Loading...
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