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.