Loading...
3/25/2002MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MARCH 25, 2002 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Murdock at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Heinsheimer, Hill, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem Lay, and Mayor Murdock. Councilmembers Absent: None. Others Present: Craig Nealis, City Manager. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Nan Huang, Finance Director. Marilyn Kern, Deputy City Clerk. Lt. Gregg Ahn, 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 - Meeting of March 11, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. b. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Financial Statement for the month of February, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. d. Pesticide ordinance follow-up on Northern California Cities of Sebastopol and Fairfax. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. e. BFI Recycling Tonnage Report for February, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. f. Southern California Gas Company Amended Notice of Proposed Changes to Gas Rates, Biennial Cost Allocation Proceeding, Application No. 01-09-024 filed with the Public Utilities Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. g. Consideration of correspondence from BFI regarding dates for the Annual Spring Cleanup. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. Councilmember Pernell requested that item 3(d) be considered on the regular agenda. Councilmember Hill moved that the City Council approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Heinsheimer seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. d. Pesticide ordinance follow-up on Northern California Cities of Sebastopol and Fairfax. Councilmember Pernell stated that he had requested that staff research the use of pesticides in other jurisdictions. In response to Councilmember Pernell, City Manager Nealis explained that Sebastopol never adopted an ordinance and that the Fairfax ordinance had not resulted in any citations. He also said that Fairfax had been threatened by pesticide industries for possible litigation under the provision that state law regarding pesticides that preempts local jurisdiction. In response to Councilmember Pernell, City Attorney Jenkins explained the use of pesticides on public property. He reported that the City of Hermosa Beach initiated an experimental program of not using pesticide. He said that attempting to control the use of pesticides on private property may cause a legal challenge from the pesticide industry and that there are both federal and state laws governing pesticides use and application. Minutes City Council Meeting 03/25/02 -1- Councilmember Pernell stated that he feels that the City should be sensitive to this issue and that he feels that a pesticide use notification process may be helpful. He also stated that he feels that pesticides should be used in a way that respects the neighborhood. After discussion, the City Attorney was directed research this subject and provide information at an upcoming City Council meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None. TRAFFIC COMMISSION ITEMS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 647, SUBDIVISION NO. 84 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21486; A REQUEST TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 2 -LOT SUBDIVISION OF LAND AT LOT 81-RH, AND CURRENTLY, 16 PINE TREE LANE, ROLLING HILLS, CA, AN EXISTING LOT THAT IS DEVELOPED WITH ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT, TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY DR. AND MRS. RAMON CUKINGNAN. LOT 81-RH CONSISTS OF 6.07 ACRES GROSS TO BE DIVIDED INTO TWO PARCELS AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1 - 2.72 ACRES GROSS, 2.32 ACRES NET; PARCEL 2 - 3.35 ACRES GROSS, 2.84 ACRES NET. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. City Manager Nealis introduced the staff report outlining the applicants' request for a modification to certain conditions of approval for a 2 -lot subdivision at 16 Pine Tree Lane and indicated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Planning Director Schwartz explained that the modifications requested are to eliminate or clarify currently required conditions that relate to widening and extension of Pine Tree Lane, cul-de-sac easement, bridle path and to delete and/or clarify certain language pertaining to the roadway improvements and cost requirements. She reported that similar conditions were modified in conjunction with the subdivision final approval for the subdivision at 10 Pine Tree Lane. Mayor Murdock opened the public hearing and called for testimony. Mr. Stanley Lamport, on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Cukingnan, 16 Pine Tree Lane, stated that the applicant is requesting four changes to their subdivision conditions. He commented on the Community Association 8 ft. perimeter easement and the original condition that Pine Tree Lane be widened to 20 feet with a 4 ft. wide bridle trail. He stated that in 1999, the roadway width requirements were changed to 18 ft. and that the Cukingnans are asking that roadway extension for their subdivision match the rest of the roadway. He commented on Condition No. 30, which requires that an agreement between the original subdividers along Pine Tree Lane, for terms for payment of construction costs, be approved by the City and recorded against each parcel, which is the subject of the agreement. He stated that this agreement never occurred and that the Cukingnans built the extension to Pine Tree Lane. He stated that the costs to complete this work was approximately $210,000 and that the applicants are asking that Condition 30 be removed since the agreement never occurred. Mr. Martin Steere, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. William Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree Lane, commented on the removal from the agenda of the consideration of the final map for this subdivision. In response, City Attorney Jenkins stated that as long as the complete final map is submitted to the City before the date of expiration, that under the Map Act, it does not have to be brought to the City Council or given final approval before the expiration date. He indicated that the City would not know until the actual expiration date whether or not a final map will be submitted. He stated that under the Map Act, if a complete map is submitted before the expiration date, that the City can schedule it for Council consideration after the expiration date. Mr. Steere commented on the proposed modifications indicating that his main concern is the proposed removal of Condition No. 32, which relates to the improvements to the existing Pine Tree Lane. He explained that Pine Tree Lane originally terminated at a dead end at the Cukingnan driveway. He stated that the original 4 prospective subdividers were required to make improvements to Pine Tree Lane because of the increased density created by the subdivision of the properties. He indicated that at that time, it was expected that all of the subdividers would share the costs of improving existing Pine Tree Lane. He stated that the Hassoldts finaled their subdivision first and incurred the expenses of completing the Minutes City Council Meeting 03/25/02 -2- improvements that were required of the subdividers, including widening the road, moving fire hydrants and the creation of fire equipment staging areas. He indicated that the costs are outlined in a letter that was forwarded to the City Attorney earlier in the day and that these costs are in excess of $200,000. He said that some of the costs have been revised to avoid a dispute. He asked that, because this application was one of the triggering factors for the roadway improvement requirements to the existing Pine Tree Lane, that the City require that the Cukingnans to bare their fair share of the costs for this work. He stated that the Cukingnans would have had to complete the roadway modifications if the Hassoldts did not separate and subdivide first. He also said that the modifications to existing Pine Tree Lane are completely separate from the extension of Pine Tree Lane that was constructed by the Cukingnans. He said that the extension was not required by any of the other subdividers because the Cukingnans needed the extension to provide access to their second lot and to provide a turnaround area at the end of the road. He explained that the Hassoldts constructed a turn-aourd area at the end of the existing Pine Tree Lane. He said that the Hassoldts will remove that cul-de-sac bulb when the new cul-de-sac bulb has been accepted. He stated that the Hassoldts feel that the Cukingnans fair share of these improvements is 2/5's of the costs incurred by the Hassoldts. Mr. Steere also stated that if either of the other two applicants whose subdivisions were filed at the same time as the Cukingnans and Hassoldts should move forward with their subdivisions, that they should be expected to contribute their fair share to the Hassoldts and Cukingnans. Mr. Steere expressed that the Hassoldts are concerned about the safety of the roadway extension because it is very steep with a blind curve, a retaining wall on one side and a drop- off on the other. He indicated that the extension is not 18 ft. wide as required. He explained that the Hassoldts roadway modifications were subject to a number of site visits and oversight by the Council and expressed concern that the Cukingnan extension had never been reviewed by the Council. Mr. Lamport, explained that Condition No. 32 requires that Pine Tree Lane be constructed from Portuguese Bend Road to the Cukingnan property at a width of 20 ft. plus a 4 ft. wide bridle trail. He indicated that if the City Council does not modify this condition, then the Cukingnans would be required to widen the entire roadway to 24 ft. He commented on the modifications that were approved for the Hassoldt subdivision and the objections that were raised at that time regarding the loss of trees that would occur if the roadway were to be widened to 24 ft. Mr. Lamport stated that Condition No. 32 does not specify that the Cukingnans were to enter into any agreement for cost sharing for the improvements to existing Pine Tree Lane. He stated that it is his understanding that the City left a cost sharing agreement for roadway improvements to the subdividers to work out. He commented on the Hassoldts decision to move forward with their subdivision separate from the other subdividers on Pine Tree Lane and the modifications that were approved for their subdivision. He stated that at that time the Hassoldts agreed to make the improvements to the existing Pine Tree Lane in order to move forward independently and that the Cukingnans would be responsible for the roadway extension and cul-de-sac. He commented on Condition No. 30, which the Cukingnans are requesting to be removed. He stated that this condition requires that the subdividers along Pine Tree Lane provide an agreement setting forth terms for payment of roadway improvements. He further explained the costs incurred by the Cukingnans to construct the extension and cul-de-sac as required. He stated that the Hassoldts' subdivision also originally contained the requirement for the extension and cul-de- sac at the end of the roadway and that all of the subdivders were supposed to share the costs for this work. He stated that he feels that it would not be fair that the Cukingnans bare 2/5's of the costs for the widening of existing Pine Tree Lane and also bare the entire costs for the extension and cul-de-sac at the end of the roadway. Mr. Lamport expressed concern about the costs that the Hassoldts have said they incurred to improve existing Pine Tree Lane and that he has not had time to review the revised costs that were presented to the City Attorney this evening. He commented on the fact that the parties could not come to an agreement on the costs. Mr. Lamport further commented on the Cukingnans' construction of the extension of Pine Tree Lane and the cul-de-sac. He stated that this work was completed entirely on the Cukingnans' property because the Hassoldts would not allow any portion of that roadway to be built of their side of the easement. He also stated that the Hassoldts reviewed the plans for the extension, which conformed to the same width that the Hassoldts had built all the way down Pine Tree Lane, and that they provided a letter to the City stating that they did not object to the location of this extension. Mr. Lamport stated that the extension has been reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. He indicated that an area of the roadway was identified as not being 18 ft. in width and that the Cukingnans have bonded to correct this situation. Minutes City Council Meeting 03/25/02 -3- Mr. Steere, commented on the comments by Mr. Lamport regarding the Hassoldts agreeing to pay for the improvements to existing Pine Tree Lane and that the Cukingnan would bare the costs of the extension and cul-de-sac at the end of Pine Tree Lane. He said that he feels that the extension only benefits the Cukingnan subdivision as they needed the extension to access their second lot and to provide frontage to satisfy the subdivision requirements. He reiterated that the Cukingnans should be required to share in the costs for the improvements to existing Pine Tree Lane. Mr. Steere commented on the fact that an agreement could not be reached because the Cukingnans had indicated that the Hassoldts should have to also share in the costs for the extension and cul-de-sac. He commented on the revised costs that were submitted to the City Attorney and stated that the Hassoldts would be more than happy to submit this issue to binding arbitration. Mr. Steere stated that he cannot understand why the Hassoldts should be obligated to bare 100% of the costs of improving Pine Tree Lane and the Cukingnans bare none, even though the improvement of Pine Tree Lane was triggered in part by the Cukingnan subdivision. He stated that if the Hassoldts were to have subdivided on their own that they would not have been required to make the improvements that were required. Mr. Steere stated that in 1999, the Hassoldts were told by the City Attorney that the cost sharing issued would be raised when the Cukingnans came before the City Council to final their subdivision map. Mr. Steere commented on the letter that Mr. Lamport referred to that was signed by the Hassoldts in 1999 approving the location of the Cukingnan extension to Pine Tree Lane. He stated that he feels that it is not fair to say that the Hassoldts dictated where the extension was to be located. He commented on the Hassoldts concern regarding the grading for the extension and its affect on mature trees on their property. Mr. Steere stated that a portion of that extension is on the Hassoldt property. He stated that by signing the letter the Hassoldts did not make any reference or approval to the roadway not being property engineered. He stated that the extension did not have a road improvement plan prepared for it which is standard engineering practice and that only a 2 dimensional grading plan was prepared. Mr. Steere stated that the Hassoldts do not object to the removal of the condition that the extension be 24 ft. wide. He further stated that they feel that the Cukingnans should be required to pay their fair share of the costs of improving the existing Pine Tree Lane. In response to Mr. Lamport's comments regarding the Cukingnans bonding for the corrections to the roadway to 18 ft. in certain areas, he stated that he would like to make certain that the amount is sufficient to cover the costs associated with this work. Mr. Steere provided a diagram of the roadway extension and pointed out the areas that are not 18 ft. wide. He expressed concern regarding a letter that was presented to the Community Association on February 20, 2002 certifying that all of the improvements to the extension were constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City. He stated that the City should be concerned with this misrepresentation. Mr. Lamport, on behalf of the Cukingnans, commented on the original requirement that all of the subdivisions on Pine Tree Lane had the condition that an extension at the end of Pine Tree Lane be constructed. He stated that this extension does not only benefit the Cukingnans. He said that a permanent cul-de-sac was required and that the Hassoldts originally could not final their map unless it was constructed. He commented on the costs incurred by the Cukingnans to construct this extension. He further commented on the costs that the Hassoldts have indicated they expended to make the improvements to existing Pine Tree Lane. He said that these costs have ' changed a number of times. He further commented on the fact that the Hassoldts moved ahead with their subdivision independently. Mr. Lamport also commented on the roadway width concerns raised by the Hassoldts. He explained the bonding to complete this work and that stated that a time frame has been set for its completion. He also stated that a methodology has been established for measuring and certifying the roadway width. Hearing no further discussion, Mayor Murdock closed the public hearing. Councilmember Heinsheimer stated that he feels that the Planning Commission did a very good job in reviewing the issues related to the subject case. In response to Councilmember Heinsheimer, City Attorney Jenkins stated that the applicant must submit a complete final map before the expiration date and then it will be reviewed and brought back to the City Council for approval of the final map. He said that at that time the Council would be making a determination that the conditions of the tentative map have been satisfied. In regards to the 18 ft. roadway requirement, he explained that the City Council would have to find that it has been satisfied or that there has been an agreement entered into that has been sufficiently bonded to guarantee that it will be satisfied within a certain timeframe. He explained that an improvement agreement had been prepared and bonded to ensure that road which is presently, in some locations, less that 18 ft., will be widened to the full 18 ft. In response to Minutes City Council Meeting 03/25/02 -4- Councilmember Heinsheimer, City Attorney Jenkins stated that at the time that the final map is presented to the City Council that they would have to find that the conditions have been completely satisfied or sufficiently bonded for. There being no member of the audience having left the room, Mayor Murdock reopened the public hearing to allow Councilmember Hill to ask questions of Mr. Lamport. In response to Councilmember Hill, Mr. Lamport explained that the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and the County Fire Department reviewed and approved the roadway extension plan. Also in response to Councilmember Hill, Mr. Lamport stated that it is his understanding that the Hassoldts do not object to the present configuration of the extension. He commented on the letter signed by the Hassoldts indicating that they do not object to the location of the roadway extension and cul-de-sac. Further in response to Councilmember Hill, Mr. Lamport stated that it is his understanding that the Fire Department had a long standing concern about the width of Pine Tree Lane and the lack of an adequate turn -around at the end of the roadway and that it is his understanding that this why the condition of the subdivisions along Pine Tree Lane were required to provide an extension and cul-de-sac at that location. In response to Councilmember Pernell, City Manager Nealis explained that the roadway dimensions, depth and ingredients are called out in specific terms in the subdivision instructions. He said that the certification of the completion was provided to the Community Association and that it is their responsibility to accept the road for maintenance. City Manager Nealis explained that staff met with the Fire Department regarding the less than 18 ft. dimension of some of the areas on the extension and cul-de-sac and how some measurements were taken. He stated that a solution on how to improve the roadway to the satisfaction of the Fire Department was achieved. Hearing no further discussion, Mayor Murdock closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Councilmember Heinsheimer moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 912, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Lay seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. OPEN AGENDA - APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME None. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL MAP FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21486, SUBDIVISION NO. 84, IN ZONING CASE NOS. 450 AND 647, DR. AND MRS. RAMON CUKINGNAN,16 PINE TREE LANE (LOT 81-RH). CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 913: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 21486, SUBDIVISION NO. 84, A SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING 6.07 ACRE LOT INTO TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN ZONING CASE NOS. 450 AND 647. City Manager Nealis stated that as a result of insufficient data submitted by the applicant to the County of Los Angeles, the City Attorney, has indicated that this item should be removed from the agenda. RESOLUTION NO. 911: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AND THE CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AN EXCHANGE OF PROPOSITION "A" TRANSPORTATION LOCAL RETURN FUNDS. City Manager Nealis presented the staff report and Resolution No. 911. In response to Councilmember Pernell, City Manager Nealis explained that the exchange rate is in keeping with the exchange rate over time and by other cities. Minutes City Council Meeting 03/25/02 -5- Hearing no further discussion, Mayor Murdock called for a motion. Councilmember Pernell moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 911. Mayor Pro Tem Lay seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMITTAL OF A LETTER RELATING TO THE NEW SOUTH COAST COUNTY GOLF COURSE PROJECT IN ROLLIING HILLS ESTATES. City Manager Nealis presented the staff report. Discussion ensued regarding the draft letter. Councilmember Heinsheimer suggested that the letter be amended to reflect that the City also supports the proper management of the property regardless of a specified future use. Mayor Pro Tem Lay commented on the issue of the environmental questions that have been raised about placing a golf course on this site. After discussion, staff was directed to amend the letter for the Mayor's signature to reflect that the City also supports the proper management of the property regardless of a specific future use. CONSIDERATION OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM MR. CHARLES AYLESBURY REGARDING DISASTER PREPAREDNESS. City Manager Nealis presented the staff report outlining Mr. Aylesbury's correspondence and the amendments to the letter by the Area G Emergency Preparedness Coordinator. Mr. Aylesbury, 2 Middleridge Lane South, commented on the Block Captain Program and stated that he feels they should be more proactive. Councilmembers and those in attendance discussed the emergency preparedness program. Councilmember Pernell commented on a bio -terrorism presentation he attended recently. He stated that the City should be aware of this situation. City Manager Nealis explained the County of Los Angeles Emergency Services that respond to emergency situations if one were to occur in the City. Councilmember Hill commented on the materials that are provided to the Block Captains to disseminate to the residents in their zones. Discussion ensued regarding the contents of the letter. City Attorney Jenkins stated that he would like an opportunity to edit this letter. Further discussion ensued regarding the types of emergencies that may occur. Councilmember Heinsheimer commented on the City's disaster preparedness plan and indicated that there are a number of agencies that deal with emergencies at the various levels of government and suggested that the City may want to take a look at its procedures. City Manager Nealis explained that the main emphasis of the Block Captain program was to assist people with the coordination of equipment, expertise, storage and transportation capability of livestock and information dissemination and as a point of contact within a specific neighborhood. He said we have activated the Block Captains on several occasions in the City. He stated that in terrorist threats, the response level generally is well beyond the City and explained the County's involvement in these issues. He indicated that Area G Emergency Services could be contacted to see if there are other measures that the City could take or if we should change the framework of our Block Captain Program. Mr. Aylesbury commented on the items that residents should have in their home in order to sustain themselves if an emergency situation occurs. City Manager Nealis explained the. materials that were presented to all Block Captains for dissemination within their zones. He also explained that during an emergency, City employees would be handling the situation with the guidance and direction from the County of Los Angeles Emergency Operations Center, the Sheriff's Department and the Fire Department. Following discussion, staff was directed to schedule a meeting to include Councilmember Pernell, Mr. Aylesbury and the City Manager with appropriate personnel to discuss quarantine procedures and emergency preparedness relating to bio -terrorism. The City Attorney was also directed to revise the recommended letter submitted by Mr. Aylesbury and return it at a future City Council meeting. CONSIDERATION OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION REGARDING A REQUEST TO POST ASSOCIATION BOARD MEETING AGENDAS ON THE CITY'S WEBPAGE. City Manager Nealis presented the staff report outlining the request from the RHCA. He reported that the City's volunteer Webpage Consultant had recommended that the RHCA Minutes City Council Meeting 03/25/02 -6- may desire to have their own website with a link to the City's Webpage. Further, there would be a charge to the City to post the RHCA agendas on the City's Webpage if PV on the Net had to complete any tasks to post the agendas. After a brief discussion, staff was directed to forward correspondence to the RHCA indicating that Councilmembers felt that the best way to minimize potential confusion of residents as to the separate functions of the City and the RHCA, would be for the RHCA to maintain a separate website. Councilmembers expressed a willingness to establish a link between the City's website and any website of the RHCA and, if that is not practical, the City Council will consider posting the RHCA, Caballeros, Women's Club, and Tennis Club agendas on the City's website upon future request. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION REGARDING RHCA VIEW IMPAIRMENT PROCEDURES AND POLICIES. City Manager Nealis presented the staff report outlining the recommendations from the Planning Commission regarding the RHCA View Impairment Procedures and Policies. Discussion ensued regarding the recommendations and the multitude of subjects in the RHCA View Impairment Policies and Procedures. After a brief discussion, the City Council elected to receive and file the comments recommended by the Planning Commission and decided to support any Planning Commissioner, or City Councilmember, acting as a private Community Association member, to submit individual comments to the RHCA. Staff was directed to forward correspondence to the RHCA indicating that the City Council supports that the RHCA is providing a process and a forum to address view restoration and applauding the RHCA's positive attitude regarding this complex subject and demonstrated support for individuals to resolve view issues between neighbors. MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Pro Tem Lay suggested that the Mayor forward correspondence to Rolling Hills resident Mark Stetson congratulating him on receiving an Academy Award for his company's outstanding achievement in Visual Effects for the movie "Lord of the Rings". Councilmember Pernell thanked Councilmembers and staff for the plant sent to him on the occasion of his birthday. MATTERS FROM STAFF None. MATTERS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY None. ADIOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Murdock adjourned the meeting at 9:17 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the City Council to be held on Monday, April 8, 2002, beginning at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, d• • ��ehn� Marilyn L. ern Deputy City Clerk Approved, Jody M dock Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 03/25/02 -7-