988, City Council
[1
13'7:
meeting. In the amended draft ordinance, there are several sections
that are underlined, representing the changes and modifications that
were requested by the City Council.
Additionally, there were three other issues that were raised
at the previous public hearing. The first issue had to do with the
distinction between view preservation and view restoration. The
question that needs to be resolved is whether or not a property owner
that purchases a piece of property today has the same rights under
the ordinance as somebody who has owned a piece of property for the
last 25 years. This question was considered at the Planning
Commission level, and the Planning Commission determined that the
underlying purpose of the ordinance was to maintain or enhance the
intrinsic value of the private property, as manifested in views,
and that view restoration should have the same weight as view
preservation. The second issue had to do with whether there should
be a broad (more qualitative) or a narrow definition (more
quantitative) of the term "significant impairment". Again, this
matter was considered at the Planning Commission level. The
recommended ordinance reflected the Planning Commission's
recommendation, which was to keep a broad, or more qualitative,
00 definition of he term "significant impairment". The third issue
had to do with the distinction between private views and public or
LO quasi -public views. The recommended ordinance again reflects the
Planning Commission's recommendation. The Commission discussed the
issue of the propriety of views. The Commission concluded that the
CO recommended ordinance should address the proprietary interests of
Q private property owners. The Planning Commission determined that
the views from public or quasi -public areas would not be addressed
in the ordinance.
Mayor Murdock opened the public hearing, and invited public
testimony.
Mr. Ping Shu, 6 Packsaddle Road West, addressed the Council.
He feels that the ordinance has many obstacles. For one thing, trees
are not a set form -such as a square or rectangular; they are free
form. He also feels that this will create constant tension between
neighbors. Mr. Shu feels that the only reason this proposed ordinance
is being considered in the first place, is because of a few
complainants. He also does not agree with the idea of view
restoration, and wondered what kind of ruling might be handed down
if an obstructing tree is very valuable. Mr. Shu doesn't feel that
the City could cope with the discontent that would be generated
between neighbors. He feels that if there is a problem, the neighbors
should resove it amongst themselves. Mr. Shu also fears that if
this proposed ordinance were adopted, the City would need to hire
a full-time person to continually monitor the trees. He does not
favor the ordinance, and feels that it should go to a vote of the
property owners.
Mr. Roger Frost, 87 Eastfield Drive, addressed the Council and
spoke in favor of the ordinance. Mr. Frost stated that he feels
that each homeowner should take responsibility for their own property
and that the Community Association should be responsible for their
part of Rolling Hills, which is the easements. Mr. Frost remarked
that the east side used to be fairly bald except for a few trees
in the easements, and he had a fantastic light view. He went on
to say that some vegetation adds character and interest, however,
the majority of obstructing trees are not beautiful, maintained trees;
they are simply overgrown and compacted. Mr. Frost explained that
many years ago the 4-H club planted seedlings in cans for the
Association to subsequently plant in the easements; the remainder
were healed into the ground. They have grown extremely well, however,
no one is maintaining them. Many are half dead, overgrown, and a
fire hazard. As a result, his view has, for all intents and purposes,
been obliterated. He said that he does not expect to regain 100%
of his original view, but he would like to regain a portion of what
he once had.
Mr. Frost also said that to ask the offended party to, in effect,
ransom their view by taking care of somebody elses mistakes,
indiscretions, or irresponsible actions, is not right. Mr. Frost
- 2 -
138
feels that the individual that owns the trees has a responsibility
to the community and to his neighbors to maintain his property such
that he does not deny his neighbor the enjoyment of a view. Also,
any agreement should be binding on the property owner of record,
thereby solving the potential problems that might arise when a
property changes ownership. Mr. Frost does, however, feel that this
ordinance is a step in the right direction.
Councilwoman Swanson informed Mr. Frost that there are instances
in which the owner of the offending tree(s) would be required to
pay for the trimming or removal, i.e., if it were determined to be
a hazard. Councilwoman Swanson also explained that the final decision
of a complaint would be recorded against the property itself.
Mr. Roy Stinnett, 9 Caballeros Road, informed the Council that
there are trees blocking his view which he calls "Spike" trees, and
which grow very tall. Mr. Stinnett expressed concern that if this
ordinance were adopted it might possibly interfere with any civil
action that he might wish to pursue. He explained that he is
considering filing a suit against his neighbor, and was concerned
that this ordinance might inhibit such an action. Mayor Murdock
informed Mr. Stinnett that this ordinance would not preclude any
civil action between private parties. It is simply a proposed
ordinance to enable the City to deal with problems and providing
a means of addressing them through mediation and, ultimately, the
resolution of whatever dispute there may be with respect to view
impairment. The City Attorney verified that the ordinance was not
written with the intent to preclude any civil actions on the part
of residents of the City.
Mrs. Emily Schleissner, 77 Crest Road East, expressed her support
of the ordinance.
Due to the fact that the proposed ordinance has been revised
since the previous meeting, and the public has not had an opportunity
to review these revisions, in addition to the fact that there are
only three Councilmembers present at tonight's meeting, Mayor Murdock
suggested that this proposed ordinance be held on the agenda and
the public hearing be continued to the next meeting. Councilwoman
Leeuwenburgh so moved. Councilwoman seconded the motion, and it
carried unanimously.
Mayor Murdock also requested that a notice be published in the
next newsletter informing residents that there is a revised ordinance
available for their review, and that the public hearing has been
continued to the next meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
RESOLUTION NO. 572
This resolution entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN
ZONING CASE NO. 355", is a resolution for denial of Zoning Case No.
355, a request by Yu -Ping Liu for a Conditional Use Permit for a
tennis court on Lot 240B -2 -MS, 39 Crest Road West.
The City Manager explained that at the City Council meeting
on April 25, 1988, the Council held a public hearing, following which
the Council made a determination as regards Zoning Case No. 355.
At that time, the City Council determined that they would deny this
request for a Conditional Use Permit for construction of a tennis
court, and at that time the Council directed staff to return to the
next City Council meeting, which is this evening, with a resolution
which memorializes and ratifies the decision of the Council at their
meeting on April 25, 1988.
Councilwoman Swanson moved approval of Resolution No. 572.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously.
- 3 -
WE
EMJAM
ORDINANCE NO. 217
This ordinance is entitled',' ' "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS REGARDING COMMISSIONS AND AMENDING THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL
CODE", and is on the agenda for its second reading and adoption.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh moved approval and adoption of
Ordinance No. 217. Councilwoman Swanson seconded the motion, and
it carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
RESOLUTION NO. 573
This is a resolution designating a Member of the City Council
of the City of Rolling Hills, as an alternate member of the Board
of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Los Angeles
County.
00 Councilwoman Swanson moved approval of Resolution No. 573.
N-1 Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh seconded the motion, and it carried
LO unanimously.
D PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS - APRIL 19, 1988
co
< ZONING CASE NO. 348,, JAMES MURRAY9 8 POSSUM RIDGE ROAD
The City Manager informed the Council that Zoning Case No. 348
comes before the City Council as a report of approval by the Planning
Commission. Zoning Case No. 348 incorporates two requests. The
first is a request for a Variance for encroachment into the minimum
front yard setback of eight (8) feet, at 8 Possum Ridge Road. The
purpose of this encroachment is to provide for the construction of
a tennis court at that location. The second request is for a
Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court at 8 Possum Ridge Road.
The Planning Commission determined that the properties on Possum
Ridge Road, with the exception of 10 Possum Ridge Road, are properties
that are anomalous to virtually all the other properties in the City
of Rolling Hills with a few exceptions on Quail Ridge Road. Possum
Ridge Road bisects all the properties on this road, with the exception
of 10 Possum Ridge Road, which is the end of the roadway. For that
reason, specifically, the Commission found that the condition that
exists with this application is extraordinary. Therefore, the
Commission granted an encroachment of 8 feet into the front yard
setback. The Planning Commission also approved, with a series of
conditions, the construction of a tennis court at 8 Possum Ridge
Road. Although the court painting itself is of standard size'the
general pad area is about 4,200 square feet whereas a standard tennis
court court pad is approximately 7,200 square feet, thus, the pad that
the tennis court will be placed within is significantly smaller than
other pads seen previously.
The report of approval was received for the file.
ZONING CASE NO. 353, SCOTT PROBST, 33 CREST ROAD EAST
The City Manager explained that Zoning Case No. 353 was
originally before the City Council a couple of months ago with a
report of denial by the Planning Commission. At that time, the
applicant had proposed substantially the same kind of encroachment,
however, that site development varied considerably from the revised
site development plan being presented this evening. The original
site development plan proposed a driveway relocation and would have
virtually obliterated the riding trail in this location. Also, the
applicant had originally proposed an encroachment of approximately
36 feet. As a result, the Planning Commission denied the request
and; subsequently, the applicant appealed. The Council set the matter
for a public hearing. At the public hearing, the applicant presented
a revised site plan. That modified plan is substantially what is
before the Council this evening, with the driveway not being relocated
but remaining in its original location and being narrowed slightly.
- 4 -
"M
The proposed encroachment has been reduced by approximately 10 feet,
resulting in an encroachment of 26 feet. The Planning Commission
approved this revised application by a vote of 3-1, subject to
conditions. The major condition was that the lot coverage computation
be certified by a registered civil engineer. If, in fact, the lot
coverage calculation exceeds the statutory maximum of 35%, the
Variance would not become operative.
The City Manager informed the Councilmembers that if they choose
to accept the report of the Planning Commission, they need not take
an action. If the City Council wishes to review this matter it would
require that the Council take jurisdiction by three (3) affirmative
votes.
Councilwoman Swanson stated that she would like to hear the
comments of the Planning Commission Chairman, Mr. Allan Roberts,
who ---was seated in the audience. The City Attorney, Mr. Michael
Jenkins, explained that ordinarily the Council does not get into
the merits of these matters unless the Council takes them up on appeal
and holds a public hearing.
Councilwoman Swanson moved that the Council take this item up
on appeal. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh seconded the motion. The motion
passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilwomen Leeuwenburgh, Swanson,
Mayor Murdock
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmen Heinsheimer, Pernell
Mayor Murdock stated that a public hearing regarding this matter
would be held at the next City Council meeting.
OPEN AGENDA
Mayor Murdock invited comments from the audience on any item
not on the agenda. No one from the audience had any comments.
MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
E. Del Smith and Company Agreement
The City Manager indicated that the Councilmembers have before
them a brief report regarding the E. Del Smith & Company Agreement.
This matter was briefly discussed at the previous city Council
meeting.
The determination that the City Council needs to consider at
this time is the type of relationship it wishes to continue with
Del Smith & Company for legislative advocacy services in Washington
D. C. Presently,, the City is on a month to month retainer. There
are three options that the City could choose: (1 ) a month to month
retainer; (2) an annual retainer; or, (3) no retainer. Staff's
recommendation is an annual retainer of an amount between $0.00 and
$2,500.00, with the stipulation that, if somewhere during the course
of that year it becomes obvious that these services are going to
be needed on a more frequent basis, there- can be a modification made
at that time by the Council.
Mayor Murdock asked if the current
notification time period. The City Manager
it is strictly on a month to month basis at the
agreement specifies a
said that it did not;
present time.
Mayor Murdock stated that she wished to hold this matter on
the agenda for the next Council meeting, so that it could be discussed
with the full Council present. There being no objections, it was
so ordered.
- 5 -
I
I
I
141
Planning Commission Appointment
Councilwoman' Swanson -'reported that the Council recognized the
need to fill the Planning Commission seat as quickly as possible,
and thus, notified the community and solicited applications through
the newsletter. The City was very fortunate to receive 10
applications from very capable residents who were willing to give
of their time. There was some discussion regarding the selection
process. The Council agreed that a sub -committee of two
Councilmembers would conduct the interviews. Thus, the interviews
were conducted by Mayor Murdock and Councilwoman Swanson. The City
Manager was also present during the interviews. After much
deliberations, the sub -committee unanimously agreed to recommend
that Betsy Raine be appointed to fill the Planning Commission vacancy.
Her term would expire December 31, 1989. Councilwoman Swanson so
moved. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh seconded the motion. There being
no objections, the Mayor so ordered.
Mayor Murdock reported that there is also an expired term on
Co
the Planning
Commission, that of Commissioner Frost,
whose term
expired on December
31, 1987. Councilwoman Swanson moved
to reappoint
Commissioner
Frost to another term on the Planning
Commission.
LO
Councilwoman
Leeuwenburgh seconded the motion, and
it carried
unanimously.
Mayor Murdock welcomed Commissioner Frost back for
another term.
Q
Santa Monica
Bay Estuary
The City Manager explained that in April, Senator Mel Levine
asked the Environmental Protection Agency to include the Santa Monica
Bay in the National Ustuaries Program. The purpose of the National
Estuaries Program is to set up a management plan for estuaries that
are undergoing significant environmental impacts. It is well known
that Santa Monica Bay has been undergoing very significant
environmental impacts as a result of it being a sewer outflow that
is more and more frequently allowing raw sewage to interdict it.
The purpose of the program will be, over a five year period of time,
to plan, through a series of management conferences, the cleaning
up and then the protection and preservation of Santa Monica Bay.
This is a bi-lateral piece of legislation. Also, the Board of
Directors of the County Sanitation District No. 5 of Los Angeles
County has taken action to support this particular piece of
legislation. It is recommended that the City Council also take an
action to support this legislation and to communicate same with the
appropriate Congress people as well as the County Sanitation District.
Councilwoman Swanson reiterated that this issue was discussed
at some length at the Board of Directors meeting of the County
Sanitation District No. 5, and the final outcome was a unanimous
vote. Councilwoman Swanson remarked that she feels it is an
appropriate action, and moved approval. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh
seconded the motion. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh also suggested that
communications be sent to both houses of Congress. There being no
objections, the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Murdock requested that staff prepare an appropriate
resolution to be submitted at the next meeting.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
Building, Zoning, Planning, and Subdivision°Procedure Charts
The City Manager requested that this be continued to the meeting
on May 23, 1988.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Murdock adjourned the
meeting at 8:23 p.m., to Monday, May 23, 1988, at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVED:
City Clerk