4/10/2006MINUTES OF
A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 10, 2006
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: Heinsheimer, Hill, and Mayor Pernell.
Councilmembers Absent: Black and Mayor Pro Tem Lay (excused).
Others Present: Craig Nealis, City Manager.
Mike Jenkins, City Attorney.
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director.
Marilyn Kern, Deputy City Clerk.
Lt..Greg Ahn, LASD, 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 -Regular Meeting of March 27, 2006.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
b. Payment of Bills.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
C. Correspondence from Cox Communications regarding rate adjustments.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
d. Request from Tennis Club for a picnic table for the tennis court picnic area.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
Councilmember Heinsheimer moved that the City Council approve the recommendations in
the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Hill seconded the motion, which carried unanimously
by those Councilmembers in attendance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
None.
TRAFFIC COMMISSION ITEMS
CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION
RELATIVE TO A REQUEST FROM THE PALOS VERDES WOMAN'S CLUB FOR A
GARDEN TOUR AT 62 CREST ROAD EAST AND 4 STORM HILL LANE.
City Manager Nealis presented the staff report outlining the request for the PV Woman's Club
to conduct a Garden Tour and the Traffic Commission's recommendation that the City
Council approve the request. Hearing no discussion, Mayor Pernell called for a motion.
Councilmember Heinsheimer moved that the City Council approve the recommendation of
the Traffic Commission for the PV Woman's Club to conduct a Garden Tour at 62 Crest Road
East and 4 Storm Hill Lane on May 6, 2006. Councilmember Hill seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously by those Councilmembers in attendance.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZONING CASE NO. 717 SUBDIVISION NO. 90, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
27078, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING LOT TOTALING 8.45 ACRES INTO 2
PARCELS THAT WILL NOT BE LESS THAN 2 ACRES NET EACH WHERE THERE IS
ONE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ACCESSORY
USES AND REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW PARCEL 2 TO HAVE LESS
THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED WIDTH. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 20
UPPER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD (LOT 101-RH) AND IS BEING
IMPLEMENTED BY MR. AND MRS. KAZARIAN.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
04/10/06
-1-
City Manager Nealis presented the staff report outlining the applicants' request and providing
background regarding the property. He indicated that the public hearing was continued from
the March 27, 2006 City Council meeting to allow the applicants the opportunity to revise their
tentative parcel map to address concerns expressed about the location of the revised
demonstrated driveway access off of Upper Blackwater Canyon Road and the Variance
request to have less than the minimum required width of Parcel l along Pine Tree Lane. City
Manager Nealis explained that the applicants had amended their map to show a revised
demonstrated driveway location further north on Upper Blackwater Canyon Road and
pointed out the location on the plan. He said that this location had been reviewed by the
Traffic Commission at their last meeting and there were no concerns with the demonstrated
driveway location in terms of visibility but that the Commission expressed that the driveway
apron radius should be widened and that this was now depicted on the revised plan. He
indicated that this driveway access was for demonstration purposes only and that any new
driveway would be reviewed again during the Site Plan Review process. City Manager Nealis
reported that the steepness of the driveway exceeds the provisions of the Zoning Code but
that the steepness would be permitable if the Planning Commission approves it. He explained
the increased demonstrated pad size and grading quantities. He indicated that the applicant is
still pursuing the Variance to have a 115 -foot wide frontage on Pine Tree Lane. Mayor Pernell
called for testimony at this point of the public hearing.
Dr. James Scharffenberger, 5 Appaloosa Lane, explained his familiarity with the property. He
indicated that he feels that the new demonstrated driveway location would not pose a
problem and expressed his support for the subdivision as presented.
Mr. Doug McHattie, Bolton Engineering, commented on the request for a Variance for Parcel 2
to have less than the minimum required width. He explained that the applicant had moved
the horses from the existing stable so that the stable could be repaired. He explained an area
where pepper trees on the property provide shade for horses and indicated that the area
would be lost if the lot line were moved to provide the required frontage on Pine Tree Lane
for Parcel 2. He explained that the frontage area on Parcel 2 would be a good area for an
equestrian facility.
Mr. McHattie explained the grading for the proposed subdivision and pointed the cut and fill
areas out on the plan. He stated that there have been projects in the City with more grading.
Mayor Pernell commented on the concerns raised by residents on Pine Tree Lane that there
may be a potential access to the new parcel off of Pine Tree Lane and indicated that if the City
Council does not stipulate that no access be provided off of Pine Tree Lane, that a future
developer may propose to place one there. Mayor Pernell expressed concern about the
Variance request to have less that the minimum required width for Parcel 2. In reply to
Mayor Pernell, Mr. McHattie explained that the applicant is requesting the Variance so that the
existing equestrian area can remain on Parcel 1. He indicated that if the frontage width of
Parcel 2 along Pine Tree Lane was expanded, that it could increase the possibility that a future
developer would propose a driveway access on Pine Tree Lane.
In response to Councilmember Heinsheimer, Mr. McHattie explained that the available space
along the proposed frontage of Parcel 2 would be approximately 50 feet and that if there were
no requested Variance and the available space would 85 feet.
Hearing no further discussion, Mayor Pernell closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Heinsheimer indicated that the access concerns have been addressed as far as
the tentative parcel map phase however; that the access issue would be further reviewed
when the proposed new lot is considered for development. He stated that he is concerned
about the fact that Parcel 2 does not meet the minimum required width along Pine Tree Lane.
He stated that he could not make the necessary findings to grant a Variance in this case.
Councilmember Hill commented on the revisions that the applicant has made to the proposal
and indicated that he could support the subdivision as presented this evening.
Mayor Pernell expressed that he would like to see all of the subdivision conditions complied
with and that he does not favor granting the Variance to allow Parcel 2 to have less than the
minimum required width. He commented on the absence of one participating
Councilmember and the abstention of Councilmember Black in this case and suggested that
the applicant may wish to consider continuing the public hearing to give the applicant every
opportunity to address the concerns expressed regarding the Variance request and have a full
compliment of Councilmembers in attendance to consider it. Mr. Kazarian agreed to a
continuance. Planning Director Schwartz indicated that she would need correspondence from
Minutes
City Council Meeting
04/10/06 -2-
the applicant granting permission for a continuance.
Following the concurrence of the applicant, the public hearing was reopened and continued to
the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, April 24, 2006.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 299: AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CLARIFYING THE PROHIBITION OF THE IMPORT OR
EXPORT OF SOIL EXCEPT WHERE A VARIANCE IS GRANTED AND AMENDING
CHAPTER 15.04 OF TITLE 15 BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION CODE OF THE
ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE.
City Manager Nealis presented the staff report and proposed ordinance. He explained that
staff identified an inconsistency between language in the Zoning Code and language in the
Building Code relating to balance cut and fill grading requirements, that although allows
Variances to be considered in the public hearing process, does not support the issuance of
permits to implement the approval and intention of the City Council and Planning
Commission when Variances are granted. He explained the proposed ordinance and indicated
that the amendment does not change any policies, procedures or permissiveness for Variances
of this nature.
Mayor Pernell opened the public hearing and called for testimony. Hearing none he called
upon the City Council for comments. Councilmember Heinsheimer suggested that the
ordinance be amended to include language, which reinforces the City's policy relative to
balanced cut and fill and further describes the intent of the code revision as described by the
City Manager.
Following the discussion, the public hearing was continued to the next regular meeting of the
City Council to be held on Monday, April 24, 2006 and staff was directed to incorporate
language which reinforces the City's policy relative to balanced cut and fill and further
describes the intent of the code revision.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT COSTS, LETTER
DATED MARCH 1, 2006 AND REVISED MARCH 22, 2006, FOR ABATEMENT OF A
DECLARED PUBLIC NUISANCE ON A PROPERTY AT #1 POPPY TRAIL ROAD.
City Manager Nealis presented the staff report providing background regarding the declared
public nuisance at 1 Poppy Trail Road, outlining the charges incurred by the City to complete
the actions determined by the Consulting Geologist to abate the declared public nuisance and
outlining the procedures in the Municipal Code relative to the abatement of a public nuisance
and recovery of costs.
Mr. Craig Collins, attorney representing Mr. Sheen, the property owner of 1 Poppy Trail
Road, stated that he is opposed to the costs being imposed on his client. He stated that the
City demolished his client's house without compensation and is now sending his client a bill to
complete this work. Mr. Collins stated that he feels this is unfair, and that his client did not do
anything to cause the landslide on his property and that the landslide also exists on other
properties including property owned by the City and property owned by the Rolling Hills
Community Association. He indicated that he does not know what measures the City has
taken to share these costs with the others affected by the landslide.
Mr. Collins stated that he feels that costs for the nuisance abatement are to further a plan to
reopen Poppy Trail for the benefit of the residents in that area and he further stated that it is
unfair to impose the cost of a road project on Mr. Sheen. He said that it is inappropriate to
impose the City's legal fees on Mr. Sheen and explained that the City is entitled to recover
legal fees only in certain circumstances where provided by statute and there is no authority for
the City to recover attorney's fees in this situation. He commented on the invoice and charges
for the City Manager's salary. He said that no backup had been provided for the
Administration Costs and indicated that he would like to have Mr. Nealis sworn in so that he
could cross examine him as to what exactly he did for $1,956.20.
Mr. Collins commented on the provision in the Municipal Code that alien could be placed on
Mr. Sheen's property. He asked that if the City does approve the nuisance abatement costs,
that the City postpone the lien because of Mr. Sheen's pending litigation against the City
Minutes
City Council Meeting
04/10/06 -3-
which involves the landslide and which will be amended after tonight to involve a challenge to
the imposition of the costs on Mr. Sheen. He asked that no action be taken to encumber Mr.
Sheen's property until the Superior Court has an opportunity to sort out whether the charges
being imposed on Mr. Sheen are truly legitimate.
City Attorney Jenkins said that Mr. Nealis could briefly comment on what he did in connection
with the nuisance abatement. Mayor Pernell commented on Mr. Collin's objections to the
City's legal fees and the City Manager's administrative costs for the nuisance abatement.
City Manager Nealis stated that the nuisance abatement costs only include the nuisance
abatement activities occurring specifically on 1 Poppy Trail. He said that it does not include
any of the winterization activities by the engineer, geologist or mitigation measures off of 1
Poppy Trail. Mr. Nealis indicated that the nuisance abatement costs do not fund any portion
of the roadway project completed by the Community Association, the ATV road or the
temporary emergency access. He explained that the nuisance abatement costs only include
the items authorized by the City Council under the nuisance abatement procedure. In regard
to the Administrative Costs, Mr. Nealis explained that this is not a salary reimbursement
charge, but an administrative cost determination conservatively estimated at 20 hours of his
administrative services only in conjunction with the nuisance abatement. In response to
Mayor Pernell, City Manager Nealis stated that if the road were not there the nuisance
abatement activity would still have been required.
Councilmember Heinsheimer queried the process and role of the City Council describing his
understanding that the City Council was being asked to approve the costs on the bill and that
there would be subsequent debates about the details of the bill in other venues.
City Attorney Jenkins stated that Councilmember Heinsheimer is correct and explained the
process and role of the City Council including the review of the costs, providing notice and
opportunity for the property owner to correct the nuisance, preparation of all necessary
documents, conduct of the public hearing to declare the matter a nuisance and ultimately
obtaining an abatement warrant and then correcting the nuisance. He said that the Council's
task this evening is to review the costs and ascertain if those costs were actually incurred in
that defined process.
City Attorney Jenkins further explained that if the costs are approved by the City Council, the
City Manager will then send a letter to the property owner asking him to reimburse the City
for those costs that were expended to abate the nuisance that was on his property for which
he was responsible under the City's Municipal Code. He indicated that if the property owner
does not pay those costs the City will record a lien against the property and the purpose of the
lien is to give constructive notice to any successor in interest that the City has an interest in the
amount of $147,928.77 or what ever amount the City Council approves so that if any one were
to ever purchase that property that they would have constructive notice that money would
have to be paid to the City. He said that the City will also take action in the future to place this
lien with the County Tax Assessor so that it appears on the property owner's next property
tax bill and if the property owner has not paid this amount by then, will be obligated to pay
this amount with his property taxes. He further explained that if the property owner does not
pay this amount, the City has the right to bring a civil action to recover this lien amount
against the property by way of foreclosure in which case the City can force the property
through a foreclosure action to be sold so that the City can obtain what it is owed out of the
sale of the property in foreclosure. In response to Mayor Pernell, City Attorney Jenkins
explained that the lien does not take priority over an existing mortgage on the property.
In response to Mayor Pernell, City Manager Nealis explained the costs for the abatement and
indicated that the abatement measures met the plan determined by the geologist and
engineers plan to meet the geologist's concern to abate the nuisance.
City Attorney Jenkins further explained that Mr. Nealis was the individual on City staff who
was primarily responsible for directing the process which entailed numerous site visits,
discussions with experts, monitoring of construction, preparation of staff reports and similar
activities. He said that Mr. Nealis has stated that he had conservatively estimated his time at
20 hours and he would be the best judge of how much time he has spent. City Attorney
Jenkins stated that in his opinion, all of the administrative costs incurred by the City are
recoverable in a nuisance abatement proceeding including the City's legal fees that are
incurred specifically and solely in connection with the abatement of the nuisance. He indicated
that the legal fees listed on the invoice are the fees that were incurred in connection with
advising the Council and in obtaining the abatement warrant. He said that none of fees
indicated were incurred in connection with the separate litigation that Mr. Sheen has filed
against the City.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
04/10/06 -4-
In response to Councilmember Heinsheimer, City Attorney Jenkins explained that Mr. Collins
has an opportunity to challenge the expenses incurred by the City for the nuisance abatement
in other venues.
Mr. Collins stated that he would like to examine Mr. Nealis as to how he spent the 20 hours
but that he understands that Mr. Jenkins indicated that he would not be permitted to do so.
Hearing no further discussion, Mayor Pernell called for a motion.
Councilmember Hill moved that the City Council approve the nuisance abatement costs
incurred by the City as presented in the staff report to abate the declared public nuisance at #1
Poppy Trail Road, and directed staff to proceed pursuant to the Municipal Code.
Councilmember Heinsheimer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Hill, and Mayor Pernell.
NOES:
None.
ABSENT:
Councilmember Black and Mayor Pro Tem Lay.
ABSTAIN:
None.
B. CONSIDERATION OF A CLAIM SUBMITTED BY ZAFFAR & TERESA
HASSANALLY, 6 POPPY TRAIL, ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA.
C. CONSIDERATION OF A CLAIM SUBMITTED BY ROBERT M. JONAS, 3 POPPY
TRAIL, ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA.
D. CONSIDERATION OF A CLAIM SUBMITTED BY DONNA FREEMAN, 10
POPPY TRAIL, ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA.
E. CONSIDERATION OF A CLAIM SUBMITTED BY RON SOMMER, 2 POPPY
TRAIL, ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA.
F. CONSIDERATION OF A CLAIM SUBMITTED BY MR. & MRS. JOHN LACEY, 7
POPPY TRAIL, ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA.
G. CONSIDERATION OF A CLAIM SUBMITTED BY MR. & MRS. RAMAKRISHNA
REDDY,11 POPPY TRAIL, ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA.
City Manager Nealis presented the claims and recommendations from Carl Warren and
Company that the City Council reject the claims.
Councilmember Heinsheimer moved that the City Council reject the claims filed by Zaffar &
Teresa Hassanally, Robert M. Jonas, Donna Freeman, Ron Sommer, Mr. & Mrs. John Lacey
and Mr. & Mrs. Ramakrishna Reddy, as recommended by the City's Claim Management
Adjusters. Councilmember Hill seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
4
Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Hill, and Mayor Pernell.
NOES:
None.
ABSENT:
Councilmember Black and Mayor Pro Tem Lay.
ABSTAIN:
None.
OPEN AGENDA - APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
Justin Chu, 3 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road, reported that he is in attendance at the meeting
in pursuit of his Boy Scout community merit badge.
MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
None.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
None.
MATTERS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
CLOSED SESSION
The City Council finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open
session will prejudice the position of the local agency in the litigation.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
04/10/06
-5-
Existing Litigation:
G.C. 54956.9(a)
Judith Hassoldt and William Hassoldt, Individuals, Plaintiffs, vs City of Rolling Hills, et.
al., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC275012.
G.C. 54956.9(a)
Hui -Tse Sheen, Individual, Plaintiff, vs City of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Community
Association, et. al., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. YC051963.
No closed session was held.
ADTOURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Pernell adjourned the meeting at
8:18 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday,
April 24, 2006 in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling
Hills, California.
Minutes
City Council Meeting
04/10/06
Respectfully submitted,
Marilyn Kern
Deputy City Clerk
T's
1
1