10/11/1988 2�0 �
MINUTES OF AN
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
. October 11, 1988
_ An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling
Hills, was called to order in the Council Chamber at the City Hall/
Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills,
California, by Mayor Murdock at 7: 34 p.m. on Tuesday, October 11,
- '" 1988 .
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Counci2man Heinsheimer, Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh,
Coune.ilman Pernell, C�uncilwoman Swanson (arrived
at 7 : 37 p.m. ) , M�yor Murdock
e--i
� ABSENT: �*ane
�
� ALSO PRESEN�: •�errence L. �•�:.'�.ngex� City Manager
� � � � irii�hael Jenk;n� City Attorney
Betty Volkert Deputy City Clerk
Ann Johnson Los Angeles Times
Kunio Inoue Architect
Jana Luhert Attorney
Doug McHattie South Bay Engineering
David E. Reynolds Attorney
Mary Jo Hall Resident
�r�.::� Hammonci Resident
�`�i�'�o Yamamo�� Resident
CONSENT CALENvi�R
Councilman Pernell moved that the items on the Consent Calendar
be approved and accepted as presented. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh
seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council held on
September 26, 1988, an�i of an adjourned meeting held on October 10,
1988, were approved and accepted as presented.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
�emands Nos. 3190, 3192 through 3202, and 3204 through 3224, in
the amount of $31,987.83 , were approved for payment from the General
Fund. Demands Nos. 3191 and 3203 were voided.
OLD BUSINESS
RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING CASE NO. 362
� The City Manager reported that, after the Council conducted a
.field trip to invP�},..;ate this �ite, the City Council, at thei.r last
meeting, voted �u .,-y��rove gr�n?-.i:�g a request for a Variance to the
front yard G�*�=•-�- �aquirem�r,t �"z�i the purpose of construc�ing two
reflecting parids rt. _ *:he setback �t 39 Crest Road West, per Zoning
Case No. 362 . �taff was directed to prepare a resolution
memorializing the Council 's decision. The resolution before the
Council this even�nn is entitled "A RES�LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ROLI:TNG HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
PO?�DS IN THE FR6NT YARD OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 39 CREST ROAD WEST
(ZONING CASE NO. 362) " .
� � �. .
�
Councilman Pernell moved that the resolution, as cited above, be ;
approved and that reading in full be waived. Councilman Heinsheimer �
seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. i
�
NEW BUSINESS �
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
ZONING CASE N0. 364
This is a request by Dr. Hooshang Pak for Conditional Use Permits �
for a tennis court and recreation room at 9 Crest Road West. The �'
Planning Commission, at their meeting on September 20, 1988, approved �t
this request. "`
The City Manager reported that the Planning Commission conducted
three public hearings regarding this matter, and conducted two field
trips to investigate the site. The City Manager indicated the location
�f the proposed tennis court and recreation room on the site plan. It
,aas explained that there is a praposal �or complete rec��v��lopment of
the property, i.e. , removal of the exis�ing structure and rebuilding a �
zew structure, as well as a tennis court and recreatie�n room. The
�riveway shown on the plan is not part of the approved �roposed plan.
I'he existing driveway is the one that should be considered as part of
�he approval. The Planning Commissior. approved the tennis court, with
�onditions, as well as the recreation room, with conditions.
Councilman Pernell confirmed with the City Manager that the
:xisting house is proposed to be completely removed. That being the .
:ase, Councilman Pernell questioned why an accessory us� is being i
;onsidered prior to having the main structure defined.
Mayor Murdock agreed with Councilman Pernell, and remarked that the
�olicy has always been to have the main structure approved prior t,o
ipproval of an accessory structure.
{
�
The City Manager informed the Council that preliminary plans for ';
�he new structure have been approved by the Architectural Committee. K
Councilman Pernell moved that the Council take jurisdiction of
;oning Case No. 364, a request for Conditional Use Permits for a tennis
;ourt and recreation room. Councilwoman Swanson seconded the motion.
'he motion carried by a vote of 4-1, with Councilman Heinsheimer
:asting the dissenting vote.
Councilman Heinsheimer commented that, since the Council is not
.nvolved in the approval of main buildings, and, that, after reviewing
:he Planning Commission minutes, it seemed that the Commission had
:onsidered this entire project in great detail and had somewhat
•edefined the project during the various phases of their consideration
nd review, it was not obvious to him that it was necessary to take
urisdiction of this matter.
A public hearing regarding this matter was scheduled for the next
ity Council meeting.
. ONING CASE N0. 365
This is a request by Michael Migliaccio for a variance of the side
ard setback for the purpose of constructing a retaining wall, and for i= •
variance of the front yard se�hack for the const.ruction of an
�dition to the existinq nonconfnrmii��� jtructure at 31 Chuckwagon
oad. The Planning Com�m�ssion, at th.-��..Y ,;,e.eti.ng on Septer�.ber 20, 1988,
o�.ed to 3pprove this rec�:��t.
The City Manager explained that the ex3.sting structure has a
onconfo�ming side yard setback an the north side of the property, and
nonconforming f�ont yard setback. This request is for an
zcroachment into the front yard setback of eight (8) feet gross or
�ur (4) feet net, due to the curvature of Chuckwagon Road. In �
- 2 -
21'�1�
addition, the applicants are requesting to encroach eight (8) feet into
the side yard setback for the purpose of constructing a retaining wall
to provide an access way along the north side of the property. The
Planning Commission conducted three public hearings and an on-site
investigation of this proposal, and the Commission recommends approval
of both aspects of this request.
Councilwoman Swanson asked for an estimate of the length of the
proposed retaining wall. Mr. Doug McHattie, South Bay Engineering,
indicated that the wall would be between 30 feet and 35 feet long.
Councilwoman Swanson asked what the height of the wall would be,
and the City Manager estimated that it would be about five (5) feet
high. Some Councilmembers questioned whether this was in compliance
with the Architectural Committee requirements. The City Manager
explained that, although he cannot speak for the Architectural
Committee, generally, these types of retaining walls, i.e. , interior
retaining walls that are only visible to the property owner and no one
else, are given,e a little bit of leeway. The City Manager pointed out �
that any approval by the City is contingent upon approval by the Homes
� Association.
� Councilman Pernell commented that the proposed addition seems to be
� a modest one. The City Manager noted that if any additions are to be
� made on this property, this is the only direction feasible.
Q There being no further comments or questions, the Planning
Commission's recommendation of approval was received by the Council for
the file.
ZONING CASE NO. 367
Zoning Case No. 367 is a request by Dr. Mohan Bhasker for a
variance to the side yard setback requirements to allow for the
construction of residential additions at 24 Chuckwagon Road. At their
meeting on September 20, 1988, the Planning Commission voted to deny
this request.
This is a request for a variance of the side yard setbacks .on both
the northerly and southerly sides of the property. As the existing
house is currently configured, both side yards are conforming and are
in excess of 20 feet. On the northerly side, the proposed encroachment
is 9 feet, resulting in a side yard of 11 feet. The purpose of this
encroachment is to add onto the master bedroom suite. On the southerly
side, the applicant is requesting an encroachment of 3 feet into the
setback for the purpose of adding additional square footage to the
family room area. After conducting public hearings and an on-site
investigation, the Planning Commission determined that the findings
necessary to support the granting of a variance did not exist.
There being no further discussion, the Planning Commission' s
decision was received by the City Council for the file.
ZONING CASE NO. 368 ,
This is a request by Mr. Thomas Vick to have the front yard
redefined at 2720 Palos Verdes Drive North. The Planning Commission
voted to approve this request, at their meeting on September 20, 1988.
The Cit�� Manager explained that the applicant has requested
redefinition of the lot lines on the property located at 2720 Palos
Verdes Drive North. On the west side of the property .there is a _forty
(40) foot easement, with a thirty (30) foot priyate drive that provides
access to three other properties. The developmental pattern of this
property has been relative to the private driveway access and not to
Palos Verdes Drive North. The applicants have requested a redefinition
of the lot lines. The redefined front lot line would be along the
private driveway access, and the redefined side lot lines would be
along Palos Verdes Drive North and the southerly property line. After
- 3 -
212
conducting public hearings and an on-site investigation, the Planning ��
Commission voted to approve this request, subject to the following ;
conditions: �
!
l. Any structure built in the side yard must be built a minimum
of fifty (50) feet from the roadway easement (Palos Verdes
Drive North) , and cannot be closer than fifty (50) feet to the
private roadway easement.
2 . The only structure that can be built in the northerly side
yard (along Palos Verdes Drive North) is a stable or barn, and
can only be used for quartering horses, livestock, or other
such animals, and for equestrian purposes.
The City Council received the Planning Commission's report of
approval for the file.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLZSHING A SITE REVIEW PROCESS AND AMENDING THE
ZONING CODE �
The City Manager explained that the ordinance before the City
Council is the one that the Planning Commission approved at their
meeting on October 4, and that they forwarded to the Council for
review, the purpose of which is to establish a site plan review process
in the zoning ordinance and which would amend the zoning ordinance
accordingly. This matter is before the City Council for the purpose of
setting a public hearing. Staff recommended that the public hearing be
scheduled for the first meeting in November to give staff enough time
to find an adequate location.
i
A public hearing was scheduled for Monday, November 14, 1988, at �
7 : 30 p.m.
OPEN AGENDA
Mrs. Mary Jo Hall, 7 Portuguese Bend Road, asked if the proposed
ordinance that was approved by the Planning Commission and recommended
to the City Council is the same draft that was presented at the last
public hearing held by the Planning Commission. The City Manager
commented that there were a few modifications that were made to the
ordinance at the time the Planning Commission approved the proposed
ordinance that is before the City Council this evening, and Mrs. Hall
was then given a copy of the proposed ordinance that was approved by
the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 361
Zoning Case No. 361 is a request by Mr. Hitoshi Yamamoto for a
variance to allow for the construction of residential additions
encroaching into the established front yard at 14 Southfield Drive.
The City Manager pointed out to the City Council that a lengthy
3ocument had been submitted shortly before the meeting by Mr. and Mrs.
Yamamoto's attorney, Mr. David Reynolds. It was noted by several
Councilmembers that they had not had an opportunity to review the
3ocument.
Mayor Murdock suggested that public testimony regarding this matter
be received, and that, afterwards, a field trip be scheduled. In the
interim between now and the next meeting, the Councilmembers can review
the document that was presented this evening.
The City Manager briefed the Council regarding this matter. It was
�xplained that the variance request is for encroachment into the
�stablished front yard. The applicants are proposing to expand the
�xisting residential structure an additional 2,900 square feet. Part
�f this proposal is to remove the existing stable (which has already
�een done) , and to replace it with a garage. The existing garage would
�e abandoned as a garage, and would become a part of the main
- 4 -
. 21'��'
building. This matter was considered at several public hearings held
by the Planning Commission, and the Commission conducted two on-site
investigations. After extensive discussion, the Planning Commission
determined that the property was such that the findings necessary for
the granting of a variance could not be made. Therefore, the Planning
Commission voted to deny this request. Subsequent to that, the
applicants appealed the decision of the Planning Commission, and the
matter was set for a public hearing this evening, by the City Council.
Mr. David Reynolds, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Yamamoto, addressed
the Council, and commented that the lengthy document which he submitted
deals with a number of constitutional and statutory construction
issues. Mr. Reynolds explained that, as far as he and his clients are
concerned, there is some question as to whether or not a variance was
necessary in this instance. The reason his clients were directed to
seek a variance was based upon an interpretation of the zoning code.
The zoning code sets forth two limitations on the size of structure
that can be built: (1) it cannot exceed the allowable. lot coverage
percentage; and, (2) it cannot encroach into the setbacks. Mr.
Reynolds commented that his clients' proposal would not violate either
� requirement. Further, Mr. Reynolds commented that there appear to be
� two definitional statutes in the City's zoning code that define yard
� and front yard, and which seem to be used to determine setbacks. He
� stated that there is nothing in the zoning code that indicates that if
someone wants to build into their established front yard that a
� variance is required. Therefore, their position is that,
Q constitutionally, a variance was not required. Furthermore, assuming
that a variance were necessary, they feel that the Planning Commission
abused its discretion in denying the variance. One reason that was
cited by the Planning Commission for denial was that the proposed
expansion was not in accordance 'with the General Plan or in keeping
with the rural character and ambience of the City. Mr. Reynolds stated
that the exterior of the proposed expansion is an exact duplicate of
the house that now exists, i.e. , it will have the same exterior but
will be larger than the house that now exists. Mr. Reynolds mentioned
that the interior would be of an oriental nature since Mr. and Mrs.
Yamamoto are of Japanese heritage, however, he feels that the design of
the interior should have no bearing on the compatibility with the
General Plan and, ultimately, on the determination of the findings for
a variance. Further, Mr. Reynolds remarked that, in his opinion,
factual findings were not cited by the Planning Commission to justify
their conclusion. There was also concern expressed by the Planning
Commission that the proposed additions would result .in a residence too
large and congested for that lot. However, after the Planning
Commission's denial, one of the neighbors sent an unsolicited note to
Mr. and Mrs. Yamamoto indicating that they were looking forward to the
proposed expansion •and that they felt it would enhance the
neighborhood. There was also concern expressed by the Planning
Commission that the future stable location was inadequate. Mr.
Reynolds remarked that even though Mr. and Mrs. Yamamoto probably will
never have horses, if his clients comply with the zoning requirements
by providing a location for a stable and comply with the size
requirements for a stable, in addition to providing for horse easements
which are not required, this should not be a reason for denial.
Commissioner Heinsheimer clarified with Mr. Reynolds that the
findings did not cite the design of the interior as a reason for
denial. �
Councilwoman Swanson asked that the proposed expansion and stable
be staked prior to the field trip.
A field trip to the site was scheduled for Saturday, October 15, at
8: 30 a.m.
Mr. Kunio Inoue, architect for the project, expressed his
frustration at continually having to stake the property. He pointed
out that this will be the fourth time that he will have staked this
property, and explained to the Council that the Yamamoto's dog pulls
- 5 -
214
;
the stakes down. The Council explained to Mr. Inoue that this should !
be the last time that he would have to stake this property. Mr. Inoue i
indicated that he would have the property staked prior to the field ,
trip.
Councilman Heinsheimer verified with Mr. Reynolds that, if this
matter is resolved through some internal procedure of the City, to the
satisfaction of all the parties involved, then, the legality issue
would no longer be relevant.
Mr. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney, explained that Mr. Reynolds'
clients are reserving their rights to contest the validity of the
proceedings but, at the moment, are proceeding with the appeal process
in good faith.
MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ABSENCE FROM THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING
Councilman Pernell requested that he be excused from the next City
Council meeting. He will be out of town. �
LITERACY CONFERENCE
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh reported that she attended a literacy
conference at Marymount College, and remarked that it was very
interesting and worthwhile.
CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE
It was noted that the Los Angeles County City Selection Committee
would be meeting December 1, 1988, for the purpose of electing 2
members and 2 alternates to the Transportation Commission. Christine
Reed and Jacki Bacharach are running for reelection, and Hal Croyts is
running for a seat as well. Mayor Murdock stated that the voting
3elegate should be made aware of the wishes of the Council. Councilman
Heinsheimer suggested that the Council take the position of supporting
the local candidates. Councilwoman Swanson pointed out that this
matter was not specifically listed on the agenda, and it would,
therefore, be inappropriate to take any action regarding this matter
this evening. It was also pointed out that in the near future there
�ill be several vacancies occurring on various Commissions and Boards,
�nd it was suggested that a motion to instruct the Voting Delegate for
the City Selection Committee regarding the Council 's wishes on who to
support for the various upcoming vacancies, be placed on subsequent
agendas.
�IATTERS FROM STAFF
JIEW COMMITTEE APPLICANTS
The City Manager reported that the City Council subcommittee would
�e interviewing the View Committee applicants on October 13 .
7ltimately, three will be recommended to the City Council for final
;onsideration.
3ANITARY SEWER ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATIONS
To date, seven applications have been received. Coincidentally, it
is proposed that this Committee consist of seven members. However, the
:ity Council has the right, not only to accept, but to deny any of the
�pplications, and is not obligated to accept all applicants simply
because the number of applicants is the same as the proposed number of
�eats on the Committee.
�OCC MEETING
The City Manager announced that Councilwoman Swanson would be
ittending the League of California Cities meeting in San Diego on
- 6 -
21'5�'
October 17 and 18, and recommended that the City Council consider
designating her the voting delegate for the purpose of exercising the
City of Rolling Hills' right to vote. Councilman Heinsheimer so
moved. Councilman Pernell seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously. Staff was directed to prepare the appropriate documents.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Murdock requested a brief closed session to discuss personnel
matters, and recessed the meeting at 8: 38 p.m. for that purpose.
MEETING RECONVENED
The meeting was reconvened at 9:29 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Murdock adjourned the meeting at 9 : 30 p.m. to Monday, October
24, 1988, at 7: 30 p.m.
�
�
� �iL�
� r
m City Clerk
Q APPROVED:
Mayor
- 7 -