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