Loading...
6/14/1976438 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA June 14, 1976 A regular meeting of the city Council was called to order by Mayor pro tempore Crocker at 7:30 P.M. Monday, dune 14, 1976 at the Adminis- tration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT- Councilmembers Crocker, Heinsheimer, Pernell, Swanson Mayor Rose arrived at 8-15 P.M. ABSENT- Douglas Rogers City Treasurer ALSO PRESENT- Teena Clifton City Manager William Kinley City Attorney Peggy Minor Secretary Jack Dunckel Real Estate Broker Bernard Talley Residents Mr & Mrs. Wm. Field Dr. Norton Donner Mrs. Kip Goldreyer Mrs. Lewis Hankins Forrest Riegel John Stern Mr. & Mrs. K. Leeuwenburgh Mr. & Mrs. Paul Steffan Dr. & Mrs. R. Witmer APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5 A motion to approve and accept the minutes of the meeting of May 24, 1976 as corrected was made by Councilman Heinsheimer, seconded by Coun- cilwoman Swanson and carried by the following roll call vote- AYES- Councilmembers Crocker, Heinsheimer, Pernell, Swanson NOES- None ABSENT- Mayor Rose RESOLUTION NO. 365 - SOUTH BAY REGIONAL BURGLARY TEAM Councilman Heinsheimer moved that Resolution No. 365 entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, auth- orizing participation in the proposed South Bay Regional Burglary Team be adopted, and that reading in full be waived. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pernell and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES. NOES - ABSENT: Councilmembers Crocker, Heinsheimer, Pernell, Swanson None Mayor Rose NATION RIGHT TO WORK COMMISSION --SENATE BILL 1716 23 Councilwoman Swanson reported that the California Legislature is presently considering Senate Bill 1716 which would legalize the forced unionization of all city and county employees throughout the state of California, and she moved that the City Council oppose it and send a letter or telegram urging that the Bill not be approved. The motion died for lack of a second. Mayor pro tem Crocker asked for a straw June 14, 1976 vote of members of the Council who wished to send a mailgram to State Senators urging that they vote against the bill. Councilman Pernell stated that he did not have sufficient information on the matter. Coun- cilmembers Crocker, Heinsheimer,and Swanson indicated that their names could be used in a Mailgram expressing..opposition to.the bill. PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE TO WILLIAM C. FIELD 58. Mayor pro tem Crocker, on behalf of the City Council, expressed the Council's appreciation to Mr. William C. Field, past Chairman of the Planning Commission, stating that,he was honored to present a com- mendation plaque suitably engraved in recognition of the long term service given to the Community. Planning Commissioner Field accepted the plaque, and expressed his appreciation for the cooperation of the staff and Council during his service on the Planning Commission, TRAFFIC AND SPEED CONTROL ON EASTFIELD DRIVE 72 Mayor pro .tem Crocker reported that the Automobile Club of South- ern California has offered -to prepare a study report at no cost to the City of traffic problems in the Eastfield area. The Manager presented a copy of her letter to the Automobile Club listing specific problems and other characteristics of the community for their consideration in conducting the study, Councilman Crocker requested that the Automobile Club be requested to submit a list of services they would provide, and he asked that residents be contacted by the Auto Club for their input. Dr. Norton Donner, 81 Eastfield Drive, stated thathe had not seen evidence of increased patrol on Eastfield, and he expressed con- cern for the safety of young children in the vicinity of Open Brand and Eastfield where numerous violations occur. The Council directed the Manager to contact the Automobile Club and request that representatives of the club discuss specific traffic problems r.ith residents on Eastfield Drive. Councilman Crocker said he would be available for discussions with club representatives and residents. ZONING CASE NO. 149, DR. ROBERT WITMER, 79 EASTFIELD DRIVE 127 APPEAL FROM DECISION 'OF PLANNING COMMISSION RE': LOCATION OF TENNIS COURT Mayor Rose opened the hearing of Zoning Case No. 149, appeal from the decision of.the Planning Commission on April 20, 1976, denying a request by Dr, and Mrs. Richard Witmer for a conditional use permit to locate a tennis court in front of a residence at 79 Eastfield Drive. The City Attorney presented a memorandum with excerpts from Ordi- nance No. 33 reviewing appeal proceedings, and he stated that no new evidence should be received or considered by the City Council, and the Council was required to make a determination on the basis of the record brought befor it on appeal or review. Section 6.19: New Hearing De Novo provides that the Council may, by majority action at any time during the course of the review, determine that a new hearing should be held for the purpose of taking new or additional evidence in connection with the matter. In such event, a new hearing would be set by the Council at which time the public would be entitled to appear to present new or additional evidence. Mr. Kinley stated further that the applicant could agree to have the matter placed under submission for the purpose of viewing the property and hearing oral arguments at the next Council meet- ing, unless the applicant requested a decision at the present time. The Manager presented a topographical map for consideration by the Council, and stated that Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of -2- 140 June 14, 1976 Apel 20 and information presented to the Commission had been sent to all Council members. Councilman Crocker said he wished to view the property, and he moved that the Council take a field trip prior to the time that formal action is taken, in order to have the same information before the Council that the Planning Commission had in making its deci- sion, with the matter taken under submission by the Council for further consideration at the next regular meeting on June 280 The motion was seconded by Councilman Pernell and carried by the following roll call vote. AYES. Councilmembers Crocker, Pernell, Swanson Mayor Rose NOES. Councilman Heinsheimer ABSENT. None Mayor Rose asked Dr. Witmer it it was satisfactory to him to have the matter under submission for the purpose of the Council viewing the property. Dr. Witmer said he wished to thank the Council for their time, and invited Council members to visit the property, with the matter under submission until the next meeting, Dr. Witmer stated that the geological report for the property reflects that substantial hard- ship would be experienced if the tennis court was located in the area in which he wishes to locate the residence. The Mayor asked whether the geology report had been submitted to the Planning Commission, and Dr. Witmer said he was not certain. Excerpts were read from Planning Commission minutes dated April 20, 1976, indicating that the Commiss- ion had been advised of soil conditions on the property. Following the discussion, Councilman Heinsheimer moved that a hearing De Novo in accordance with Section 6019 of Zoning Ordinance No. 33 be held no later than the next regular meeting of the City Council. The motion was seconded by Councilman Crocker for purposes of discussion, and failed to carry on the following roll call vote: AYES. None NOES. Councilmembers Crocker, Heinsheimer, Pernell, Swanson Mayor Rose ABSENT. None Councilman Crocker said it was his opinion that a De Novo hearing should be provided only as an extraordinary remedy with new facts and evidence not reviewed or considered by the Planning Commission, Dr. Witmer requested that the matter be held under submission under the regular appeal method, and said the property would be staked for a field trip on Saturday, June 19 at 8200 A.M. The Mayor so ordered. ZONING CASE N0. 156, PAUL STEFFAN (B.R. SNYDER, OWNER) BUCKBOARD LANE APPEAL FROM DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION 391 Mayor Rose opened the hearing of Zoning Case No. 156, appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission on April 20, 1976, denying a requeat by Mr. and Mrs. Paul Steffan for conditional use permits for development of property at 7 Buckboard Lane. The Manager explained that the property is presently owned by Mr. Bo R. Snyder, who has given permission for Mr. and Mrs. Steffan to proceed with plans for develop- ment of the site under an excrow arrangement with them. The Mayor, noted that purchase of the property was contingent upon approval of the conditional use permits, and the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting on April 20 reflect that the Commission was requested by the applicant to make a decision on the matter without benefit of a field trip to view the property. Mrs. Steffan explained that the date for close of the escrow was imminent, and they had no choice but to ask -3- 1, 4 . .Tune 14, 1976 for an immediate decision; however, since that time, the escrow was extended by Mr. Snyder to June 24, 1976. Mayor Rose suggested that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission in order to give them an opportunity to make a field trip. Mrs. Steffan said the listing broker, Mr. Jack Dunckel, was present, and she asked for an opportunity to confer with him, The Council granted the request and Mr. and Mrs. Steffan and Mr. Dunckel left the room. Shortly thereafter they returned to the meeting, and advised the Council that Mr. Snyder had agreed to a further extension of the excrow until June 30, 19760 Councilmembers Crocker and Pernell suggested that the applicants withdraw their appeal and refile with the Planning Commission, there- by giving the Commission an opportunity to view the property. The City Attorney said it would be necessary to again notify all property owners in the area, and initiate new proceedings, as the Planning Commission lost jurisdiction when their, decision was made ana appealed to the City Council, JO The Council reviewed Section 6.19, New Hearing De Novo, Ordinance No. 33 which provides that the Council may, by majority action during the course of the review of a decision of the Planning Commission, de- termine that a new hearing should be heard for the purpose of taking new or additional evidence in respect to the matter. In such an event a new hearing would be set by the Council, at which time the public would be entitled to appear to present new or additional evidence for or against the application. Councilman Heinsheimer moved that a hearing De Novo be scheduled for= consideration of the matter by the Council on June 28, 1976° The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swanson and filed to carry by the following roll call vote. AYES. None NOES. Councilmembers Crocker, Heinsheimer, Pernell, Swanson Mayor Rose ABSENT. None RECESS The meeting was recessed by the Mayor at 9.30 P.M. and reconvened at 9.40 P.M. The hearing on the appeal was resumed. The Council studied the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting, the Findings and Report of the Commission, Notice of Appeal and a letter dated May 30, 1976 from Mr. and Mrs. Steffan. �A topographical survey of the property was pre- sented, and.the Manager reviewed the procedures followed by the staff in determining the front, side and rear yard locations, pointing out that the property is located at the end of the cul de sac of Buckboard Lane, which has a small private driveway called Buckboard Trail extend- ing from the end of the cul de sac to two homes. Mrs. Clifton said it had been determined that the cul de sac in Buckboard Lane would be considered in the side yard, and Buckboard Trail would be the front yard. area. Councilman Heinsheimer read the definition of a front yard from Ordinance 33 as follows. "Section 129. A yard extending across the full width of the lot between the side lot lines and measured between the front street or road line and either the nearest°line of the main building or the nearest line of any enclosed or covered porch attached thereto." The Manager explained that the judgment was made from past evidence and past reviews by the Planning Commission, -4- ,142 .Tune 14, 1976 Mrs. Steffan referred to her letter dated May 30, 1976 relating the history of entering into escrow for the purchase of the property, stating that in making initial studies for development, it had been assumed that the cul de sac was the front yard, the private driveway, Buckboard Trail, the side yard, and that no variances would be neces- sary, except possibly for a retaining wall adjacent to the driveway. She requested that the Council define the location of the front yard. Mr. Steffan stated that the residence and pool across Buckboard Trail were well within the 30' setback Councilman Crocker stated that in order to decide the question he would need to know the locations of front yards of neighboring residences with a visual reaction to them, and elimination of the review should not be made by changing the definition of the front and side yards. Further, he said the applicant had the ability to contest the definition at the Planning Commission hearing and did not elect to do so. A visual inspection by the Commission and Council would be a remedy, even if it was necessary to refile with the Planning Commission and provide an opportunity for both bodies to view the pro- perty, as they were deprived of this opportunity by the request to the Planning Commission for an immediate decision by Mr. and Mrs. Steffan. Mrs. Steffan stated that Mr. Dunckel, the listing agent, had a - topographical map of all adjacent properties, showing locations of houses and pools. Councilman Pernell asked whether the information was presented to the Planning Commission and Mrs. Steffan said it was not. Councilman Heinsheimer stated that once the Council had voted not to have a De Novo hearing, they did not have the option of viewing the property in relation to other properties in the area, and could consi- der only the facts considered by the Planning Commission relating to the location of the front yard. He referred to the second paragraph in the Planning Commission's Findings and Report which indicate that a request for three separate conditional use permits indicate that the residence being planned is not appropriate for the lot, and that a residence which might be developed in the required set -back would be small in size and of a design inadequate for the community, different in concept from the rest of the City, and materially detrimental to property 9n the same vicinity and zone. Mayor Rose stated that it appeared to him that the problems might have come about because of a definition of a front yards If the front yard were determined to be in a different location, three conditional use permits would not be necessary and the property could be developed. Further, he said the Council was aware that the Planning Commission did not have an opportunity to view the property, and he did not be- lieve there was sufficient evidence indicating that the cul de sac was not the front yard. If the Council could find, as a matter of law, that the cul de sac could be the front yard, conditional use permits would not be necessary, if the wall could be deleted from the vicinity of the driveway, He suggested that the definition of the front yard be determined by the Council, and the matter referred back to the Planning Commission with the finding. Councilman Crocker said he did not believe it would be proper for the Council to make a decision with- out visual evidence, and the facts could not be ascertained at the current meeting. Councilwoman Swanson asked the City Attorney whether the Council could view the surrounding areas, inasmuch as the Planning Commission did not view adjacent properties. Mr. Finley explained that the Council could consider only the same evidence presented to the Planning Commis- sion, and the record of the Planning Commission meeting indicates that there was no reference to any residence other than the property under discussion. -5- 0 43 June 14, 1976 The Council discussed the procedure for determining the front yard location. Planning Commission Chairman Forrest Riegel stated that the Planning Commission had an informal review of the matter at their meeting on April 20, 1976, and it was his understanding at that time that the Commission had established that the front yard designation would be Buck- board Trail. Councilman Heinsheimer moved that the portion adjacent to the cul de sac be considered to be the front yard, and that the building of a home on the site should go forward under that definition, with no variances whatever. The motion was seconded by Mayor Rose for purposes of discussion. In discussing the motion, Councilwoman Swanson stated that the Council's position is to either uphold or reject the Planning Commission's decision. Councilman Pernell said he would have no objection to consider changing the designation of the front yard; however, from evidence pre- sented, he believed that the Council was hampered from making a judgment. The Manager was asked whether notification -had been given to all property owners within 500 feet of the property. Mrs. Clifton said notices were rw sent as required by law for both the Planning Commission hearing and the appeal before the City Council, and no comments or objections had been expressed. One resident, Mr. Donald Barclay, 4 Buckboard Lane, had viewed the map, but made no comments. The Mayor called for a roll call on the motion, which failed to carry on the following vote: AYES- Councilman Heinsheimer NOES- Councilmembers Crocker, Pernell, Swanson, Mayor Rose ABSENT- None Councilman Crocker then moved that the Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, without prejudice as the the decision of the front and side yard determination. The motion was seconded by Councilman Heinsheimer for purposes of discussion, and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES- Councilmembers Crocker, Pernell, Swanson, Mayor Rose NOES- Councilman Heinsheimer ABSENT: None The Council discussed with the City Attorney proper methods for consideration of new evidence, such as a visual inspection of the pro- perty. Mr. Kinley recommended that a provide the Council an opportunity to available to the Planning Commission. that the Council adjourn for a recess City Attorney. The Mayor so ordered, 11-00 P.M. and re -convened at 11-08 P De Novo hearing be considered to acquire facts which were not Councilwoman Swanson requested to discuss the matter with the and the meeting was recessed at .Mo Mayor Rose asked for a legal opinion by the City Attorney with regard to decisions that had been made by the Council on the matter. Mr. Kinley said it would be in order for the applicant to file a new application with the Planning Commission. SUBSIDY OF BUS FARE PROGRAM ON A PER CAPITA BASIS 435 A letter dated May 24, 1976 from James S. Mize, Executive Officer, Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County was presented requesting that cities share in the subsidy of the 25 cent bus fare program on a per capita rate basis of $4092. Councilwoman Swanson reported that a letter had been sent by her to the Supervisors on June 8, 1976, advis- �j 19 June 14, 1976 ing the that the matter would be considered by the Council with approval unlikely, as the Peninsula does not have any service at this time, and requesting support of the Supervisors in successfully obtaining funds for the long overdue bus service on the Peninsula. Mrs. Swanson recom- mended that the Council reject the request for a subsidy. Following a discussion, Mayor Rose directed that a letter be drafted for his signa- ture concurring with Councilwoman Swanson's recommendation. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 460 Councilwoman Swanson reported that the Peninsula cities are all in agreement, and expect the bus service program to begin on June 27, 1976 as scheduled; however, the matter would be considered by the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, June 15. The matter was ordered held on the agenda. CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES - MEMORIAL DAY BRUNCH 472 A letter dated June 7, 1976 from the City of Rolling Hills Estates was received, requesting payment of $83.75 one fourth of the costs of the Memorial Day Brunch honoring Peninsula war dead. Mrs. Kip Goldreyer reported that she attended the ceremony follow- ing the brunch, and it was Fiery impressive. Following discussion, Coun- cilman Heinsheimer moved that the request for payment of $83.75 be ap- proved. The motion was seconded by Councilman Crocker and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES- Councilmembers Crocker, Heinsheimer, Pernell, Swanson Mayor Rose NOES: None ABSENT- None CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES - FAU FUNDS 1351 The Manager presented a letter dated June 2, 1976 from Dennis J. Pikus, Director of Public Works, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, with a resolution honoring the Rolling Hills City Council's request that one half of the Federal Aid -Urban Funds for the fiscal years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 be used to construct a left turn pocket on Palos Verdes Drive East at Eastfield Drive. The Mayor directed that the correspondence be filed and the matter removed from the agenda. LAFCO - HEARING ON CREST GATE AREA ANNEXATION 1360 The Manager reported that the hearing before the Local Agency Formation Commission on the Crest Gate.Area Annexation has been set for July 28, 1976, and she would attend the hearing to represent the City of Rolling Hills. SOUTH BAY BURGLARY TEAM 1365 The report of the South Bay Burglary Team for the month of April 1976 was presented to the Council. Following discussion of statistics, the report was received and filed. EMERGENCY DISASTER PLAN 1416 The Manager presented a report outlining procedures to be followed in the event of any brush fire on the Palos Verdes Peninsula under the ,jurisdiction of the Lomita Sheriff's Station. Councilman Crocker asked if a consulting service was available which could be brought in to work with the City's staff in implementing the Disaster Plan. The Manager -7- C 00 cc Gia June 14, 19.76 said the State of California has an office for emergency services and the University of Southern California has such a service; however, after experiencing the fire in 1973, the City has learned many specifics which are of benefit. Councilman Crocker recommended that a list be made of medical and geological fields, to be compiled for use in the event of a disaster. The matter PAYMENT OF BILLS was ordered held 1479 on the agenda, Councilman Crocker moved that Demands No. 5400 through 5445 be paid from the General Fund. The motion was seconded by Councilman Heinsheimer and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES- Councilmembers Crocker, Heinsheimer, Pernell, Swanson Mayor Rose NOES: None ABSENT: None TREES ON CREST ROAD 1497 The Manager presented a report regarding the Tree Watering Program on Crest Road, stating that the City has qualified for the Summer CETA Youth Employment Program and will be receiving four young men who could work on the watering of trees on Crest Road. Costs for a tractor and operator for augering, and mulch total $1,587.00. Twenty five residents were listed for possible water hook-ups, with all residents agreeing to furnish the water as necessary. Councilman Heinsheimer said Joan Saffo, member of the Board the trees, and it appeared that easement,.a safety factor should of the City, and he recommended costs of the program° he had discussed the matter with Mrs. of Directors, about responsibility for while the trees are in the Association®s also be considered the responsibility that the City pay a fair share of the Councilwoman Swanson expressed concern that the angered holes could be dangerous for horses. She moved that the plan be approved and the expenditure authorized for sharing the costs with the Association, sub- ject to review and approval of the program by Mr. Forrest Riegel, Trails Chairman for Caballeros. The motion was seconded by Councilman Heins- heimer and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crocker, Heinsheimer, Pernell, Swanson Mayor Rose NOES- None ABSENT: None TORRANCE AIRPORT EXPANSION 1572 Councilwoman Swanson reported that the meeting of the Torrance City Council to consider the Environmental Impact Report for the pro- posed expansion of Torrance Airport had been changed from June 22 to June 16. Mrs. Kip Goldreyer, a member of the Rolling Hills Environmen- tal Quality Board, will attend the meeting. i* P X46 June 14, 1976 ROLLING HILLS BICENTENNIAL CELEBRATION ® LIABILITY INSURANCE 1586 The City Attorney reported that he had not received the informa- tion he requested from Mr. Mike Bogen, the City's insurance agent„ and said he would contact Dr. Larry Kelly as soon as the information is received. The Manager presented a Proposed Budget for the Fourth of July Celebration totaling $1,670000, The Council directed that the Manager acknowledge receipt of the proposed expenditures submitted by the Bi- centennial Committee, file it, and advise that the Council will not be responsible for any additional sums of money, and in accordance with previous action as noted in the minutes, if sufficient money is made at the celebration, the $500000 allocation authorized by the Coun- cil on May 24, 1976 will be refunded to the City. GUIDELINES FOR ROLLING HILLS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD 1636 Councilman Pernell stated that there was no further need to have the matter on the agenda; the Mayor ordered the matter removed from the agenda, ORDINANCE NO. 145 1640 Councilman Heinsheimer moved that Ordinance No. 1.45, entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 67 EN- TITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REGULATING'' AND CONTROL- LING THE DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT OF SUBDIVISIONS AND OTHER DIVISIONS OF PROPERTY" be adopted and that reading in full be waived. The motion was seconded by Councilman Crocker and carried by the following moll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crocker, Heinsheimer, Pernell, Swanson Mayor Rose NOES: None ABSENT: None FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION 1645 The City Attorney requested that the matter be held on the agenda. The Mayor so ordered. AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES 1650 The City Manager stated that Los Angeles County has extended the Agreement for Animal Control Services for another year- however', the contract specifies that the City must adopt the Los Angeles County Animal Control Ordinance. The matter was held on the agenda for further discussion with the Animal Control Director. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIREDEPARTMENT 1670 Los Angeles County Fire Department Activity Reports for January, February, March and April 1976 were received and filed. PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX 1680 Councilman Heinsheimer suggested that a Public Hearing to consider adoption of a Property Transfer Tax be held in conjunction with budget discussions on June 23, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. June 14, 1976 RECREATION QUESTIONNAIRE 1706 14 7 The Manager reported that 282 responses have been received in answer to the Recreation Questionnaire, and she presented a talley of the first page. REQUEST FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY ALLOCATION, DR. Eo J. WE_ISENHEIMER 1740 In a letter dated June 9, 1976, Dr. E. J. Weisenheimer, 29 Portu- guese Bend Road, requested City assistance with the cost of undergrounding electric and telephone lines on his property in the amount of $1,267.65. Following discussion Councilman Crocker moved that allocation of 25% of $1,267.65 be approved for the project, as removal of the utility poles would add to the beauty and welfare of the City, with the con- dition that the project be completed within six months. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pernell and carried by the following roll call vote- AYES- Councilmembers Crocker, Heinsheimer, Pernell, Swanson " Mayor Rose 44 NOES: None ABSENT: None BALLOT MEASURE, PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH WIDENING PROJECT 1780 The Manager presented a news item from the Palos Verdes Newspaper reporting.that Rolling Hills Estates City officials want to place a proposed plan for widening Palos Verdes Drive North before their city's voters in November. The Mayor requested the Manager to contact the City Manager of Rolling Hills Estates and ascertain whether a decision has been made to include the matter on the November ballot. RESOLUTION - CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 1805 Resolution No. 846 of the City of Rolling Hills Estates accepting assignment of one-half of the three year apportionment of Federal Aid Urban Funds for the fiscal years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 from the City of Rolling Hills, adopted May 25, 1976 was received for the record. OPPOSITION TO INCREASED TAX ASSESSMENTS 18(2) Councilwoman Swanson reported that she had attended the Taxpayers' Revolt Trip to the Board of Supervisors' meeting, organized by Gunther Buerk, Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes. Further, Councilwoman Swanson re- ported that she has been negotiating with Bob McCaman, Deputy to Super- visor James Hayes, for a meeting between representatives of the four peninsula cities and Los Angeles Tax Assessor, Philip Watson for the purpose of expressing opposition to the constant increase in assessed valuation of peninsula properties. RESIGNATION OF CITY TREASURER 25 The Manager advised the Council that City Treasurer Doiigl_as Rogers is moving from the area, and has advised her that he will no longer be able to serve the City in the capacity of Treasurer. Councilman Crocker said he would pursue the matter with relation to recommendations for appointment of a new City Treasurer. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE 35 - --- - -- The City Attorney was directed to prepare a draft of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify definition and location of front and side yards, for review by the Council. -10- .14 .lune 14, 1976 ADJOURNMENT 40 There being no further business to come before the Council, the Mayor adjourned the meeting at 12:35 A.M. to meet on Wednesday, June 23 at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of reviewing the proposed Budget for Fiscal 1976-77, and for a public hearing to consider a proposed ileal Estate Transfer Taxa City C� APPROVED: Mayor -11- I.