Loading...
5/11/198121 MINUTES OFA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING.HILLS, CALIFORNIA: May 11, 1981 A regular meeting of the City Council.of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order at the Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend_ Road, Rolling Hills, California by Mayor pro tem Rose at 6:00 P.M. Monday, May 11, 1981. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Pernell, Swanson, Mayor .pro tem Rose ABSENT: Councilman Heinsheimer, Mayor Crocker PERSONNEL SESSION Members of the Council met in a personnel session. RECESS The meeting was recessed at 7:30 P.M., to reconvene at 8:00 P.M. at La Cresta School, 38 Crest Road West, CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rose called the meeting to order and announced that he would conduct the meeting until the arrival of Mayor Crocker, who was enroute from Sacramento. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Pernell, Swanson Mayor pro tem Rose ABSENT: Mayor Crocker (The Mayor arrived at 8:35 P.M.) ALSO PRESENT: Teena Clifton City Manager William Kinley Attorney. Patrick Coughlan Attorney June Cunningham Deputy City Clerk Residents City of Rolling Hills APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting on April 27, 1981 were approved and accepted on a motion made by Councilman Heinsheimer, seconded by Councilwoman Swanson and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Pernell, Swanson Mayor Rose NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Crocker PAYMENT OF BILLS . Councilwoman Swanson moved that Demands No. 9595 through 9604, 9606 through 9618, and 9625 be approved for payment in the amount of $4,870.82 from the General Fund, that Demands No. 9605, 9619 and 9620 be voided, and that Demands No. 9621 through 9624 in the amount of $2,065.61 be approved for payment from the Fire and Flood Self - Insurance Fund. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pernell and carried.by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Pernell, Swanson Mayor Rose None ABSENT:. Mayor Crocker 22 May 11; 1981 REPORT AND DISCUSSION, KLONDIKE CANYON LANDSLIDE Mayor Rose asked Councilman Heinsheimer to chair the discussion/ of the Klondike Canyon Landslide. A topographic map of a portion of the Flying Triangle marked to show the boundaries of the active slide as defined by the County Engineering Geologist in his report dated January 1981, and the 1978 Consultant's Boundary, was displayed. Councilman Heinsheimer read the Rolling Hills Newsletter dated May 6, 1981, regarding the Flying Triangle Geology Report, into the record. Residents were notified in the letter that the plan to abate the Klondike Canyon Landslide by filling a portion of the canyon will not stabilize the slide, and the proposed Landslide Abatement District is not an appropriate solution; therefore the Council would rescind the Resolution to Form the District at the City Council meeting. Councilman Heinsheimer explained that there has not been any motion within the area defined in red, the 1978 Consultant's Boundary; all movement has been within the active slide area, which was defined in yellow on the map. Councilman Heinsheimer said a study was made to determine whether filling in the canyon would stop the slide, and in connection with the study the Council adopted a resolution which would initiate procedures for the formation of a landslide abatement district. The study has been completed and the preliminary report indicates that the proposed plan of action would not be appropriate, and the Council will abandon the plan for an abatement district. Councilman Heinsheimer said the draft geology report is not in final form for distribution, and will be made available to the com- munity when it is complete. He said there is general agreement about the situation within the yellow area, and the inadvisibility of pro- ceeding with filling the canyon. The report prepared by the County's geologists will be reviewed by Dr. Ehlig, the consulting geologist hired by the City Council. Dr. Ehlig was present at the litigation, session with other geologists and the City Council, and he concurred with the preliminary report, Councilman Heinsheimer said. Further, Councilman Heinsheimer stated, reading from the Newsletter, analysis of the stability factors of the active landslide area have called into question the stability of the entire ancient slide area, and he said no building permits will be issued for the area encompassed by the January 1981 boundary of the ancient slide until detailed geotechnical analysis confirms appropriate stability. He concluded with the state- ment that filling in the western tributary of Klondike Canyon would, result in only marginal stability of the active landslide. The area within which no building permits would be issued until additional study has been made is the area within the red boundary, he said. Councilman Heinsheimer introduced Mr. Pat Coughlan, consulting attor- ney hired by the Council to advise them on geology matters. Mayor Rose opened discussion to residents in the audience. Questions were asked about the number of homes involved in the expanded area of questionable stability, the number of acres encompassed, the number of building permits issued in the area within the past four years; the various geology.studies as defined by different areas and dates on the map. In response to the questions, Mayor Crocker advised that since 1965 reports by private geologists hired by residents who wished to improve their properties were required.. The reports were submitted to and verified by the County after extensive study of all of the information submitted. Because of more extensive recent study in the area which indicates that the stability may be marginal., the de- cision has been made not to issue building permits without further . analysis of the situation and determination of the stability. Mr. Coughlan said it is his understanding that the County does not question the basic testing that was done in earlier studies, but questions some of the figures that were applied and the assumptions of some of the tests. Mayor Crocker said the geology report will be made available to the residents as soon as it is received in final form. Councilman Pernell commented that there -will not be any surprises in the final report; it will actually confirm information that has been given to residents and which is being discussed at the meeting. -2- May 11,_ 1981 .23 Councilman Heinsheimer moved that Resolution No. 469, entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING.HILLS, RES- CINDING RESOLUTION NO. 467 ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 464 AND INITIATING PROCEDURES FOR THE FORMATION OF KLONDIKE CANYON LANDSLIDE ABATEMENT DISTRICT" be adopted, and he read the resolution into the record as follows: "The City Council of the City of Rolling HIlls hereby resolves as follows: 1. The City Council has been informed by its.geological experts that the proposed plan of control for the Klondike Canyon Landslide Abatement District will not permanently and satisfactorily solve the land motion problem. 2. The Council rescinds Resolution No. 467, rescinding its action towards the formation of that district." The motion was seconded by Councilman Pernell and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES:. Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Pernell, Rose, Swanson Mayor Crocker NOES: None ABSENT: None Residents present at the meeting thanked the Council for their effort to try to assist the residents whose homes have been affected by the landslide. A suggestion was made that residents attempt to give assistance on an individual basis. MATTERS FROM THE COUNCIL CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE Councilwoman Swanson reported that sheattended a recent meeting of the City Selection Committee, and she requested that she be author- ized to vote on behalf of the Council. The authorization was given unanimously, and Mayor Crocker signed the letter of authorization.' ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. APPROVED:' Mayor City Clerk .� ... ....... :sf.^.;,`__ 'f':,.: --,.:_.�,:_,"„:.:*, 'i:=�5'.; �._"_.'"' s-•:-.;''€4«c::.-se=gig:. -..:k _ •+. -r.=F,; -e- ;cm r-te• �••aa:i-..` �z.;....�, x:-zi--a.:.,:"�+_.'�•^se: f.-zi'`'..�'IsrS,..v_ s:�T:i",:��.'EO.a•� ...-c:.5, - _...ter__ ,.aadc. ..r—• -,-mow s ._ _ -� .�'-ak +:.:'•s,' •+9.•�:.... •_ :+ri - :sx '.'. e—'.' �+-=- -t :S• r :.,k _-`F-._ :±R -o• "': s-,-: pr's-,...�..:T..c t <. i s =.3 " K c _e. ^a'<c.., �z: taw" S • ca . _a.. `• ; _ i " `zi frYruO ; tt, . kf i, F_a.; 3E.,. vk a s? Yxw..s:pd. •3k Si. ., _.s,. Ile .x , -ti dn.. i:? r• -., j-g,x.'_:, • _ _ .vs.. t _ a ; - s:i?^ r: 24 ri City Ol Polling Ahle.4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1521 The Rolling Bills City Council will not meet: on Monday, May 25, 1981 because ofa legal holiday. The Council will not meet on the next business.day,,Tuesday, May 26; 1981 because of lack of a quorum. The next regular meeting will be held on Monday, June 8, 1981 at 7030 P.M. in the Council. Chambers of the Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California 90274 1 A Deputy City Cle May 20, 1981 - MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA June 8, 1981 25 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order at the Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California by Mayor Crocker at 7:30 P.M. Monday, June 8, 1981. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Pernell, Rose, Swanson Mayor Crocker ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Teena Clifton City Manager William Kinley City Attorney L. D. Courtright City Treasurer June Cunningham Deputy City Clerk 00 J. Murdock,. Chairman, Planning Commission 0 W. Field Planning Commissioner A. Roberts. Planning Commissioner m K. Watts Planning Commissioner L. Amerine Palos Verdes News m F. Bahrs Residents Q P. Burnett Mr. & Mrs. E. Doak Dr. & Mrs. N. Donner Dr. R: Hoffman J. Kirkwood .r. B. Raine C. Raine APPROVAL OF MINUTES 230 The minutes of the meeting on May 11, 1981 were approved and accepted as amended on a motion made by Councilman Heinsheimer, seconded by Councilman Pernell and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Pernell, Rose, Swanson Mayor Crocker NOES: None ABSENT: None FINANCIAL STATEMENT Councilwoman Swanson moved that the Financial Statements for April, 1981 and May 1981 be approved and accepted as presented. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pernell and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Pernell, Rose, Swanson Mayor Crocker NOES: None ABSENT: None PAYMENT OF BILLS Councilman•Pernell moved that Demands No. 9638 through 9642, 9644 through 9661, 9663 through 9666, and 9668 through 9685, with th'e :exception of Demands -No. -9643 and 9667, which are void, be paid from the General Fund in the amount of $56,758.89, and that Demands No 9662 and 9673 through 9676 and Demand No. 9685 in the amount of $3,674.83 be paid from the Fire and Flood Self Insurance Fund. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swanson and carried by the follow- ing roll call vote: 26 June 8, 1981 AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Pernell, Rose, Swanson Mayor Crocker NOES: None ABSENT: None The Manager advised the'Council that Demand No. 9654 in the amount of $17.00 should be included in the Fire and Flood Self Insurance Fund and the amount should be deducted from the General Fund Demands and added to the Fire and Flood Self Insurance Fund. Mayor Crocker author- izedI the change. PROPOSED BUDGET, FISCAL 1981/82 260 Mayor Crocker asked the City Treasurer to summarize the Budget discussion held by Mr. Courtright, the City Manager, Mayor Crocker and Councilwoman Swanson held prior to the Council meeting. The Mayor said that policy questions were addressed, and he reported that the decision was made not to increase the rents charged the Community Association, but he asked that the record show that the Council reserves the right to act on the rentals annually. Mayor Crocker said the total rent for all four properties, including the City Hall, Maintenance Building, Riding Ring and Tennis Court is in line with the total recommended by the appraiser, and it was the Committee's recommendation that total rent be considered, not the individual amounts for individual properties. Mr. Courtright recommended that the Fire and Flood Self Insurance Fund be increased from $40,000 to $60,000. Further, he recommended that a policy be established for rentals, and since the current rents are based on 88% of the appraised valuation, Mr.. Courtright suggested that a cost of living escalation be included, but not activated, but which could be included in future budget considerations. Council- woman Swanson said she thought the escalation should be figured on'the rents actually charged, not on.the figures.supplied_by the Appraiser: A straw vote of the Council indicated that members agreed with adding an escalation factor to the figure presently used. The Manager said final information has not been received on the revenues which will•be coming to the City, and the information is plugged into the budget -as it is received. The Manager reported that she has received estimates for addi-. tional recording equipment as a back-up for the existing equipment._. The Mayor ordered the matter held on the agenda for additional dis- cussion at the next meeting, when more information is available. ZONING CASE NO. 259, MASON ROSE, 37 CREST ROAD WEST 384 Mayor Crocker opened a hearing on an appeal filed by Mason Rose, 37 Crest Road West, on the decision of the Planning Commission on March 17, 1981, denying his request for a variance of front and side Yard setback requirements for a paved area surrounded by an eight foot high fence for a guest parking and recreation area. Mr. Rose advised the Council that he wished a de novo hearing, and that he would not vote in the matter. The Mayor noted that the Chairman and four members of the Planning Commission were present at the meeting. The City Attorney explained that the original submittal was for a complete ;project which the applicant requested be separated into two parts; an attached garage, which required a variance of side yard setback requirements, and which was approved by the Planning Commis- sion, with conditions, on a field trip on November 25, 1980 and was. ratified at a regular meeting held on December 9, 1980. The portion of the request which was deferred included a paved area.in the front yard, surrounded by an eight foot high fence, which was denied by the Planning Commission on March 17, 1981. Mr. Rose advised the Council that during the presentation before the Planning Commission he orally withdrew anything over which the Planning Commission does not have jurisdiction, and he said it is his opinion that the only item to be -2- 2'7 June 8, 1981 considered by the Council is his request for an eightfoot-high chain link fence which he wishes to have constructed around a paved. area which he proposes to have installed in the front yard of his property. Mr. Kinley agreed.that if Mr. Rose wished to have a paved area put in his front yard, he could have done so', since a slab would not come under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, but since the plan was submitted for a parking and recreation area surrounded by an eight foot hight fence, it was considered a structure within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, which has responsibilities over certain uses of property. Mr. Kinley said the zoning ordinance . has been amended to require a Conditional Use Permit for sport courts. Mr. Rose said he submitted his request before the ordinance went into effect. Members of the Council agreed to consider only the fence, since the paved area would not be of concern to either the Planning Commission or the City Council, if not surrounded by a fence. Mr. Rose displayed a plot plan and landscape plan for his property. He explained that the proposed improvement does not encroach into the 50' easement of Crest Road, since there is more than one acre of unim- proved land .in front of his house, which is located approximately in 00 the center of his two acre parcel. Mr. Rose said his property is O surrounded by mature trees from 30' - 100' high, and his adjoining r neighbors did not object to the request, and Mr. Richard Colyear, m 35 Crest Road West, had signed a consent for the file. Mr. Rose m said the largest property within 500' of his property is the school district.land, which has a -chain link fence closer to Crest Road Q than his proposed fence, and which also has sport courts located on it. The Zila property at 39 Crest Road West has paving in the major portion of the front yard,'which is visible from Crest Road, and the Webber property located at 2 Buggy Whip has a tennis court in the front yard, Mr. Rose said. An.addition to the residence will not require any variances,.Mr..Rose said, and additional landscaping will be added for increased privacy. A variance has already been approved for construction of a garage, he said. Mr'. Rose said he ..is requesting a variance for construction of a fence surrounding the proposed paved area so it can be used for recreation purposes which he can engage in using his wheelchair. He explained that an alternate area can not be :considered because of the necessity for a ramp to accommodate his,wheelchair, and he said.that he feels the needs of the owner should be considered. In conclusion Mr. Rose said the five car garage which has been approved will not accommo- date all of his vehicles, and an,overflow:.parking area will be needed, since he owns eight automobiles,,plus'"other recreation vehicles. Mayor Crocker asked that the record show that the case will be heard de novo, since new evidence has been submitted; i.e. proximity of the school district. :.The Mayor said four legal questions have been addressed: 1) Personal needs of the applicant; 2) Whether the Council and/or the Planning Commission has jurisdiction over the use of the.. proposed paved area, since the application was filed prior to the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit.for a sport court; 3) A statement in Paragraph V of the Findings and Report that "the approval of the variance would have the effect of granting to the subject pro- perty a special privilege----" and 4) The statement in Paragraph IV that "there are no residential lots on the northerly side of Crest Road on which there is an enclosed paved area extending into the front yard setback----". Mayor -Crocker asked Jody Murdock, Chairman of:the Planning Commission, to speak on the matter, and to answer questions.-. presented by 'Council members.* Councilman Heinsheimer.asked whether a request to fence an exist- ing°paved area would be considered in the same manner by the Planning Commission: Chairman Murdock said she was of the opinion that it would be treated the.same; however, she said the application filed by Mr. Rose was for a paved area surrounded by a fence, and the total appli- cation was considered and denied. Mrs. Murdock said that in consider- ing applications for variances within the City, especially on main thoroughfares and vistas, the Planning Commission is of the opinion that a request for an eight foot high fence in the front yard of a". property on -Crest Road should not be approved. -3- l 28 June 8, 1981 Mrs. Murdock said the zoning ordinances are exclusionary, and if something is not called out specifically in the ordinance it is not a permitted use. Further, Mrs. Murdock said the Planning Commission, considers the effects of request on all residents, not on one resident in particular. She said that at one point Mr. Rose was asked whether it would be acceptable to have a time limit imposed on an approval, to expire if he sold the property, and he said such a condition would not be acceptable to him. Councilman Heinsheimer said the.heart of , the matter is 'in Paragraph VIII of the Findings: "The Commission finds that the granting of the variance would be contrary to the public wel- fare of other property in the vicinity in that it would detract from the character and basic charm of property with frontage on Crest Road in the vicinity of the subject property." Councilman Heinsheimer said this does'not seem to limit the question to the matter of the fence; he mentioned the specific properties fronting on Crest Road West in the vicinity of the Rose property and asked Mrs. Murdock to address the impact on those properties.of an eight foot fence. Mrs. Murdock said that although the proposed fence might not be highly visible at this time, if in the future landscaping is removed, the permanent structure would remain and could adversely affect the surrounding properties. Councilman Heinsheimer suggested that a condition of approval could - require maintenance of existing or comparable landscaping. Mrs. Murdock said a variance has been requested, not a Conditional Use Permit., in which certain conditions.could be imposed. Councilwoman Swanson asked Chairman Murdock to comment on Para- graph IX: "The Commission finds that the topography and shape of the subject property, and the location of the improvements thereon does not require the location of the proposed improvements as shown on Exhibit A, and that there are other locations on the subject property where such an improvement could be located."- Mrs. Murdock -said -the-= parcel does have sufficient area for location of recreational facilities elsewhere; she said she does not have sufficient engineering knowledge-, to comment on Mr. Rose's statement that it would not be possible to. provide wheelchair access to another location.. Commissioner Bill'Field addressed the Council and said that in deliberations the Planning Commission always considers what can happen if properties change hands or if conditions change, and in looking to the future,.the Commission is particularly careful with regard to Crest Road. In response to Mr. Rose's statement that the largest property close to him has -sport courts, Commissioner Field said the. Planning Commission is very concerned about the future of t - he school district property, and will do everything possible to minimize the" - impact on the community. Commissioner Field explained that in con- sidering a request for a variance, the Planning Commission considers hardship in relation to topography of a property, not the physical or financial.hardship of the applicant, since the approval is attached to the land, not to the applicant. Mayor Crocker said he wished to comment for the record that in - his opinion the Planning Commission has done their best in a very .;. difficult matter, and he complimented the Commission on -an exemplary job in preparing the findings. Councilman Heinsheimer asked that all members of the Council , read ARTICLE VI, Section 6.03 of Ordinance No. 33: Required Showing for Variances, and he read the section into the record. Council- woman Swanson asked whether the Council should consider certain conditions of approval for a Conditional Use Permit as well as for A Variance., Mr. Kinley explained that the application was for a * Variance and the appeal has been filed on the denial of that Variance. Mayor Crocker asked Mr. Rose to make his final presentation, focusing on paragraphs A, B, and C in Section 6.03, covering the way he feels his position fits within the grounds for requesting a variance. ME June 8, 1981 mm Mr. Rose said Chairman Murdock had expressed the opinion that the Planning Commission would turn down a request for a fence alone; he said there is no basis for that, since the Commission did not consider .a fence alone. Mr. Rose asked that the Council not consider Mrs. Mur - dock's opinion about whether uses not called out in the ordinance are . or are not permitted uses. With regard to removing the improvement in the event that he sold the property, Mr. Rose said he would not be willing to remove the paved area because of the expense involved, but would be willing to compromise by reserving a right to the Council to require removal of the fence if the property changes ownership; he said he would also be willing to accept requirements requiring that the existing screening, or comparable screening be maintained to screen the fence, if approved. Mr. Rose said his neighbors cari use the sport courts on the school property, but on weekends.when he is at home the gate at the entrance to the property is locked, and he is unable to go down the stairs to the fields, as his neighbors are. Mr.. Rose then addressed paragraphs A, B and C in Section 6.03 of Ordinance No. 33, stating that the school district has a fence, fully visible, not screened,' oo closer to Crest Road than the fence requested by Mr. Rose would be. Mr. Rose said granting the variance would permit him to enjoy the 0 use of his property to the same extent his neighbors can enjoy their property, and he said the granting of the variance would not be mater - m ially detrimental, since maintenance of the existing or comparable m screening would eliminate an adverse impact on surrounding properties. Q Mr. Rose said he would be willing to a stipulation requiring screening. Asa further safeguard Mr. Rose said he would be willing to a stipu lation that the City Council could reserve the right to remove the fence when the house is sold, providing it finds at that time that it:has a detrimental impact on the neighbors. Mr. Rose said he is proposing the two conditions. to resolve the matter. Councilwoman Swanson asked if it would be removed "providing that"; Mr. Rose said it,would not be appropriate to arbitrarily rip it out unless there is a finding at that time that it is detrimental. Councilman Pernell asked whether the Council could accept those conditions if.the variance is granted. Mr. Kinley said the Council is hearing the matter de novo and can do as they please. Councilman Pernell said he wished to discuss consideration of property exclusive of ownership, and he said he was pleased to hear the offers Mr. Rose made with regard to stipulations he would accept. Councilman Pernell asked Mr. Rose to state whether, in the event a disabled person purchased vacant property, he thought the owner should be able to install a device such as an elevator, which would be highly visible, as an aid to developing the property. Mr. Rose answered affirmatively. Planning Commissioner Ken Watts said the Planning Commission had another case before it at the same time Mr. Rose's application was being considered; the other request was for a tennis court in .the front yard of a property.on Crest Road West. At the request of the Planning Commission, the tennis court was moved to a location in the rear.yard which did not require a variance. Dir. Watts said an effort is made to comply with the ordinances by changing the proposed location, if possible, rather than grant a variance. Commissioner Watts said the Commission is concerned about the future, and although Mr.. Rose wishes to maintain privacy on his property, a future owner may wish to have the existing trees removed. Commissioner Allan Roberts said the Planning Commission is acting under the direction of the Council, and attempts to act in accordance with the wishes of -the Counci. In certain circumstances tennis courts have'been approved, with conditions for landscaping approved, but Commissioner Roberts said that has been in other areas on a property which will accommodate a tennis court, not in the front yard. Mr. Rose said he is familiar with the requirements for ramps for access, and there is no way he can get to other parts of his property for the use he wishes. Even if a sport court can be devel- oped in another area, it could not be combined with an overflow parking area, as he wishes, he said. Mr. Rose said that many residents of the City with smaller parcels enjoy their properties more than he can. In closing, he asked that the Council accept his conditions, so that the MIM 3® 1 June 8, 198¢ fence can be removed at minimum expense if it ever becomes necessary, and to condition the installation on maintenance of the existing or similar screening so there would be no impact on neighboring properties, and to agree that the City Council, upon finding that there is an adverse impact after the property is sold, can require that the fence be removed, retaining its jurisdiction. Mr. Rose said he has requested the City Attorney to look into changing the ordinances to accommodate, the needs of residents in the future.. Councilman Pernell said he considers the ordinances, as they now stand, are beneficial to the community; he also thinks the special circumstances of residents should be taken into account, but that should not necessarily run with the property. Mr. Rose said a landscape plan has been developed for the property. Mayor Crocker thereafter closed the hearing and invited discussion by the Council. Mr. Kinley advised that the City has no jurisdiction over the' school property with regard to a fence or improvements on the property. In discussing the matter, Mayor Crocker said that granting a variance subject to removability opens an important issue, since it would be difficult to enforce, and everyone who requested a variance would be willing to compromise with regard .to offers of removability. Councilman Heinsheimer suggested that consideration be given to a' policy on removability of improvements that have to do with peoples' specific circumstances. Mayor Crocker said he would be more concerned about enforcing removability of a fence surrounding a tennis court or a paddle tennis court. Councilman Heinsheimer said a document would have to be developed which would make the requirement enforceable. Councilwoman Swanson said she felt the -Planning Commission had acted professionally in dealing with the issue before them based on' information submitted, and she was sorry to hear Mr. Rose's harsh words directed against the Commission. In the event the Council grants Mr. Rose's request, Councilwoman Swanson said some safeguards should be built in which would serve the needs of Mr. Rose and his family without establishing a precedent, and she said she would be" willing to vote for approval of a court with a fence around it, to serve as'a parking area, subject to -legal :measures requiring removal of the fence before escrow closes,,if the property is sold. Councilman Heinsheimer moved that Councilwoman Swanson's proposal be considered a reasonable compromise and that the -findings and documentation be developed by the attorney and the applicant for final action at the next meeting. Mr. Kinley said the Council should decide exactly what they want, and put a covenant on the .land. '.Mayor Crocker said he thinks the fence should be removed before the property is sold. Councilman Heinsheimer said the proposal was that as long as the property is owned by the present owner, and as long as -it is appropriately landscaped, the fence would stay up; when the property changes hands the fence would be removed without the need of any further action by the City. Mr. Kinley said the only way to protect the City is to put a covenant on the land to the effect that when the property is sold, the seller has the burden of removing the fence.. Mayor Crocker said the only way to enforce the condition is through a bond. Mr. Rose said he i s not willing to put up a bond. Councilman Heinsheimer's motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Heinsheimer moved that the Council find that the requirements of Paragraphs A, B and C in Section 6.03 have been demonstrated by the applicant, and that an agreement can be reached whereby the fence in question would be perpetually landscaped, and that Legal Counsel could draw up appropriate documents to see to it that the fence was removed without any further findings by the Council prior to the sale of the property by Mr. Rose, and that under those. conditions the variance be approved. Councilwoman Swanson seconded the motion. Mayor Crocker said there should be a remedy to recommend to the Council to make the requirements enforceable, stating that litiga- tion could hold up compliance with the requirements for years. Councilman Heinsheimer said Counsel has stated that a covenant could be prepared. Mayor Crocker said the title could be clouded to pre- vent conveyance of title or new financing without coming to the we 31 June 8, 1989 Council. Mr. Kinley said a covenant could put a burden on the property requiring removal of the fence, which would be effective. Councilman Heinsheimer asked whether the variance could be approved subject to preparation of documentation by Counsel of an appropriate way of enforcing the covenant. Mr. Rose said he is willing to do the following: agree.to keep the screening in place, or appropriate similar screening; have the fence installed so that it is, in essence, removable, by putting it .in sleeves, rather than sinking it solidly into cement; and to agree that the City Council can reach a determination, at the time he sells the property, that the fence should be removed. Mr. Rose.said he would not accept an absolute condition on removal of the fence, but would wish a vote of .the Council requiring removal. Councilman Pernell said he would prefer an act on the part of the new owner which would allow the Council to provide him with the privilege of keeping the fence. Councilman Heinsheimer said the final remedy contained in his motion was that the Council, without making any findings, could vote to have the fence removed when there is a oo transfer of ownership, without any particular criteria. Mr. Rose O said he would approve that, preserving' -,therein the right of entry. Councilman Pernell said that removal of the fence should take a positive act on the part of the Council. Councilwoman Swanson asked m what legal remedies the Council has to prevent the close of escrow M on the property. Mr. Kinley said only a legal document that goes Q of record and becomes a lien on the property; he.explained that the_ buyer might choose to assume the lien. Mayor Crocker said the Council appears willing to make.a�.concession to Mr. Rose because of his special circumstances, and he said the Council should make sure that the grant is not perpetuated for the next owner. Councilman Pernell suggested that the City Attorney be asked to research the means by which the remedy can be enforced. Mr.. Rose suggested that the Council require renewal of the approval at the time of opening of escrow; Mr. Kinley said that would not.be effective if the pro-. perty changed hands without opening an escrow. Mayor Crocker summarized the position of the Council by saying that the majority favors making a special concession because of Mr. Rose's disability, but that the Council assumes that there will'be a remedy for removal of the fence; three members of.the Council want mandatory removal, two members think the fence should be removed if the Council wishes to do so.when the property changes ownership. The Mayor said it should be enforceable without litigation, and he said Mr. Rose should work with the City Attorney and present a remedy which will work. Councilwoman Swanson said.that any costs incurred in working with the City Attorney to provide the requested document should be paid by;the:applicant ,:Mr. Rose said he would not accept that requirement. Further, he asked that the document be drawn by an attorney other than Mr. Kinley, since Mr. Kinley is the attorney for the Community Association and the Planning Commission. Mr. Kinley and the Council concurred with the request. Councilman Heinsheimer restated his motion that the variance be granted, subject to an appropriate document developed by the applicant and:counsel,.concernirig landscaping.requirements.and con- ditions for ultimate removal of the fence., without the need for. further review -by the Council. The motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Crocker moved that the proposal be approved in principle, subject to the Council's reviewing -:.it and being satisfied that the remedy does exist to make sure that it is enforced. Mr. Rose said for the record that he would not accept any requirement for bonding, or anything that would cloud the title to the property. Councilwoman Swanson seconded the motion, which was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Pernell, Swanson, Mayor Crocker None None Councilman Rose WE 32 June 8, 1981 KLONDIKE CANYON SLIDE 1242 The City Manager reported that Phase II Supplemental Program of the Geologic Report on the Active Flying Triangle Landslide has been received and was distributed to residents in the Flying Triangle. Copies of the blueprints were provided to all residents in the active slide area, and can be made available to anyone who requests them at a minimal cost. Copies -of a letter dated May 13, the Flood Control District., requesting from the opening of the pipe on Line C Bend Road, and installation of a debri ted to the Council. In a letter dated trict advised that the request will be storm season. 1981 from the City Manager.to removal of horizontal.. bars on the east side of Portuguese s rack .instead, were distribu May 22 the Flood Control Dis.- fulfilled prior to the 1981-82 6 The Manager reported that Mr. Ronald Dessy, 4 Pinto Road, has expressed concern to the Board of Directors that loose soil and debris left in Klondike Canyon by geology testing will cause clog- ging of the drain on his property when rains wash down through the canyon to his drain. Mrs. Clifton said the loose material which is the result of digging in the canyon will be removed. Mayor Crocker asked that the minutes reflect that the soil which -will be removed -is tailing from the exploratory digging and no soil will be removed which could undermine the stability of the canyon. In a letter dated June 2, 1981 -Dr. Richard -Hoffman, 73 Portu- guese Bend Road, requested any information which the city might be able to supply pertaining to the feasibility and implementation of a sewer system for the Flying Triangle. Mayor Crocker said the residents of the Flying Triangle would have to form a district in order to implement the recommendation of the County Geologist that a sewer system be installed in the Flying Triangle area of the City. The Manager said she is working on the matter and will provide cost information to the Council, with a recommendation. Mrs. Clifton said she has obtained maps which show the trunk sewer lines which - surround the City of Rolling Hills, and has discussed the matter with representatives of Rancho Palos Verdes about tying into an existing line. Councilmen Heinsheimer and Pernell suggested that the Council representative to the Sanitati64. District consult .with_,the .- district. Councilman Rose said on-site treatment should be considered. RESOLUTION NO. 470 Mayor Crocker said the County Engineer requested that the Council adopt a resolution by which the sewer system in the Chacksfield-Merit subdivision, Tract 33871, would be included in a sewer maintenance district. Councilwoman Swanson moved that Resolution No. 470 entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING CONSENT AND JURISDICTION TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FOR THE INCLU- SION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS WITHIN A COUNTY SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT be adopted and that reading in full be waived. The motion was seconded by Councilman Heinsheimer and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Pernell, Rose, Swanson Mayor Crocker NOES: None ABSENT: None The Mayor asked that the tract number be inserted in the title of the resolution for identification. sm 1� 33 June 8, 1981 PALOS VERDES RECYCLE CENTER A letter from the Palos Verdes Recycle Center, advising that .the Los Angeles County Sanitation District will close the Palos Verdes Landfill by September 30 and anticipates closing the Recycle Center, was presented to the Council' The Committee requested that the Council write a letter to the Board of -Supervisors or the Sani- tation District asking -.that -the recycle center be included in plans for the landfill area, and that it be moved away from residences and modernized. With the concurrence of the Council, Mayor Crocker asked that a letterofsupport be written. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, A letter dated May 14, 1981 from the South Coast Air Quality Management District was presented to the Council, advising that Senate Bill33 on annual motor vehicle inspection and maintenance was heard by the Senate Finance Committee, and asking that the City 00 support SB -33 in a letter to the Finance Committee Chairman. 0 Councilman Heinsheimer said that since the hearing was already T-4 held, he would ask that the Council support the bill in the future. CD The Mayor so ordered. co < SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. REQUEST.FOR RESOLUTION --.1374. . A request by Southern California Edison Company for a resolution by the Council, in support of legislation removing the restrictions and prohibitions on the use of natural gas in utility powerplants, was presented to the Council. Councilman Heinsheimer reported that the purpose of the request is from the air quality standpoint be- cause of the improvement when natural gas is burned rather than oil. Mayor Crocker asked Councilman Heinsheimer to make a recommendation to the Council in the matter. TRAFFIC COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 1385 The recommendations of the Traffic Commission as contained in the minutes of the meetings on May 5 and May 19 were presented to the Council. The recommendation by Traffic Commission Chairman Swanson that the Traffic Ordinance No. 116 be amended to eliminate the City Attor- ney from the Traffic Commission was approved by the Council and Mr. Kinley was asked to prepare the appropriate amendment to. the ordinance. Recommendations for traffic safety including installation of advisory signs, a reflective stripe and paddles with reflectors at the curve near #71:Saddleback Road. clearing of easement for parking on Wide Loop Road and clearing of easements for parking and instal- lation o . f advisory signs on Quail Ridge Road South were approved by unanimous -vote of the Counci. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE:,JOGGERS, 1409 The City Attorney presented a proposed ordinance prepared at the request of the Council in response to numerous complaints about joggers. Councilman Heinsheimer moved that the proposed ordinance, titled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 116 ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, REGULATING TRAFFIC WITHIN SAID CITY AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NOS.,l AND 16 AND ALL OTHER ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH" be introduced, and that -reading in full be waived. The motion was seconded by Mayor'Crocker and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Pernell, Rose, Swanson Mayor Crocker NOES: None ABSENT: None 34 June 8, 1981. Councilwoman Swanson said that at a recent neighborhood meeting the problem of joggers was discussed and residents were pleased to hear that under the new ordinance joggers would be required to run in single file as close as possible to the jogger's left-hand edge of the road. CLAIMS AGAINS PUBLIC ENTITY The City Attorney reported that additional claims have been filed as follows:. Dr. and Richard Hoffman $13,000,000 Dr. and Mrs. Donald Borden, 1,400,000 Howard Slusher 1,200,000 and that the claim filed by Robert and Ruth Shifman has been amended. Mr. Kinley recommended that the claims and the amendment to the claim be denied. Councilman Rose moved that the claims filed by Dr. and Mrs. Hoffman, Dr. and Mrs. Donald Borden, Howard 5.... Slusher, and the amendment to the claim filed by. Robert and Ruth Shifman be denied. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pernell and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Pernell, Rose, Swanson Mayor Crocker NOES: None ABSENT: None WEED ABATEMENT COMPLIANCE 1475 Mayor Crocker asked the Manager to report on compliance by residents with the Weed Abatement ordinance. -Mrs.-Clifton said notices have been sent to residents and inspections are being made. REQUEST FOR LETTER, W. D, KING The Mayor reported that Mr. William D. King, 92 Crest Road East, wrote to him on June 5 and forwarded a copy of his letter dated May 22, 1981 to the Army Corps of Engineers requesting that Advanced Electronics be permitted to relocate their antenna struc- ture from within the City of Rolling Hills to another site on San Pedro Hill, with a -request that the City Council support him in his effort to have the structure relocated. Mr. Kinley advised the Council that Advanced Electronics has filed an action against the Rolling Hills Community Association to condemn a portion of the Crest Road easement to acquire title to that property for the purposes of operating that public utility. Mayor Crocker was authorized to write a letter to the Army supporting Mr. King's request that the antenna structure be re- located to San Pedro Hill. EXPANDED POSTAL SERVICE ON-PALOS VERDES PENINSULA 1504 In a memo to the Council dated June 3, 1981 the Manager advised that an effort is being made to find a location for a new postal facility on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Mrs. Clifton said she would be meeting with the Peninsula City Managers to discuss possible loca tions for a new facility, and would keep the Council informed. RESOLUTION - REVENUE SHARING PURPOSES 1512 The Manager reported that prior to passage of Proposition 13 cities were permitted to take tax effort credit for revenue sharing -10- 35 June 8, 1981 purposes for the tax rates of the library and fire districts, and in order to allow the City to take credit for revenue sharing purposes the portion of the monies paid by Rolling Hills residents for library and fire district, a resolution must be passed prior to September 1. The Mayor directed the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate resolution. EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS 1524 Councilman Pernell requested that a discussion of Earthquake Preparedness -be placed on an agenda for discussion in the near future. The Mayor so ordered. LOMITA SHERIFF STATION The Manager reported that Captain Ed Douglas, commanding officer of the Sheriff's Lomita Station has retired. Councilman Rose suggested that a -letter be sent to Captain Douglas, and that a letter be sent. CO recommending that Lt. Walt Thurner be considered for the position of 0 commanding officer of Lomita Station. PERSONNEL SESSION m m Mayor Crocker adjourned the meeting to a personnel session at Q 10:45 P.M: The meeting was reconvened and the Mayor announced that 'Mr. Pat Coughlan of the firm of Richards, Watson, Dreyfuss &_Gershon has been hired as City Attorney,* effective July 1, 1981. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Crocker. APPROVED: Mayor -11- City Clerk I