9/25/1989344
MINUTES OF A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
September 25, 1989
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rollin
Hills was called to order at 7:33 p.m., in the Council Chamber at th
City Hall/Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rollin
Hills, California, by Mayor Leeuwenburgh on Monday, September 25
1989.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilman Heinsheimer, Councilwoman Murdock,
Councilman Pernell, Mayor Leeuwenburgh
Councilwoman Swanson (excused)
Terrence L. Belanger
L. D. Courtright
Ray Hamada
Betty Volkert
Ann Johnson
Anne La Jeunesse
Grant Kirkpatrick
Susan Van Every
Mr. See Myun Kim
Mrs. Kim
Debbie Kim
Marion Ruth
W. B. Stringfellow
Shirley Tyndall
City Manager
City Treasurer
Principal Planner
Deputy City Clerk
Los Angeles Times
Peninsula News
Kirkpatrick Associates
Russell E. Barto, A.I.A
Resident
Resident
Resident
Property Owner
Resident
Resident
Councilman Pernell moved that the items on the Consent Calendar
be approved and accepted as presented. The motion was seconded by
Councilwoman Murdock, and carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of an adjourned meeting of the City Council, held'on.
September 11, 1989, were approved as written.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
Demands Nos. 3992 through 4025, in the amount of $51,977.40, were
approved for payment from the General Fund.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
The Financial Statement for the month of August, 1989, was
accepted as presented.
OLD BUSINESS
There were no matters of Old Business for the Council'
consideration.
NEW BUSINESS
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTIONS.- AUGUST 15, 1989
ZONING CASE NO. 379. MANSOOR MIRSAIDI. 1 MAVERICK LANE
This is a request for a Variance to encroach into the side yard
and front yard setbacks to construct residential additions to the
existing residence at 1 Maverick Lane, Lot 31 -SK.
315
The City Manager reported that following many public hearings and
a couple of site visits, the Planning Commission voted to grant the
variance to the side yard setback and to deny the variance to the
front yard setback. There is currently a nonconforming front yard
setback of twenty feet (201), and the Commission felt that to expand
the nonconformity would have a detrimental visual impact from the
street.
Since the filing period for an appeal by the applicant had not
yet expired, the Council felt that this matter should be held on the
agenda. Councilman Pernell so moved. Councilman Heinsheimer seconded
the motion, and it carried unanimously.
ZONING CASE NO. 400, DAVID CLARK. 11 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST
This is a request for a Variance to the front yard setback
requirement to allow for the construction of an addition to the
existing barn, and a request for a Site Plan Review to determine the
compatibility with the site of the proposed additions to the existing
CO residence and barn at 11 Packsaddle Road East, Lots 29 & 30 -SF.
Lo The City Manager reported that the Commission determined that the
3 existing barn was constructed without the appropriate approvals and
m permits and, thus, .is illegal. Therefore, the Commission voted to
Q deny the request for a variance to the front yard setback to construct
an addition to the existing barn, thus rendering the Site Plan Review
application incomplete due to the lack of an approved stable site.
Hence, the request for Site Plan Review was held on the Planning
Commission's agenda.
Although the appeal filing period has not expired, the Council
could take action and, then, if the applicant were to file an appeal
the matter would be brought back to the Council. The statutory
limitations remain in effect, and the property owner would not be
deprived of their rights of appeal.
There being no further discussion, the Planning Commission's
report of denial of the request for a variance to the front yard
setback to construct an addition to the existing barn was received by
the Council for the file.
ZONING CASE NO. 402. DANA MACKAY. 4 BUGGY WHIP DRIVE
This is a request for a Site Plan Review to determine the
compatibility of the proposed new residence with the site at 4 Buggy
Whip Drive, Lot 244 -MS.
The City Manager reported that the Planning Commission approved
this request for Site Plan Review. The subject site is vacant and has
had no residential structure built on it previously. The applicant is
proposing to build a new residence of approximately 8,400 square feet,
with a 1,200 square foot garage.
Following discussion of the proximity of the proposed development
relative to the neighboring properties, the Council received the
Planning Commission's report of approval for the file.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZONING CASE NO. 396. MARION RUTH. 5 OUTRIDER ROAD
This is a request for a Variance to encroach into the front yard
setback for a proposed stable site, and a request for a Site Plan
Review to determine the compatibility of the proposed residential
reconstruction with the site at 5 Outrider Road, Lot 80 -EF. The
Planning Commission granted the variance and approved the site plan at
their meeting in July. Subsequently, the Council took jurisdiction
because of concerns regarding the proposed stable location, and
scheduled a field trip and public hearing, which was continued to this
meeting.
- 2 -
346
Mayor Leeuwenburgh opened the public hearing.
A staff report was presented by the City Manager, who reported
that during the Council's on-site investigation it was suggested to
the applicant that the proposed stable site be relocated in the rear
yard. Thus, the applicant has submitted revised plans indicating the
stable location in the rear, near the garage. The proposed stable
location in the rear complies with the City's rear yard setback
requirement and is also outside the twenty-five foot (251) easements,
however, it is located nearer to the residence than is permitted by
the code. The code states that a stable must be located not less than
thirty-five feet (351) from any residence and not less than
twenty-five feet (251) from any property line; the revised plan shows
the stable location approximately sixteen feet (161) from the garage,
thus, raising a structure separation issue.
Mr. Grant Kirkpatrick, architect for the project, addressed the
Council, and commented that he had misunderstood the Council's
suggestions' during the field trip and was under the impression that it
would be acceptable to locate the stable in the rear yard as long as
it was determined that the stable would not need to meet the
separation requirement. In his interpretation, the garage is not
habitable space, and, thus, the stable would not be subject to the
structure separation requirement of thirty-five feet (351).
Councilman Pernell commented that the policy has been to consider
any structure attached to the main residence as habitable space. In
his opinion, the code should be adhered to and the separation distance
maintained.
Councilwoman Murdock concurred with Councilman Pernell, and
commented that it is conceivable that, in the future, the garage could
be converted to living space, and, thus, would be in conflict with the
proposed stable site. This could impose a hardship on any potential
property owners of this site, in the future.
Mr. Kirkpatrick pointed out to the Council the difficulties
created by the topography and shape of the lot.
The City Manager pointed out that on the revised plan, the stable
site has been located twenty-five feet (251) from the property line
(as required by the code) and, coincidentally, outside the Community
Association easements, which are twenty-five feet (251) wide in this
location. If the stable were to be moved into the easement, assuming
the Community Association granted a license agreement for this use, it
would then be in violation of the City's requirement that a stable be
at least twenty-five feet (251) from the property line.
Mr. Grant Kirkpatrick also noted that the proposed stable site is
approximately seven feet (71) higher in elevation than the main
residential structure. The stable would be virtually a full level
higher than the garage.
Mayor Leeuwenburgh noted that the vicinity map does not show the
location of structures on the neighboring properties, and indicated
that she would like to see the placement of the neighboring structures
and their relative distances shown on the vicinity map.
Councilman Heinsheimer commented that, presumably, with respect
to the structures on the surrounding properties, the current proposed
stable location is better situated than moving the stable into the
easement. Therefore, it would seem that that option would be less
desirable.
The widths of the easements of the neighboring properties were
discussed, and Mayor Leeuwenburgh inquired as to the locations of the
stables on the neighboring properties. If they are in the same
general location as this proposed stable site, the impact may be
somewhat mitigated.
- 3 -
347
Mayor Leeuwenburgh explained,that because of the large easements,
it was thought that this may be a possible solution. However, since
the easements are under the jurisdiction of the Association, it would
be necessary for the applicant to obtain a license agreement from the
Community Association for the use of the easement.
Councilwoman Murdock remarked that another possible solution to
consider may be to reduce the size of the structure.
Mrs. Marion Ruth, applicant and property owner of 5 Outrider
Road, addressed the Council, and explained that she had been informed,
unofficially, that it would be very unlikely that the Association
would grant a license agreement for a structure in the easement. Mrs.
Ruth stated that she would be agreeable to including a provision, if
the Council were to grant approval, stipulating that the garage never
be used for living space.
Mayor Leeuwenburgh explained to Mrs. Ruth that the Council felt
that she. should pursue the possibility of obtaining a license
agreement'from the Association since there are unusually large
r' easements in this location.
LO Councilman Heinsheimer commented that, for future reference, it
might be beneficial to make a clarifying statement or policy
CO determination regarding the 'interpretation of Section 17.16.011 (C).
Q
The City Manager indicated that the interpretation would be
ultimately defined in the Council's findings.
Mr. Bill Stringfellow, Member of the Board of the Community
Association, addressed the Council, and stated that the Association
has never granted a license for a building structure in an easement.
The message from the entire community is that they do not wish to see
the easements reduced, and they do not want the Association to allow
building in the easements. Therefore, the Association attempts to
respond accordingly. Furthermore, Mr. Stringfellow agreed with
Councilman Pernell, and feels that the thirty-five foot (351)
separation distance should be maintained.
There being no further discussion, the public hearing was
continued to Monday, October 9, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. The Council also
requested that the applicant submit a vicinity showing all structures,
including stables, on the adjoining properties.
DEVIATION FROM THE AGENDA
For the convenience of the audience, the Council chose to deviate
from the agenda outline, and proceed with the Open Agenda.
OPEN AGENDA
Mr. See Myun Kim, 8 Buggy Whip Drive, wished to address the
Council regarding the development at 4 Buggy Whip Drive. He explained
that he had been out of town during the Planning Commission's public
hearings regarding this matter. The Mayor explained to Mr. Kim that
staff could review the specifics of the proposed development after the
meeting.
Mrs. Shirley Tyndall, 65 Eastfield Drive, inquired as to the
status of the proposed filming ordinance. Staff indicated that a
staff report would be presented under Matters from Staff.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
FILMING ORDINANCE
The City Manager reported that the Rolling Hills Community
Association, per their letter dated September 21, 1989, requests that
the City Council not adopt a motion picture filming ordinance, which
- 4 -
would allow for a permit procedure for motion picture production in
the community. Rather, the Association would prefer that this type of
activity be considered to be a commercial activity and, as such, would
be prohibited by the City's Zoning Ordinance, or, that the City adopt
an ordinance absolutely prohibiting this type of activity within the
community. In the City Attorney's opinion, the City's Zoning
Ordinance, as it is currently written, can be interpreted to
specifically and expressly proscribe this kind of commercial activity,
and, therefore, an additional ordinance would not be necessary.
Councilman Pernell explained to Mrs. Tyndall that the reason the
Council was originally considering an ordinance of this type was
because the preliminary opinion of the City Attorney was that there
was some preemption at the State level that allowed this type of
activity. After further review, the City Attorney determined that
there is sufficient control within the current framework of the City's
Zoning Ordinance to proscribe such activity. However, another aspect
of controlling this type of activity is enforcement. And, part of the
enforcement involves controlling entrance into the City.
Mr. Stringfellow commented that, in the future, when someone
requests a permit from the Community Association for entrance into the
City for this type of activity, they will be denied entrance and
informed that the deed restrictions prohibit any type of commercial
activity.
Councilman Heinsheimer remarked that it would be beneficial to
have a letter from the Rolling Hills Community Association stating
that it is their intention to strictly enforce the deed restrictions
relating to commercial activity.
f
I
The City Manager noted one caveat, i.e., when the Association
became aware of such an illegal activity the City would be notified so
that the property owner could be informed of the violation.
RETURN TO AGENDA OUTLINE
The Council returned to the agenda as outlined.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ANIMAL NUISANCE PORTION OF THE ANIMAL
CONTROL ORDINANCE
Mayor Leeuwenburgh opened the public hearing.
The City Manager briefed the Council, and explained that this
matter was before the Council at their September 11, 1989, meeting.
At that time, the Council directed staff to make several modifications
to the draft ordinance amending the Animal Control Ordinance.
In addition, the City Attorney drafted an alternative ordinance.
The major difference between the revised original draft ordinance and
the alternative ordinance is that it includes a definition of and
provision for "animals running at large". Staff recommended that this
alternative ordinance be the one that the Council consider. A second
aspect of the alternative ordinance is that the "due process"
provisions have been streamlined.
Mayor Leeuwenburgh invited comments from the audience. No one
spoke to this matter, and Mayor Leeuwenburgh closed the public
hearing.
The Council discussed the alternative draft ordinance.
Councilman Pernell requested that this be forwarded to the Humane
Society for their review.
Councilman Heinsheimer objected to Section 4 of the proposed
alternative ordinance. He felt that this went beyond the original
scope of the problem to be addressed, and that this is inappropriate
at this time.
5 -
349
The City Manager explained that Section 6.44.060 was added to
deal with the problem of individual animals as opposed to animals in
packs. The City Manager indicated that Section 6.48.020 could be
retained, and the appropriate wording to address the problem of single
dogs could be incorporated into the existing Section 6.48.020.
Section 6.46 will deal specifically with the nuisance of "Barking Dogs
and other Noisy Animals".
Following a lengthy discussion, the Council decided to eliminate
Section 4, which added a new -Section 6.44.060, entitled Doqs Runninq
at Larae and Destrovina Property, and to incorporate the appropriate
language into Section 6.48.020.
Councilman Heinsheimer moved introduction of the alternative
draft ordinance, amended as discussed above, entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RELATING TO BARKING DOGS, AND AMENDING THE
ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE", and to waive the reading in full.
Councilman Pernell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
STATUS OF GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE,
Councilman Heinsheimer asked for a report on the progress of the
General Plan Committee and consultants on the revisions to the General
Plan.
Mayor Leeuwenburgh reported that the General Plan Committee met
with the consultants last Monday, September 18. The Committee was
informed of the process, and discussed the Housing Element. At their
next meeting, the Committee will be ' discussing the Seismic Element.
The Committee and consultants are meeting regularly, and progressing
smoothly*
PENINSULA FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY,
Mayor Leeuwenburgh reported that she attended the Peninsula
Friends of the Library party for major donors. They expressed their
appreciation for the City's contribution.
RETIREMENT PARTY FOR REID BUNDY,
Councilwoman Murdock asked if the city would be represented at
the retirement party for Reid, Bundy. Mayor Leeuwenburgh announced
that Councilman Heinsheimer would be attending and presenting Mr.
Bundy with a plaque. The City Manager will also be attending.
MATTERS FROM STAFF - CONTINUED
RECYCLING PROGRAM
The City Manager reported that there is not a specific plan to
report upon, at this time. He will be meeting with the General
Manager of Browning-Ferris Industries next week, and, hopefully, will
have something to report at the October 9 meeting. it seems that one
unresolved issue is the disposal of the by-products of the recycling
process.
CATV
The City Manager spoke with Steve Fowler, and was informed that
this matter is still before the President fora decision.
CLOSED SESSION
It was determined that a Closed Session was not required.
9
350
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Leeuwenburgh adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m., to Monday,
October 9, 1989, at 7:30 p.m.
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Mayor
- 7 -