Loading...
3/24/1967MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MARCH 24, 1967 tA special meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling lls was held at the City Hall.., 1 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, lifornia at 7:00 A.M. on.Friday, March 24, 1967. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Hesse, Klein, Nadal, Tourtelot Mayor Fay Absent: None Also Present: Teena Clifton City Manager William Kinley City Attorney E. L. Pearson E.L. Pearson Assoc. Mrs. Paul Saffo Resident Mayor Fay called the meeting to order, anal requested that the City Manager report on the meeting held on March 15. Mrs. Clifton then reported that at 8:30 A.M. on Thursday, March 15 a meeting was held -at the terminus of Line C. as directed by a resolution of the City Council at the meeting of March 13, 1967. Present at the meeting were Mr. E.L. Pearson of E.L. Pearson Associates, Mr.. Harry Davis and Mr. Irwin Hol- ston of the Construction Division of the Flood Control District, Mr. Rex Murphy and Mr. Richard Murphy of Murphy Construction, contractors for the project, and Mrs. Clifton. The purpose of the meeting was to meet with . and Mrs. Edgar Worth to consider the necessity for extending Line C. s. Clifton, in answer to questioning by Mayor Fay, said that the Worths d been notified of the proposed meeting, but did not attend; that Mrs. rth had stated that it was her morning to ride horseback, and.Mr. Worth had not given any reason for his absence. Councilman Nadal stated that he called Mr. Worth when he learned that he had not attended the meeting, and Mr. Worth told him that he felt that he had appeared before the Coun- di1 on March 13, had written letters to make his wishes clear, and that his presence at the meeting was not necessary. y Mayor Fay requested that the City Manager read the letter from Mr. Tom Clarke, Chief Engineer for E.L. Pearson Associates, dated March 20 and the letter from Mr. Milan W. Ransom, Assistant Chief Deputy Engineer for the Los Angeles County Flood Control District dated.March 22, 1967. Mrs. Clifton read the letters, and Mayor Fay directed that the letters be made part of the record. From E. L. Pearson & Associates to the City Council, City Rolling Hills,, March 20, 1967: Re: Extension of Line "C" Project 6601, Los Angeles County Flood Control District Bond Issue Honorable City Council: In investigating the possibility of extending Line "C" of Project 6601 to the southerly property line of the Worth Property it is believed the present location, as shown on the improvement plans for Project 6601 provides an adequate outlet for storm water into a natural watercourse. extend the drain as indicated above would be for the benefit of a single operty owner. However, it should be understood the proposed improvement oes not preclude the extension of the storm drain at a future date by the City, Los Angeles County Flood Control District or the property owner. If the drain were to be extended to the southerly line.of the Worth property at this time, it is estimated the cost would be approximately $5,500.00. March 24, 1967 This is based on unit prices furnished by the contractor for Project 6601. If there is any additional information you may require please do not hesi- tate to let us know. /s/ Thomas C. Clarke, Chief Engineer, RCE 9757 From Los Angeles County Flood Control District, March 22, 1967, File No. 364-6601.60 Project No. 6601, Line C Resolution of the City of Rolling Hills Dear Mrs. Clifton: In response to your verbal request relative to the Res- olution passed by the City Council on March 13, 1967, we wish to reply as follows: With respect to Item 1, we have instructed the contractor to proceed, keeping in mind the potential changes which might be occasioned should the City and/or the District decide that changes are required. With respect to Item 2, the meeting was held on the morning of March 15 and it was agreed at the site: (a) That the contractor would be willing to extend the line and he furnished prices to your City Engineer,,Mr. Pearson, and (b) that from an engineering point of view there was no necessity to extend the line in order to serve the purpose for which the project was intended. With respect'to Item 3, in view of the above, in which it was determined that there was no basic reason for extension of the line insofar as the project is concerned, no Bond Issue funds can be made available for this purpose; however, since the main purpose of extending the line would be for the benefit of private.property, the District would be willing to dis- cuss with its contractor construction of such an extension, provided funds were made available to finance same. With respect to Item 4, this matter was covered in Item 2. With respect to Item 7, it is pointed out that the plans now call for a, headwall at the upstream side of Portuguese Bend Road to conduct the wa= ter from the Saffo property to the storm drain. No additional work could be authorized under this project. We trust -that the�.above clarifies any questions there may be in connection with this District's position with respect to Project No. 6601. Walter J. Wood, Chief Engineer By /s/ Milan W. Ransom Assistant Chief Deputy Engineer. Mayor Fay then asked Mr. Pearson for his comments. Mr. Pearson stated that it was his understanding that the Flood Control District would be willing to allow a change in the type of catch basins for Line C if the Council so requested because of the concern of residents in the area. He further stated that the Flood Control District has been reluct- ant to authorize installation of grate type catch basins, because they have the obligation to maintain the basins, and a grate type is more of a maintenance problem. Mr. Pearson said that day to day maintenance will fall to the Community Association. He agreed, however, that esthetically i= they are more desireable than the curb type basin, and would be preferred by horseback riders. Mr. Pearson also said that he understood the Flood Control District had decided that the northeast catch basin on Crest Road should be eliminated; it catches only a small amount of water and would not affect the efficiency of Project 6601, and elimination of the catch basin will also eliminate the question of diversion of water. Councilman Tourtelot asked why the catch basin had been authorized if it didn't carry much water and'could be eliminated without causing any problem, and Mr. Pearson said that the criteria is set by the Flood Control District, and catch basins are installed at intersections to "clean up" the inter- section of water, but where litigation is a possibility, the recommendation would be to eliminate the catch basin. Mayor Fay asked whether the Worths had been apprised of the estimate that it would cost $5,500.00 to extend Line C, as they requested, and the City Manager stated that she had decided it should first be pre- sented to the Council. When asked about the time element, Mrs. Clifton -2- N stated that if the Worths decided to pay for the extension, some additional engineering probably would be required, and an immediate:. decision was necessary. Councilman Hesse stated that inasmuch...as.Mr. Worth had stated at the City Council meeting of March 13, 1967 that there was no damage to his property, it was his suggestion that the project continue as is, especially with the assurance that there will be no problem if the drain.on Portuguese Bend Road is eliminated. Mr. Pearson then informed the Council that Flood Control Drains e rdesigned for a 25 year storm, with six inches of water on Crest Road, Ind that even.in the unlikely circumstance of six inches of water on Crest Road, it would.flow down the natural escape on.Georgeff; acid compar- atively -little would go into the catch basin on the north east side of Crest Road. In answer to further questioning, Mr. Pearson stated that no expenditure is necessary to eliminate the drain., Councilman Nadal moved that Mr. Pearson's recommendations with respect to eliminating the Northeast catch basin, and going to grate type catch basins instead of curb -type be accepted. Councilman.Hesse seconded the motion, and it was unanimously carried. ADJOURNMENT Councilman Tourtelot moved for adjournment at 8 A.M. The motion was seconded by Councilman Klein and unanimously carried. APPROVED: Mayor -3- 7�_j City C1erl� ::.: