Loading...
6/13/1988152 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA June 13, 1988 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 Murdock on Monday, June 13, 1988, at 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: PA *3*06 ALSO PRESENT: Councilmembers Heinsheimber, Leeuwenburgh, Pernell, Swanson, Mayor Murdock None Terrence L. Belanger Michael Jenkins Kathy Uros Ann Johnson Anne La Jeunesse Steve Axelrod Tom Black Tom Boyd Bill Cross Scott Probst Ping Shu ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE City Manager City Attorney City Secretary Los Angeles Times Palos Verdes News BFI District Manager Architect RHCA Vice President Resident Resident Resident The City Clerk, Mr. Belanger, administered the Oath of Office to Councilman Heinsheimer. Congratulations were extended by the Mayor and Council. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilwoman Swanson moved that the Consent Calendar be approved and accepted as presented. Councilman Pernell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of a regular meeting held on May 23, 1988, were approved and accepted as written. PAYMENT OF BILLS Demands Nos. 2896, 2900, 2906 through 2920, 2922 through 2933, and 2935 through 2953, in the amount of $55,739.62, were approved for payment from the General Fund. Demands Nos. 2921 and 2934 were voided. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HUMANE SOCIETY AGREEMENT A two year agreement between the City of Rolling Hills and the Southern California Humane Society, for animal control and licensing services, was approved as presented. OLD BUSINESS ORDINANCE ABOLISHING THE ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY BOARD Councilman Heinsheimer moved that Ordinance No. 218, entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REGARDING COMMISSIONS AND AMENDING THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE" be adopted, and that reading in full be waived. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 15 NEW BUSINESS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS -.MAY 17.,1988 ZONING CASE NO. 359, CAROLE CURIO, 6 CHESTERFIELD ROAD The City Manager reported that this is a request for a variance at 6 Chesterfield Road. The applicant requests an encroachment of 3 feet into the front yard setback where a nonconforming encroachment of 21 feet exists. They are also requesting, on the westerly side of the property, an encroachment of 9 feet where encroachments of 7 feet and 9 feet already exist. On the easterly side of the property, the applicants are requesting an encroachment of 716" in an area where there is an existing encroachment of 1216". The Planning Commission viewed this site and held two public hearings, at which there were verbal comments in favor of the proposed project and no comments, written or verbal, in opposition to the project. The Planning Commission unanimously approved Zoning Case No. 359. a} The Mayor asked the City Manager to clarify the Findings and Report of the Planning Commission. The City Manager explained that the Findings and Report is in error on page 1, the last line, where it reads that the "...applicants have requested an additional 23 foot encroachment..." It should read that the '...applicants have m requested a 3 foot encroachment..." Q The report of approval was received for the file. ZONING CASE NO. 360, ED SWART, 2 MEADOWLARK LANE The City Manager reported that this is a request for a variance to encroach into the front yard setback at 2 Meadowlark Lane. Meadowlark Lane is a small street that runs, essentially, north to south off of Saddleback, just to the east of Portuguese Bend Road. Currently, there is a nonconforming encroachment into the front yard setback of approximately 40 feet. The existing residence is built almost onto the roadway, as is the case with almost all the homes on Meadowlark. The applicants have requested a variance to allow for the construction of a garage. The area of the proposed encroachment is currently blacktopped, and apparently at one time was a paddle tennis court. The Planning Commission held two public hearings and received comments in support of Zoning Case No. 360 and no comments in opposition to the proposed project. The City Manager indicated that it appears that the building area'calculations are in error. There is a recreation room on the property, of approximately 329 square feet, which is not included in the lot coverage calculations. Using the net lot area, 385 square feet equals one percent of the area. Therefore, if the 329 square foot recreation room were added to the building area calculations, the structural lot coverage would be just under 17%. The City Manager reported that the Planning Commission unanimously approved Zoning Case No. 360. Councilman Pernell asked if all five members of the Planning Commission were present when this request was approved. The City Manager said that there were only four members present at that Planning Commission meeting. The City Manager reported that on page 2, 5th line, of the Findings and Report of the Planning Commission, there is an error. The Findings and Report currently reads "'...have requested an additional 2310" foot encroachment..." This should read "...have requested a 23' foot encroachment..." Mayor Murdock remarked that it is assumed that staff will require that the building area calculations will be corrected prior to authorizing the permit to be issued. The report of approval was received for the file. - 2 - 154 ORDINANCE ADOPTING LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUILDING & SAFETY CODES The City Manager explained that the County of Los Angeles has adopted new Building, Plumbing, and Mechanical Codes for the County areas for whom they are contractors. Since the City of Rolling Hills retains the County of Los Angeles as its Building & Safety Official, as well as its Engineering Official, it would be appropriate to adopt the Los Angeles County Codes. Under the State Code, the method for adopting these ordinances is to introduce a proposed ordinance adopting the Codes by reference. After introduction of the proposed ordinance, a public hearing must be set not less than 15 days after its introduction. Staff recommended that the proposed ordinance be introduced and a public hearing be set for July 11, 1988, for the purpose of receiving public testimony on the adoption of the 1985 Uniform Building Code, the 1985 Uniform Plumbing Code, and the 1985 Uniform Mechanical Code. Mayor Murdock entertained a motion for introduction of the proposed ordinance and its first reading. Councilman Heinsheimer moved introduction of the proposed ordinance adopting the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Codes by reference, entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, TITLE 26, BUILDING CODE, TITLE 28, PLUMBING CODE, AND TITLE 29, MECHANICAL CODE, MAKING AMENDMENTS TO SAID CODES AND AMENDING THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE". Councilwoman Swanson seconded the motion. The City Manager remarked that the exceptions which currently exist in the Rolling Hills Municipal Code will be carried over into the new Building & Safety Codes. There being no objections, the ordinance was introduced for its first reading, and public hearing was set for July 11, 1988. PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 353, SCOTT PROBST, 33 CREST ROAD EAST The City Manager briefed the Council on the specifics of Zoning Case No. 353. He explained that Zoning Case No. 353 originally came before the City Council on appeal of the applicant. At that time a revised plan was submitted by the applicant, which the City Council remanded back to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. The Planning Commission reported to the City Council approval of Zoning Case No. 353, at which time the City Council took jurisdiction of Zoning Case No. 353 and set the matter for a public hearing. At the last City Council a field trip to investigate the site was scheduled for June 7. The applicants are requesting an encroachment of approximately 26 feet into the front yard setback, to allow for the construction of a garage of approximately 2120 square feet. The applicant is also requesting an encroachment of approximately 11 feet for the purpose of constructing a porte-couchere. There would also be an encroachment to provide for a retaining wall which creates the driveway turnaround in the area of the porte-couchere. Councilman Heinsheimer asked about the status of other properties in the area with regard to the 50 foot front yard setback. The City Manager indicated that all the propoerties in the immediate proximity to the property in question at 33 Crest Road East, have a minimum front yard setback of at least 50 feet. The nearest address on Crest Road that encroaches is the Lennartz home at 63 Crest Road East. In the other direction, the Steen residence at 16 Crest Road West also encroaches into the front yard setback. - 3 - i55 Councilman Heinsheimer asked what the actual lot size is. The City Manager reported tat°the,�gross lot area is 87,991 square feet, slightly over 2 acres, and the net let area is 65,221 square feet. Councilman Heinsheimer commented that he did not feel that the lot should be classified as nonconforming. Although it currently does not comply with the zoning codes, at the time it was developed it did comply and, thus, is allowed under the existing zoning codes. Councilman Heinsheimer would prefer that this terminology be deleted from the Findings and Report. The City Attorney, Mr. Mike Jenkins, explained that these are the findings of the Planning Commission and they cannot be changed; the Council can disagree with the findings but they cannont be changed. The City Attorney continued to explain that if a lot would not be allowed under the current zoning standards then it is considered a nonconforming lot. That is to say that it is legal and it can be permitted to remain, but it does not conform to today's standards and could not be approved if it were to be created today. CO Councilman Pernell remarked setback should remain inviolate. that he feels that the 50 foot LD CD Q Councilwoman Swanson agreed with the previous comments, and commented that if this request were granted the City may as well not have a zoning ordinance at all. This is a request for a large encroachment and there does not appear to be a hardship, therefore, she moved to deny the request. Councilman Heinsheimer commented that it appears that this request is to allow for a storage area to be built rather than a garage, and asked if anyone had considered the possibility of buildig the garage where the proposed storage area would be located. The City Manager commented that to have the new garage in that orientation would be aesthetically displeasing. Mr. Tom Boyd, Vice President of the Rolling Hills Community Association, addressed the Council and asked the City Manager for clarification of the size of the proposed garage. The City Manager explained that the 2100 square feet includes a storage area. Mr. Boyd commented that this would still be a very large garage. Mr. Probst expressed his feeling that if the 50 foot setback was sacrosanct, he should have been informed of that at the very beginning before going to all this time and expense. Mr. Probst stated that when the house was originally built the setback was 30 feet, which was subsequently changed to 50 feet, thereby, necessitating the request for a variance to encroach in the front yard setback. He said that he has made every effort to demonstrate to the City that this request would be an enhancement and an improvement to the property. Mr. Probst stated that he has more than a strong objection to the motion, if this request was never to have been approved to begin with. Councilwoman Swanson asked Mr. Probst if he had purchased the property after the 50 foot setback was enacted, and Mr. Probst stated that he had. Councilman Pernell commented that he was concerned that anyone was led to believe that they had a right to expect clear sailing, so to speak, on any kind of an application. Councilman Pernell asked Mr. Probst how he arrived at that conclusion. Mr. Probst explained that before he purchased the house, he met with the Association and discussed ways that he might expand the garage and various options that might be acceptable. After he purchased the house, he met with the architect on the Architectural Committee. He then met with members of the Planning Commission, and submitted an application for the variance, based on the Code, citing a hardship or extraordinary circumstances that pertain to the property. Mr. Probst stated that he was never advised that the 50 foot setback could not be compromised. He believes that the proposed project on Crest Road - 4 - 156 would be much better than what currently exists. Mr. Probst said that the encroachment, by and large, would be below grade and would have very little visual impact. Councilman Pernell commented that it is unfortunate that Mr. Probst feels that he was misled. Councilman Pernell explained to Mr. Probst that he was expressing only his opinion and not that of the other Councilmembers when he spoke of the 50 foot setback along Crest Road being inviolate. Councilman Pernell also stated that he has difficulty in finding that a hardship exists. According to Mr. Probst, there is no other location to expand the house. Mr. Probst also feels that it is a hardship to have automobiles sitting in the driveway all the time. Councilwoman Swanson informed Mr. Probst that after the field trip, she took a look at the properties that have encroachments along Crest Road and discovered that those encroachments existed when the setback was still 30 feet. Councilwoman Swanson explained to Mr. Probst that there does not appear to be a hardship in this case, and that she could not, in good conscience, approve this request because the encroachment would be quite extensive. Mr. Probst reiterated that it was never indicated to him that the front yard setback along Crest Road was absolute, and remarked that if he had known that he wouldn't have wasted his time. Mayor Murdock explained that the ordinances allow for anyone to apply for a variance; that is a property owner's right. However, there is nothing that guarantees that a variance will be approved. It would be inappropriate for a Councilmember to advise an applicant ahead of time that the variance would not be granted. No one can decide what the Planning Commission is going to decide at the end of their study of an application. Mr. Probst believes that anyone could have looked at the plans and advised him that it probably would not be approved, or could have suggested changes. The City Attorney explained that it would have been highly improper for anyone to have advised Mr. Probst that his request probably would not be granted because they would have been making a judgement without all the facts and without having given the applicant the opportunity to present his case, and would have been prejudging the matter. This is a quasi-judicial matter, and the Council is acting in the capacity as a quasi judge. It's conceivable that there could exist circumstances which would be appropriate for granting a variance along Crest Road. Each case must be considered individually. Mr. Probst and his architect, Mr. Tom Black, presented further options and suggestions to the Council. Mr. Probst stated that if this request is denied, he wants the City to suggest an alternative that would be approved in terms of encroachment, or to have the opportunity to work with someone from the City as to what is appropriate. Mayor Murdock informed Mr. Probst that that would be an inappropriate action for the Council to take. It is not the Council's responsibility to propose to an applicant what type of development should be done on a property. The City Attorney, Mr. Jenkins, explained that the City Manager is available to meet with applicants and to inform them of the codes and the regulations, but cannot predict approval or disapproval. The Municipal Code makes it clear that variances are exceptional permits and are in the code for one reason only, to provide a safety valve for the property owner who owns a piece of property that has some very unique feature that makes it difficult for that property to be developed. variances are supposed to be the exception and not the rule. M7= Councilwoman Swanson moved that the request for a variance in Zoning Case No. 353, be denied and that staff be directed to return with a resolution of denial at the next Council meeting. Councilman Heinsheimer seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. OPEN AGENDA Mayor Murdock invited comments from the audience, however, no one addressed the Council.. PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF TREES ON AND VIEWS FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY The City Manager explained that this is the fourth public hearing regarding the proposed View Preservation and View Restoration ordinance. During this time the ordinance has been reshaped to reflect the comments of the public and the City Attorney. 00 N -i The City Attorney restated that where the word "commission" Lo has been written, it should read "committee". Mr. Ping Shu, 6 Packsaddle Road West, addressed the Council, m stating that he felt that the ordinance should include "creation of Q views". Councilman Pernell felt that this suggestion created some interesting concepts and that it should be studied. Councilwoman Swanson felt that the ordinance should not be compromised for this concept. Councilman Heinsheimer, in reference to page 2 paragraph "C" of the ordinance, questioned if the view had to be within the residence or from a place where the view would be enjoyed. He expressed concern for trying to keep view creation within control. The City Manager explained that view from the property means "from the residence and around the residence". After considerable discussion, it was decided that the matter should be referred to the City Attorney so that room was not left for confusion. The City Attorney replied that he would consider a rewrite to clarify that the view would be "from a principal residence and/or area immediately adjoining the patio, or deck area, at the same elevation of the residence. Mr. Shu stated that he felt there was a lot of sacrifice being made while this process is being carried out, and that the way the ordinance is currently written favors the "view people" and not the "tree people". Councilman Heinsheimer expressed concerns that he had regarding the manner in which "public property" is handled as discussed on page 5, section (b), line 6 of the proposed ordinance. The City Attorney explained that he had taken this language directly from the Planning Commission version of the ordinance. After ensuing discussion, it was decided that this language would have a negative effect and that on page 5, section (b), lines 6 through 8 (the last two sentences) should be stricken from the ordinance.. The City Attorney stated that he will correct the contents of the first page, which is no longer accurate; it will be changed to reflect the correct titles and sections. Also, the word "persons" on the second line of paragraph 8.32.030 on page 2 will be changed to "residents". Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh moved to introduce the ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REGULATING VIEWS AND PROVIDING FOR ABATEMENT OF VIEW IMPAIRMENTS AND AMENDING THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE", and to waive reading in full. Councilwoman Swanson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. - 6 - Some discussion ensued on function. how the selected Committee would REOUEST TO DEVIATE FROM AGENDA OUTLINE, Councilman Pernell asked the Mayor that the Council move to item 9b on the agenda, the BFI agreement, in order to accommodate the schedule of the BFI representative, Mr. Stu Axelrod, present to discuss the issue. MATTERS FROM STAFF BFI AGREEMENT The City Manager opened discussion by stating that the BFI representative, Mr. Stu Axelrod, had submitted a proposal somewhat different than what the Council was used to for the setting of rates. Essentially, the proposal says that a fee schedule be set, and explains how to proceed. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the terms of the contract. Items of major concern were the 18.5% increase, terms of the length of the contract, operation agreement of the contract, the propriety of sole sourcing the contract and the alternative of issuing an RFP to other contractors. Mr. Axelrod's presentation for the increased costs reflected the rise in the consummer price index, the 63% increase at Puente Hills Landfill, and the fact that BFI has been operating at a loss servicing Rolling Hills since purchasing the operation from Removal, Inc., with Removal's five-year fixed price agreement. The Mayor asked the Council if they desired staff to prepare an RFP or did they wish to direct staff to work with BFI. After further discussion, Mr. Axelrod was given direction -on the two options: (1) a one -year's estimate; and, (2) a long-term five-year coontract based on the formula of the previous contract. Staff was directed to work with Mr. Axelrod on a new proposal. It was decided that the matter would be discussed at the next Council meeting. RETURN TO AGENDA OUTLINE At the conclusion of the discussion of the BFI proposed contract, the City Council returned to the outlined agenda. PUBLIC HEARING FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 BUDGET The Mayor complimented staff on a job well done, and stated that the Fiscal Year 1988-89 Budget would receive final consideration at the June 27, 1988, City Council meeting. MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS Mayor Murdock stated that in the absenc of Council inputs, she has designated Councilmembers as delegates and alternates to official committees and boards for 1988-89. Councilwoman Swanson moved that appointments be accepted as assigned. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh and it carried unanimously. PROP. A ALLOCATION The discussion of Prop. A allocation was continued from the previous Council meeting. Councilwoman Swanson proposed that the Council give the Prop. A monies to Lomita who can use the funds, and - 7 - I 0 15.9: that there may be a time when our City can use some in-kind consideration. Further discussion ensued with the Council deciding that the matter should be referred back to staff for further recommendations and alternatives, including (1) bus shelters, (2) type of dollars that can be spent for transportation of seniors, and (3) a traffic study on community traffic needs And if this study would qualify for these funds. MATTERS FROM STAFF BUILDING. ZONING. PLANNING. AND SUBDIVISION PROCEDURE CHARTS Councilwoman Swanson moved that the subject charts be approved. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION. The meeting was recessed to closed session at 11:05 p.m. for the purpose of discussing pending litigation and personnel matters. MEETING RECONVENED Mayor Murdock reconvened the meeting at 11:35 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Murdock adjourned the meeting at 11:36 p.m., to Monday, June 27, 1988, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber at City Hall. APPROVED: Mayor City Clerk