Loading...
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