4/8/1996MINUTES OF A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 8,1996
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by
Mayor Pernell at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend
Road, Rolling Hills, California.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Hill, Lay, Mayor Pro Tem Murdock and Mayor Pernell.
Councilmembers Absent: Heinsheimer (excused).
Others Present: Craig R. Nealis, City Manager.
Mike Jenkins, City Attorney.
Lola Ungar, Principal Planner.
Marilyn L. Kern, Deputy City Clerk.
Captain Beth Dickinson, Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department, Lomita Station.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any
Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar
causing it to be considered under Council Actions.
a. Minutes - Adjourned Regular Meeting of March 27, 1996.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
b. Payment of Bills.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
C. Memorandum regarding customer agreement with LA Cellular Service.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
d. Correspondence from Southern California Gas Company regarding Decrease
in Rates, Increase in Customer Charge, Reduction in Baseline Allowances and
Increase in CARE Surcharge in Application 96-03-031 filed with the California
Public Utilities Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
e. Correspondence from Southern California Edison Company regarding
authority to make the following changes to its present ratemaking for its
share of Palo Verde "Nuclear Generating Station Unit Nos.. 1, 2, and 3: (i)
Accelerate recovery of the company's sunk investment; (ii) adopt Palo Verde
incremental cost incentive pricing for its incremental costs; and (iii) receive
related substantive and procedural relief in Application 96-02-056 filed with
the California Public Utilities Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
f. Consideration of draft correspondence to Senator William Craven supporting
SB 1590 (O'Connell) which would designate in statute December 14, 1995 as
the effective date of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Santa Clara
County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented/provide direction.
g. Correspondence from Browning-Ferris Industries regarding City of Rolling
Hills BFI Recycling Tonnage Report for the month of February.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
Mayor Pro Tem Murdock moved that the City Council approve the recommendations
contained in the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Lay seconded the motion which
carried unanimously.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
04/08/96 -1-
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
None.
TRAFFIC COMMISSION ITEMS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED
ZONING CASE NO. 453, SUBDIVISION NO. 86 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 21444
REQUEST FOR A PROPOSED 3 -LOT SUBDIVISION OF LAND AT LOTS 89-A-RH,
89-C-RH, AND 92-RH, AND CURRENTLY, 25 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD,
ROLLING HILLS, CA, AN EXISTING LOT THAT HAS ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT,
TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY MRS. DOTHA S. WELBOURN. LOTS 89-A-RH, 89 -C-
RH, AND 92-RH, CONSIST OF 13.7 ACRES GROSS TO BE DIVIDED INTO THREE
PARCELS AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1 - 8.40 ACRES GROSS, 6.53 ACRES NET;
PARCEL 2 - 3.02 ACRES GROSS, 2.39 ACRES NET; AND PARCEL 3 - 2.8 ACRES
GROSS, 2.12 ACRES NET.
City Manager Nealis presented the staff report. He also reported that a letter opposing the
proposed subdivision from Planning Commissioner Betsy Raine has been received and
placed before the Council this evening. City Manager Nealis reported that the applicant
has presented an alternative plan for the proposed Subdivision. He outlined the
alternative plan which incorporates a phased approach. City Manager Nealis stated that
the applicant is prepared to present exhibits which show how they have addressed
concerns raised by the City Council at the field trip as well as a more detailed explanation
of the applicant's alternative plan.
Mayor Pernell opened the continued public hearing and called for testimony.
• Mr. Stanley Lamport, applicant's representative, stated that the applicant is requesting
that the City approve conditions in the proposed tentative Subdivision map that would
allow for the filing of multiple final maps. He stated that this alternative addresses
concerns raised by the City Council regarding the trees which would be removed due to
the required roadway. He explained that the applicant proposes that the City Council
provide a condition to the Subdivision that in the event Parcel 3 is recorded first, the
construction of the extension of Pheasant Lane could be limited to the length necessary
to provide access to Parcels 2 and 3. He further stated that in connection with this
condition, the applicant would agree to the recordation of the RHCA easement along
all three proposed lots along with a condition on proposed Parcel 1 requiring the
completion of Pheasant Lane in the event a final map for Parcel 1 is finaled. He
reported that he has discussed the mechanics of this alternative with the City Attorney
and Assistant City Attorney.
In response to the concerns raised at the field trip, Mr. Lamport pointed out on an
overlay plan the existing lot configuration of the property and the trees that would be
impacted by the extension of Pheasant Lane. He addressed concerns regarding Parcel 1
related to the total disturbed area, the minimum mitigation area required to stabilize
the hillside, and the disturbance required for a 15,000 square foot building pad.
Mr. Lamport stated that they now realize that they could have requested a lot line
adjustment under current laws. He further stated that the applicant is committed to
moving forward with the Subdivision request with the conditions they have presented
this evening.
• In response to Councilmember Lay, Mr. McHattie, South Bay Engineering, stated that
approximately one-quarter of an acre would be disturbed. Councilmember Lay
requested that the applicant provide the disturbed area calculation.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
04/08/96 -2-
Discussion ensued regarding the place" Ment, of the pad on Parcel 1. It was suggested that
the pad be moved in a westerly direction. Mr. Lamport stated that the proposed pad was
created to follow the contours of the land. He indicated that they would prepare a plan
incorporating this suggestion for review by the City Council. Councilmember Lay stated
that his concern relates to how the applicant will minimize the surface area in the overall
grading activity and that he feels that reducing the size of the pad would accomplish this.
• Mr. Lamport further explained the phasing plan presented by the applicant. He
explained various scenarios which could occur since there is no way of knowing how
each of the three lots might be developed. He indicated that the phasing would benefit
the City in that the roadway will not be constructed unless needed and that the
applicant will benefit due the flexibility of this plan. He further explained that only
those portions of the proposed Subdivision that are used will be recorded in this plan.
Mr. Lamport reported that they have reviewed this plan with the Los Angeles County
Fire Department Safety Engineer as it relates to the access to the proposed parcels.
Discussion ensued regarding the feasibility of the phased plan as it relates to the proposed
roadway.
In response to Mayor Pernell, City Attorney Mike Jenkins explained that if the applicant
recorded all three parcels, the remediation would be required to be done at that time or
agreed to do it within a stated period and bond for it. Mr. Jenkins explained that it is his
understanding that the phased recordation would void the necessity of having an
agreement and necessary bonding that would ordinarily occur with the recordation of all
of the lots.
Mayor Pernell expressed concern that the phasing conditions may be forgotten in the
future. City Attorney Jenkins stated that in addition to a covenant recorded on the
property that staff could tag the property file so that future staff is aware of the
requirements.
Discussion ensued regarding the completion requirements of a tentative parcel map.
Councilmembers also discussed various' scenarios of future development on the proposed
parcels. Further discussion ensued regarding the impact of the phased -in plan as it relates
to the timing of improvements to Pheasant Lane and the soil mitigation on Parcel 1.
Councilmember Lay explained the Site Plan Review requirements as they relate to
development on Parcel 1. Councilmembers expressed concern that the amount of
disturbance on Parcel 1 may preclude it from being approved as a building site in the
future. In response to Mayor Pernell, City Attorney Jenkins explained that where there is
an existing legal lot, the property owner has a right to make beneficial use of that lot. He
said that it could only be denied if construction would be a hazard or a nuisance. City
Attorney Jenkins explained that the applicant has the right to apply for a variance.
Councilmembers discussed what would happen if the applicant were to pursue a lot line
adjustment in lieu of a Subdivision request. Councilmember Lay stated that he feels that
the phased approach would benefit the applicant and the City.
Hearing no further public testimony, Mayor Pernell closed the public hearing.
Councilmembers discussed the phased approach presented by the applicant. In response to
Mayor Pernell, City Manager Nealis reported that staff has not identified any major
disadvantages to this phased proposal with the facts that have been presented and that he
feels that the City is in a better position reviewing this as a Subdivision rather than a lot
line adjustment. In response to Mayor Pernell, City Attorney Jenkins stated that he does
not see any downside to the phased approach to this Subdivision.
Mayor Pro Tem Murdock suggested that staff be directed to return with a Resolution of
Approval for review at the next City Council meeting.
Mayor Pernell re -opened the public hearing so that the applicant can address conditions
imposed in the Resolution being prepared by staff.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
04/08/96 -3-
Hearing no objection, Mayor Pernell continued the public hearing to the next meeting of
the City Council on Monday, April 22, 1996. Staff was directed to return with a Resolution
of Approval in Zoning Case No. 453 incorporating the phased approach. The applicant
was directed to return with a calculation for the impact of disturbed area on Parcel 1 with
the pad moved in a westerly direction.
OPEN AGENDA - APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZONING CASE NO. 529A
CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED
REQUESTS FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT RETAINING WALLS TO ENCROACH
INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FUTURE
STABLE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
AND ATTACHED GARAGE.
MS. KELLY TSOU & MR. CHING SUNG TSOU, 6 RINGBIT ROAD WEST (LOT 8 -A-
2 -SF).
City Manager Nealis presented a request from the applicant for a continuance of this public
hearing. Hearing no objection, Mayor Pernell continued the public hearing at the
applicant's request to the next meeting of the City Council on Monday, April 22, 1996.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
None.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
None.
MATTERS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
None.
ADIOURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Pernell adjourned the meeting
at 8:50 p.m., to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council to be held on
Monday, April 22, 1996.
Approved,
Minutes
City Council Meeting
04/08/96
-4-
Respectfully submitted,
Y.Q ah, -
Marilyn L. Kern
Deputy City Clerk