8/23/1982N2 MINUTES OF A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
August 23, 1982
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 r:iayor Pernell at 7:30 P.M. Monday,
August 23, 1982.
ROLL CALL 5
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock
Mayor Pernell
Councilwoman Swanson
Ronald L. Smith
Michael Jenkins
L. D. Courtright
Merelyn Anderson
William Reichert
She Silverman
Elizabeth White
Clark Leonard
Doug McHattie
William Smiland
James Collis
Dr. R.. Black
J. Davidson
Mr.& Mrs. E. Doak
Mr..& Mrs. C. E. Gregory
G. Hansen
Dr.& Mrs. R. Hoffman
D. Kuhne
W. Lester
B. Munroe
Mr.& Mrs.. W. Peters
Becky Raine
.B '
. Raine
S.: Shultz..
C. Spellberg
M. Wagner
D. Williams
Leah Jeffries
Randy Woods
City Manager
City Attorney
City Treasurer
Intermediate Stenographer
Attorney
Attorney
Attorney
Engineer
Engineer
Attorney
Property Owner
Resident
Observer
Palos Verdes News
Court Reporter
The minutes of the meeting of August 93, 1982 were approved and
accepted as corrected on a motion made by Councilwoman Murdock,
seconded by Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh, and carried by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Leeuwenburgh, Heinsheimer, Murdock
Mayor Pernell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilwoman Swanson
PAYMENT OF BILLS: 34
Councilman Heinsheimer moved that Demands No. 10627 through 10655
in the amount of ,$,70,328.63 be approved for payment from the General Fund
with the exception of Demand Nos. 10629, 10647, and 10652, which are void,
and that Demand No. 10644 in the amount of $1,014.50 be approved for
payment from the Fire and Flood Self Insurance Fund. The motion was
seconded by Councilwoman Murdock and carried by the following roll call
vote:
�J
August 23, 1982 243
AYES: Councilmembers Leeuwenburgh, Heinsheimer, Murdock
Mayor Pernell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilwoman Swanson
RESOLUTION NO. 493 114
Councilman Heinsheimer moved that Resolution No. 493. entitled
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTABLISH-
ING FEES FOR FILING TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAPS be adopted, and that read-
ing in full be waived. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Murdock
and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock
Mayor Pernell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilwoman Swanson
RESOLUTION NO. 494
Councilwoman Murdock moved that Resolution No.. 494 entitled A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING FEES FOR
VARIANCES, ZONE CHANGES, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND APPEALS IN THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS be adopted, and that reading in full be waived.
The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh,and carried by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock
Mayor Pernell
NOES: None
ASBENT: Councilwoman.Swanson
RESOLUTION NO. 495
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh moved that Resolution No. 495 entitled
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY•OF ROLLING HILLS ESTAB-
LISHING FEES FOR DOG REGISTRATION AND OTHER -RELATED CHARGES be adopted
and that reading in full be waived. The motion was seconded by Council-
woman Murdock and carried.by.the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer,Leeuwenburgh, Murdock
Mayor Pernell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilwoman Swanson
RESOLUTION NO. 496;.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh moved that Resolution No. 496 entitled
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS -ESTAB-
LISHING FEES COLLECTIBLE AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING, PLUMBING,.
MECHANICAL, AND ELECTRICAL PERMITS be adopted and that reading in full
be waived. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Murdock and carried
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer; Leeuwenburgh,. Murdock
Mayor Pernell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilwoman Swanson
RESOLUTION NO. 498
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh moved that Resolution No. 498 entitled
-2-
N4
August 231, 1982
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROVIDING
REVENUE SHARING CREDIT FOR FIRE PROTECTION TAXES PAID BY CITY PROPERTY
OWNERS be adopted and that reading in full be waived. The motion was
seconded by Councilwoman Murdock and carried by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock
Mayor Pernell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilwoman Swanson
ORDINANCE NO. 194
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh moved that Ordinance No. 194 entitled
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING THE BUILDING.CODE
RELATIVE TO FIRE RETARDANT ROOFING AND REROOFING SQUARE FOOTAGE RE-
QUIREMENTS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE BUILDING AND PLUMBING CODES RELATIVE
TO EXPIRATION PERIODS, SECURITY HARDWARE AND SOLAR POTABLE WATER
HEATING SYSTEMS be adopted and that reading -in full be waived.. The
motion was seconded by Councilwoman Murdock and carried by the follow-
ing roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock
Mayor. Pernell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilwoman Swanson
INTRODUCTION OF GUEST
Mayor Pernell introduced Leah Jeffries, deputy from Supervisor
Deane Dana's office, and welcomed her to the meeting.
FLYING TRIANGLE UPDATE 240
The Manager listed three areas for discussion regarding the Flying
Triangle: a low-pressure sewer study; geologic developments pertaining
to the roadway; and the public nuisance at 56 Portuguese Bend Road
pertaining to sewage effluent. With reference to the low-pressure sewer
study, he stated it is currently undergoing a review by the Sanitation
District, as well as Lowry & Associates which prepared the preliminary
report. He stated there have been concerns discussed previously with
the Council, the sulfide aeration system, not meeting County Sanitation
standards, as well as the problems specifically dealing.with the siphon
across Klondike Canyon. These problems are still undergoing review, he
said, but everyone feels confident that some type of system can be
forthcoming from the.study.
Dealing with the geologic development in the Flying Triangle area
the Manager referred to a letter dated June 15, 1982 from Cotton &
Associates, regarding a concern pertaining to the safety of the roadway.
He said the City has asked Dr. Ehlig, geology consultant, and the County
geologists, to review the request. He said Dr. Ehlig's letter of July
12, 1982 indicates he does not feel this is a major problem and also
has indicated several other parameters established, particularly per-
taining to rainfall and readings pertaining to movement.. Also supbl•ied
to the Council was a letter dated August 19, 1982 from Mr. Keene, Count -
geologist which indicates there is some disagreement between the letter
of Mr. Cotton and what the County geologists feel, based about buttres-
sing and movement, he said, and that it would appear at this point there
still needs to be further discussion between the geologists, and a plan
that reviewing geologists can react to for stabilizing the area, and
concern if the safety factor of 1.5 can be arrived at.
With reference to the public nuisance, the Manager referred to an oral
report from Mr. Thomas, County geologist, which indicated that the
property at 56 Portuguese Bend Road was on leach lines which are
creating effluent into the slide mass and could create instability
problems, and requested that the leach lines be sealed and that an
on-site holding tank be placed. At that time the property owner appeared
-3-
August 23, 1982
245
before the Council, in July, and requested a written correspondence
from the County geologist, which has been received and forwarded to
the property owner, along with requests for compliance and elimination
of any leakage or leach lines from the area and that a holding tank be
established.
Mrs. Virginia Doak, 56 Portuguese Bend Road, said she appeared
before the Council on July 12 and asked fora study or something in
writing from Mr. Thomas, County geologist, stating why it is necessary
for them to go to a holding.tank, and that subsequently on August 16
she received communication from Mr. Smith, with an attachment dated
July 9 from Mr. Keene, the substance of which she did not understand.
She quoted from the July 9 communication from Mr. Keene which stated:
"Stabilization of the active Flying Triangle Landslide cannot be achieved
by merely curtailing the Doak's sewage effluent or any other sewage
effluent entering the active landslide boundaries." and "We. still
recommend that the Doak's on-site sewage system should be abandoned",
and said she assumes it is a recommendation and not a mandate, and
pointed out that this July 9 communication was not an answer to her
July 12 statement. Councilman Heinsheimer said it was an answer to the
City's.letter of July 7, and that all the studies indicate that a.great
00 cause of the problem is underground water from all sources,, and anything
O that could be done to stop the.percolation of water down deep is
important, b.ut.that no one thought that by doing that it would get to
m a stabilization factor of 1.5, although there would be ..a chance of
stopping the motion. Mrs..Doak said she felt the communications were
m
ambiguous and expressed concern that they had not been sent to their
Q counsel, as in the past. She said she received the letters on August
17, which permitted them very few days to review the matter;.:contact .
their counsel.for his review of the situation and appearance at the
Council meeting August 23, which he was unable to do. She said when
she contacted the City Manager about his meaning of "completed in an
expeditious manner", he told her a matter of three or four days.. -She
said that was completely unacceptable to-them"since they plan to leave
on vacation Thursday morning. The Mayor directed staff to contact their
counsel regarding the matter.. Councilwoman Murdock asked if any of the
other properties had been inspected, such as the Barth's and Kelly's,
and referred to the inspection hours the Council had allocated for this
type of activity. She said Mrs. Doak has a very valid point in that
instead of picking them one at a time, if.the Council has an opinion
that there should be concerns, they should treat them all as quickly
as possible. The Manager said there are monitoring inspections that
are ongoing now on the Doak's'property and the Evan's property. 'He
said he had received phone calls that dealt with expanding the holding
tanks to all of the sites in the area, as far.up as Crest Road, and if
the Council wishes .to do so, they could proceed in that direction. The
Mayor recommended that matter be discussed with counsel.
Dr. Richard Hoffman, 73 Portuguese Bend Road, discussed the signif-
icant change in focus from one year ago when the scope of the slide was
not known and seemingly no practical solution.availab_le. Now it is known
that the slide involves ten acres of the 169 acres in the Flying Triangle,
with four homes involved, and involves a critical portion of the road
that is the access to most of the other homes in the area. He referred
to Mr. Cotton's letter, and quoted from Dr. Ehlig's letter of July 12,
1982: "In conclusion, I do not regard a major road failure as something
which is likely to. occur prior .to the next rainy season. It is a
distinct possibility if the next rainy season is unusually wet. -Of
course the greatest'danger is to the homes within the landslide.. The
longer the slide moves the more expensive and difficult it will be to
restore the homes to a satisfactory condition. For these and many other
reasons it would be highly desirable to stablilize the landslide.at-the
earliest possible time." Dr. Hoffman said Mr. Cotton's letter says the
road is going to fail. Dr. Hoffman stated that it has been determined
in the last year that the slide is definitely stoppable, both according
to the City consultant, Dr. Ehlig, and also according to the geologist
the homeowners have hired, an independent consultant. Both of them have
come up with a plan which is almost identical to each other., independently,
they both are extremely optimistic.that this will stop the slide. He said
he has just received a preliminary detailed control plan, at a cost of
$25,000, which was funded by the homeowners in the Flying Triangle,
which Dr. Ehlig will be reviewing very shortly prior to the final draft
which will then be put up to bid to get a figure of what it will cost.
M
August 23, 1982
He said from all expectations, this will not be a multi-million dollar
bid. In terms of paying for it, he said he is.aware of the sentiment of
the community and therefore alternate financing methods need to be ex-
plored, and that the entire process ahead would be significantly aided
by the cooperation of the Council, the County geologists, and the City
Manager. The Mayor asked if the Manager had seen the plan, and he said
he had reviewed it with Dr. Hoffman, and it will be held until Dr. Ehlig
reviews it. The Mayor said that as soon as the Council could see a
route, that no one had been able to paint the picture clearly enough.
with direction and parameters of cost and involvement to be able to act
upon, he promised the cooperation from the Council. Councilman Heinshei
said he would be very skeptical of a man who said the road was going.to
fail and that filling the canyon is a low-risk and very safe thing to d
Dr. Hoffman said filling the canyon will not stop the slide, but unloads
the top is what will stop the slide, according to Mr. Cotton. Council-
woman Leeuwenburgh quoted from Mr. Cotton's June -15 letter: "the segments
of the road that are presently experiencing distress will fail completely
if no remedial action is taken." Dr. Hoffman pointed out that that letter
was requested by the Rolling Hills Community Association from Mr. Cotton.
The last paragraph of Dr. Ehlig's letter, regarding rainy season, was
discussed. The Manager quoted Mr. Keene's letter of August 18, 1982: "I
do not foresee a disastrous disruption of roadway access. To cause such
a destruction of the road, a rainfall intensity greater than that exper-
ienced in 1978 and 1980, consecutively, would have to occur. This is-.
very unlikely based on past rainfall records. The last rainfall of
this magnitude occurred in the 18801s. Continued movement may occur
this winter, but it would not, in my opinion, constitute a disastrous
disruption of access to the homes in the area." The Mayor stated he
had the same intuitive feeling that it is somewhat gloom and doom
mongering to make that kind of prediction.
OPEN AGENDA: 587
Mr. Bill Stromberg, contractor, presented a letter of complaint
he had received from the Department of Consumer Affairs stating that
a complaint against his contractors license was filed by the City of
Rolling Hills. Mr. Stromberg said he has now made all the corrections
he was told to do. The Manager said'it does not require Council action,
that the complaint was filed with the State Contractors' Licensing
Board and it will be up to that agency to determine the disposition of
the particular case. He said all permits have been attained and signed
off at this point, but they were obtained in arrears, with work being
done while the Commission was holding hearings, and that issue will also
be addressed by the Contractors' Licensing Board.
PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 33871 625
The Mayor opened the public hearing of Tentative Tract 33871; eight
lots on twenty acres located between Crenshaw Boulevard and Johns Canyon
Road on a plateau generally 200 feet northerly of Chestnut Lane. The
City Manager described Tentative Tract Map 33871, which is.a request
to subdivide some twenty acres of vacant land into eight lots in the
RAS -2 acre zoning district. Council has received in compliance with
the California Subdivision Map Act a report, filed with the Council last
week, and entails an outline of what the proposal is, usage of surround-
ing properties, as well as an elaboration of the content of the City
General Plan as it applies to this particular property. The General
Plan map calls for the area to be Rural -Suburban, the proposal complies
with that, since it is in compliance with the zoning ordinance. Also
we have outlined the staff report, the content of the Noise Element of
the adopted General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills, it denotes.a not rai
decibel reading of 43-55 range appearing in our residential areas in
Rolling Hills. He said the Council has also received a professionally
prepared report which indicates specific noise readings in this area of
the city. The particular section of the report denotes a public Seismic
and Safety Element to the General Plan, which requires
the submission of a geology report which has also been done. He said
he had also outlined for the Council a notification of Public Hearing
that has transpired for the meeting's proceedings, and done in com-
pliance with Section 66451.3 of what is referred to as the Subdivision
Map Act to the Government Code. Ile said he also outlined a series of
documents which have been available at City Hall for review by any
member of the public as well as the Council.
-5-
August 23, 1982
247
The Manager said that basically this proposal comes down to taking
a raw piece of land and dividing it into usable residential sites. In
order to do that in the State of California you must process a tentative
tract map. Before that tract map may be approved the Council. acting as
a legislative body must receive a series of reports. One of those is
from -,.the advisory agency, the Planning Commission. That agency relies
upon the input of a series of other agencies., being engineering depart- .:
ment, building department, planning department, and several other agencies
which in the City of Rolling Hills are all County agencies acting on our
behalf. They compile a report and send it to the advisory agency or the
Planning Commission, and then it comes to the Council.. Prior to the
Council enacting the map itself or approving it, specific findings have
to be made. Those findings emanate from Section 66474 of the Government
Code of the State of California. The entire proceedings this evening
center around those seven findings, or findings of fact, evidence to
.sustain the particular.proposal before the Council. He described the,
findings as follows
In State law they are written i .-.the negative. That doesn't say is
it inconsistent, it says if the map is not consistent.with applicable
general and specific plans then it must be denied. The first two
Co findings center upon the proposed map and the.design.of the improvement.
Oas they relate to the General Plan. So as we conduct this evening's
proceedings we need to look at the. General Plan of the city and
T-1 determine if the map is not consistent with that plan. We can do that
CO in a variety of ways; he said,* We can look at the decibel readings
in the Noise Element which talks about 43-55 being acceptable noise
Q ranges; we can do that by looking at the density provisions on.our
map that follows Page 11 in the text of the General Plan; that calls
for Rural -Suburban one and two acre sites, by then comparing those
against the proposal to see if it is not consistent. That can be done
through evidence.that is entered into the record.. We can also look at.
the overall physical layout of the site, you have a, geology report, you
can compare that against the Seismic Safety Element which requires
such a report and arrive at actual - factual basis for making the findings.
Referring to the third and fourth findings out of the Government
Code, he said they' deal with the site not being physically -.suited for the
type of development or the site not being physically suitable for the
proposed density of the development. The keys there are the type of
development which is single-family residential, and density of devel-
opment which gets into the number of lots. When you begin to analyze
the.basic mathematics, the number of lots proposed consistent with
zoning,.style of development, type of development consistent with the
. area: In this instance we have single-family residential development
in the surrounding area.
The fifth finding is the design of the subdivision and.its proposed
improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife. If that finding
can be made; under. State law the map is mandated to be denied. The key
word there is substantial.. We must look at the evidence as it is entered
into the record whether that is sustained or not. He drew to the.
Council's attention that they had before them a Negative Declaration for
Environmental Review which was previously prepared and recorded with the
County Recorder to sustain onto help.you evaluate evidence as it comes
into the record.
The sixth findings he said deals with the design of the subdivision
or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health
problems. If we find there are serious public health problems from this
particular division of land, it must be denied. The key here is serious
public health problems. We again must look at particular evidence
entered into the record. You have memoranda from the County Road..
Department that talk about particular access into the sites. They have
looked at two in particular, and in their latest memorandum they indicate
a preference for one particular site and they also indicate that the
other is not unacceptable. So you have to look at the words "not
.acceptable" and determine whether or not they are serious public health
consequences. Also the noise report would be referenced here to deter-
mine if there is a serious public health problem. You have a professional
engineer, certified through his registration in the State of California,
that he is qualified to take noise readings, he's taken them, submitted
them in raw numbers to the Council, weighted them on various scales, and
-6-
August 23, 1982
you need to compare that back to our adopted Noise Element, which is the
constitution of the City of Rolling Hills as we use it for development
purposes.
The final finding he said deals with the type of improvements which.
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. We do have
an approval for public sewers across the site which will serve all of
the proposed lots, and all of the roadway and equestrian trails will be
private and not publicly owned. The Manager asked that those entering
testimony to address themselves to the findings.
City Attorney Michael Jenkins stated that this matter has been
before the City Council a number of times previously, most recently in
October and November,*1980. The approval of the subdivision map at that
time was challenged by way of a Writ of Mandamus in the Superior Court
and the outcome of that litigation was a decision by Judge Gorenfe-ld
of the Superior Court to the effect that the City Council's reliance
on what is known as the 2/3 rule of the Community Association ,was
improper, and that in this particular instance the so-called 2/3 rule
would not apply, could not.apply, and should not have been taken into
consideration in the consideration of this map. The City at this point
is bound by that determination and'the judge has remanded the map back
to the City for reconsideration in light of his decision. The court
is obliged under the California law not to make a decision and not to
exercise legislative prerogative in recognition of the separations of
powers, he is simply empowered to make a determination of whether the
findings and the decision of the City Council was supported by sub-
stantial evidence, in this case the court determined that an improper
finding was made and has remanded it back for the City Council to once
again exercise legislative power vested in it by the laws of the State
of California. As a result, the City Council is empowered tonight to
consider the subdivision map pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act set.
forth in the Government Code, the City's own subdivision ordinance,
and any other applicable laws and ordinances. The City Council may
not take into consideration the 2/3 rule of the Community Association.
The City Attorney said there is a requirement of the Community Assoc-
iation in certain instances that 2/3 of the owners adjacent to a
proposed subdivision approve of the subdivision prior to the Community
Association's approval. There had been some discussion in previous times
when this map was before the Council that that rule would be invoked
by a property owner adjacent to this subdivision and that that property
owner, being the owner of 2/3 of.the property adjacent to the subdivisign,
would exercise a "veto", that is not give his consent to subdivision and
therefore not let it go through should the subdivision be approved with
what is known as the northerly access, an access road that would lead to
and serve the subdivision. There was some indication in the record of
the proceedings before the City Council that this property owner would
not in fact approve the subdivision with that northerly access and the
court in his opinion indicated his view of the record that were it not
for the existance.of this 2/3 veto, and were it not for the fact that
the property owner was considering exercising this veto, that the Council
might not have chosen the access route that it chose. The judge ruled
that this 2/3 veto was invalid as it applied in this instance and should.
not have been considered, and the Council should not have taken into
consideration that 2/3 vote in determining which access way to choose for.
the subdivision. The outcome of this is that tonight as the Council
reconsiders the map, it must be considered in light of the criteria set
forth in the city's subdivision ordinance, subdivision map act, and in
other applicable ordinances as have been discussed by Mr. Smith. The .
City may not take into consideration -the existance of the 2/3 rule
and is specifically informed that JudgeGorenfeld , has ruled that that
rule is invalid in this instance and that the decision of the Council
should not in any. way be dependent upon its existence.' The findings
set forth in the staff report indicate the findings that have to be
made bj Council in the negative following the hearing of evidence and
testimony on this map. If those findings are capable of being.made,
based on the evidence, the map may be approved as submitted. If the
findings are unable to be made, the map should be amended or denied. To
clarify, he said the subdivider has presented a map showing an accessway.
The Mayor stated the Council is consloering the map and applying the
criteria to it.
-7-
August 23, 1982 249
Mr. William Reichert, attorney for Chacksfield-Merit Homes,.
addressed the Council. He pointed out that the map had been previously
approved twice by the City Council, once in May, 1979 and once in
November, 1980, and that it is now before them to be considered without
reference to the 2/3 rule. He said nevertheless the evidence presented
tonight is consistent with the evidence that has been presented toyouu
previously, and he hoped also to elaborate on some points the Council
might want to consider.. He said, it is their contention that the Tract
Map presented and posted on the wall, meets all the applicable local
and State requirements, specifically it meets the Rolling Hills General
Plan and the California Subdivision Map Act. It is the contention of
the subdivider, he said, that no grounds for denial of Chacksfield's
application exists and this is true entirely without regard to the
2/3 rule contained in Declaration No. 150E. The Tract Map application
that is before the Council tonight, he said, has previously only been
resisted by one resident of the city, who is Dorothy Kuhne.. He said
her residence abuts the south end of the tract just below the south
access, at the entrance at Johns Canyon Road. He .said Mrs.Kuhne
contends the access road would adversely effect her property, and a
different access road, specifically to the north of the access road .
shown in the tract map, should be employed by the developer. However,
00 he said Chacksfield contends that the only tract map before the Council
Q is the one that shows the south access, not hypothetical alternatives.
Nevertheless, he said they realize that alternatives are in your mind
m and they intend to address them.. He said even if both of the routes are
compared, the developer intends to show that the south access is
definitely superior to the northerly access, both from a point of view
Q of its impact on the environment and'its impact on adjacent landowners
in the city. The developer contends that Mrs. Kuhne's objections are
not well taken because Mrs. Kuhne purchased her residence when the south
access road, such as it is today, was already in place. There is a dirt
road, he said, that lies along the easement where the south access road
is being put in; conversely there is no road whatsoever where Mrs.. Kuhne
contends the north access should be put in, which is adjacent to the
cul-d-e-sac at the end of Johns Canyon Road. There is not road there, he
said, there has not been a road there, there is no curb cut.,there is
substantial vegetation and trees along the north easement at the present
time, and to create.a road along that easement would require substantial
modification and grading of the area along there and destroy the present
cul-d-e-sac that exists at the end of Johns Canyon Road. When Mrs.. Kuhne
purchased her property.it was evident that the south access was already
in place and that it was the most logical place to put an access.road
to the tract which undoubtedly would be developed,and where Chacksfield
now plans to put eight residences. He said Mrs. Kuhne, in 1970, modified
her house to expand her residence out to the north end,.where the present
south access was at that time and remains today. Mrs. Kuhne has con-
tended that her bedrooms will be effected by their proximity to the south
road; however, he said, Mr. McHattie will point out in his testimony.
that the road will lie no more than 50 to 55 feet .from the closest point
of the buildings on the Kuhne property, and the particular rooms that
are effected are the bathrooms.that Mrs... Kuhne placed upon her residence
in 1970. He pointed out that the road proposed runs for almost.the
entire length below the level of the buildings on the Kuhne property.
Conversly, he said if the north access were to be constructed, t.he:.la.y
of the land is such that the road must be constructed above the buildings
on either side of that property,.and cars traversing such a road would
be looking down on either side of the adjacent properties. On the south
access the cars would be travelling below the level of the.residence
lines. Mr. Reichert listed the major points that in his opinion the
Council should be aware of during-the testimony, the first with respect
to environment, the developer contends that the south access is superior
for the following reasons: it utilizes an existing roadway unlike the
.north access which would require an entire new roadway to be cut into
the cul-de-sac; the southerly roadway follows the natural land contour
into the tract; little or no grading would be required to construct the
southerly roadway, but considerable grading and land modification would,
be.required to construct the north access; the southerly roadway has a
very gradual curve into the tract, thus discouraging speeding and
traffic hazards associated with unusual types.of roads or lays of the
road, whereas the north access would require a very sharp curve at two
points, one off Johns Canyon Road and the second into the tract itself
presenting problems for motorists entering and exiting the tract. He
said the tract map which shows the southerly access has a better lot
layout than is conceivable or possible with an access road to the north
_ -8-
25®
August 23, 1982
because a road entering from the north end of the tract would lie upon
some of the flattest area in the tract, requiring that the best area of
that tract be used for roadway and opposed to open area. He also said
the view of.the Los Angeles basin from the south access is dramatic
and beautiful. Secondly, with respect to the positive aspects for the
adjacent landowners, he said the south access has a number of merits:
persons entering the tract from the south access would pass in front
of five fewer houses than they would if the north access were employed;
the south access is better suited for the layout of bridle trails; and
in summary, he said, far more residents would be impacted by the north
route than by the south route.. He said there had been some error as to*
how much roadway would. have to be put in, 130 feet for the north access
and 400 feet for the south access, but that measures the wrong point on
the tract, and if you measure the entire length of the road itself the
roads are substantially the same length.
Councilman Heinsheimer asked Mr. Reichert to describe the roadway
that is now in.place. He said it is a dirt roadway that has been em-
ployed for a number of years, previously by the flower farmers who
formerly owned the property.,. and that all it needs is to be smoothed
out and blacktopped. Councilman Heinsheimer asked what the traffic.
might have been on the road during the time that it was used.. Mr. -
Reichert said it had been very minimal, by farmers and their helpers.
Councilman Heinsheimer suggested that it was not a roadway,'but an
easement that cars went back and forth on once or twice a day ,
but that it had never been engineered. With reference to the north
access, Councilman Heinsheimer asked Mr. Reichert if he.was-familiar with
the map that created the subdivision adjacent to the east of that
property and aware that the easements were created at that time.for
this purpose. Mr. Reichert said that originally:the land was zoned
for one -acre parcels and it was felt that two access roads would be,
required and the reason why the north access was created. Now that it
is zoned for two -acre parcels, only one road is necessary.
Doug McHattie, South Bay Engineering, discussed the Road Department
report. He said that the Road Departmenthas signed the street plans
that were prepared for the southerly access, and has accepted them. He
said he met with the Road Department and explained that their letter
reads as it does because their rules are a composite for all of Los
Angeles County and here there is something unique in the traffic
pattern and the amount of traffic. Councilman Heinsheimer stated the
letter referred to'was dated August 3., 1982, from Mr.. Donald Brown to
Mr. Ronald Smith and attached to it is the letter of October 16.1. 1978
which describes Proposal A, northerly access, and Proposal B, southerly
access. Mr. McHattie displayed a diagram which .shows the existing trail
and said the minimum sight distance of any crossing is 195fee.t., which
would allow a car to travel.at least 30 miles per hour and see an object
that is six inches off the ground and stop safely. Mr. McHattie said
they had made the changes as requested in the Road Department's October
16, 1978 letter. Councilman Heinsheimer pointed out that the Road
Department recommended Proposal A as the preferred access, but that
Proposal A is not the one the applicant is recommending. Mr. McHattie
said Proposal A reduces the sight distance down to 160 feet, and also
the County Road Department does not take into account anything other
than the geometry of the road design., and Proposal A would require
lots of grading, whereas the grading_on the Proposal B is minimal.
He also pointed out that with Proposal A you would be coming downhill
from a high point on Johns Canyon Road and since the cul-de-sac curves
toward the tract it would be easy to roll in at a high rate of speed,
which would be a safety concern.
Mayor Pernell pointed out that the applicant is presenting a
proposal with the southerly access and that is what the Council should
concern themselves with, that there had been discussion with regard to
a northerly access, but the Council does not have that in front of them,
and he called counsel's attention to the fact that the applicant is
making a proposal based on the map on the wall. Councilman Heinsheimer.
referred to the Road Department lettergram that Proposal A is not
unacceptable if certain changes are made, and asked if the applicant
needs to go back to the County and tell them they are going to make
those changes, and get a letter so stating. Mr. McHattie said he has
a signed street plan of approval, signed by the Road Commissioner.
Councilman Heinsheimer asked if it was signed subsequent to the August
!M
251
August 23, 1982
3rd letter, and Mr. McHattie said it was prior to that letter. The
Manager explained that the plans were signed because the Council
approved a tentative map which authorizes the submittal of all public
service documents that go with the tentative map. One of those includes
a set of street plans and if the Council action is to approve a set of
street plans for a southerly access, that is what is submitted to the
County and they will sign accordingly, bcause that is the action of the
legislative body. He said in discussions he had with Mr Brown after
receiving the memo, he indicated they still recommend the northerly
access, but he specifically indicated that it is not unacceptable from
a traffic hazard standpoint to have a southerly access. With reference
to the equestrian trail, he -said there has been a relocation of the trail,
and so some of the things have been complied with.
The Mayor referred to the Proposed Conditions presented to the
Council. The Manager said they were the conditions placed on the tract
at the last proceedings of. the City Council, November 1980., with the
addition of a 19th condition. The Mayor stated.the developer had to
comply with the conditions in order for this map to be put into.effect,
and asked if the changes have been reflected in a modified proposal.
Co The Manager said the street plans would reflect the changes., and any
0 other subsequent plans that would be signed by the County staff would
reflect the changes.. The Mayor noted.a map entitled Section Bench
m mark Standard Notes., key map,. Los Angeles.County Road Department, City
m of Rolling Hills, was reviewed on December.22, 1981; signed by the
engineer in May 1982, and the Road Commissioner signed them May 11, 1982.,
Q Mr.. McHattie also submitted to the Council the sewer plans and storm
drains.
The Manager read into the. record correspondence received regarding
tentative tract 33871 addressed to the Town Council, City of Rolling Hills.
"Since we are out of town we are unable to attend this meeting but would
like to express our feelings on the subject. We are opposed to the
southerly access between 6 and 12 Johns Canyon Road. We support Mrs.
Kuhne's view that the logical access should be from the now -blocked
easement on the Johns Canyon cul-de-sac.. We request this letter be
read at the City Council meeting on August 23 at 8 P.M. Thank you..
Sam and Ellen Speranza, 12 Johns Canyon Road."
Mr. Gregory, 13 Johns Canyon Road, stated he would like to reaffirm
his and Shirley's.position.that they would like to see the road go in
as shown on this tract.
Mr. William Smiland, attorney representing Mr..,and Mrs. Gordon
Shultz, addressed the Council. He said Mr. and Mrs. -Shultz arB
particularly concerned about the north access, south access, and.they
favored the south access at the time this issue was taken up in the Fall
of 19803, and they still favor that south access. The basis for their
view has been set forth in the testimony by Mr. Reichert.and Mr.. McHattie.
He said Mr. and Mrs. Shultz have advised that several of their neighbors,
the Williams and Peters, share their preference for the south access
and have authorized him to so indicate, as well as Mr. and Mrs.. Steven
Shultz. He said he had prepared a written statement that went into some.
issues that he would like to go.on the record with the city but that are
clearly beyond the scope of the hearing,, and rather than present them
verbally, he presented copies of the statement to the City Manager.
Councilman Heinsheimer asked Mr. Smiland if it was true that at the time
that Mr. Shultz subdivided the property it was a clear understanding on
the part of the record that the easement would be left available for
access to the property through what is now known as the northern access.'
Mr. Smiland,said it is his understanding that an easement foran access
road was granted, on the assumption that.there would be .16 rather than
8 lots and two rather than one access road required. Councilman
Heinsheimer asked if it was his understanding that as part of that sub-
division access that Mr. Shultz guaranteed access to that subdivision
through that easement whether there were two or one it was clearly a
part of his subdivision to provide access through the northerly point.
Mr.. Smiland said he did grant an easement over that route.
Mr. C1ark.Leonard, Lanco Engineering, representing Mr. Shultz,
stated he is a professional engineer of the State of California, has
been president of Lanco Engineering for 21 years, during this time have
planned over 20,000 single-family type units. He said he considers
-10-
252
August 23, 1982
himself a professional in the business and very use to dealing with
planning matters, and has been a resident of Rolling Hills for 17 years.
He stated he was Mr. Shultz' engineer when he subdivided his property
and that it was an extremely controversial subdivision.- Mr. Shultz'
property, he said, was first created in the mid 19301s. At,that time
the predecessor company to Palos Verdes Properties created an easement
over the southerly portion of Mr. Shultz' land, which is now described
as the southerly access. The engineer at that time realized that this
was a natural location and he provided an access at that point. Mr.
Leonard presented Mr. Shultz' recorded map #30605., recoirded Feb. 20, 1973
County of Los Angeles, and reading "on the southerly portion of Lot 7
there is an easement 50 feet wide for road, bridle trail, public
utilities and incidental purposes of Palos Verdes Properties", which
he said is the same area. In the middle 1950s Mr. Shultz sold.the
property to the flower growers, Mr. Yoshioka and Mr.Maeno, and at that
time Mr. Shultz, at the recommendation of his engineer, Charlie Miller,
provided another easement over that access for Mr. Yoshioka and Mr.
Maeno. This easement is described on the map as a 40 ft. easement.
for street of John Maeno and Tomi Maeno and Mr. Yoshioka.. At the
time the map was recorded., the Community Association and the City
required Mr. Shultz to dedicate this easement to the Community Association
for road purposes, shown on the map as a 60 ft. future street. Three
different engineers have chosen this as a natural access point., he said.
Mr. Shultz was very willing to give the southerly access., he said, to
the Community Association, who approved the subdivision. But the city;..
required the northerly access and was given over Mr. Shultz' violent
objection, he said. In answer to Councilman`Heinsheimer's question as
to what kind of a road it was, Mr. Leonard said it was a well maintained
road, and was maintained by the flower growers for approximately twenty
years, was graded as needed, drainage devices were installed-, drainage
ditches were built along the edge, and put in decomposed granite,.. with
numerous cars and trucks using it. Mr. Leonard said he talked with Mr.
Brown of the Road Department,, who said the southerly access was satis-
factory, although it is a second choice.. Mr. Leonard cited the problem
with a northerly access, mainly the deep grading,. having to cut a slot
cut through the hill approximately five feet deep with side slopes on'
both sides, creating 2./1 slopes that are not very sightly. On the
westerly side of Mr. Shultz' property there is a large line of
eucalyptus trees which have been growing there for 20 or 30 years,. and
would have to remove a swath through them.
Councilman Heinsheimer.asked Mr. Leonard to describe what is on
the northerly easement. He said there had been myroporem.growing in
the easement before it was given to the city as an easement.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburg asked how long the cement fences have
been up. Mr. Leonard said they were adjusted after the subdivision,.
and had been moved around before and after he did the subdivision.
Councilwoman Murdock said it was stated that the roadway would be
above the residences so the people driving along the road would look
down on the houses, and Mr. Leonard stated the reverse. Mr. Leonard
said there would be a miniature canyon the length of the Shultz
property with a cut of 10 feet deep. Mr. McHattie said he felt the
cut would be 7 feet.
THE MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 9:25 P.M. and RECONVENED AT 9:35 P.M.
Mr. Bill Peters, 11.Johns Canyon Road, said he and his family
support the subdivision as submitted, and are pleased with the quality
of the developer. He said the subject of the controversy regard two
items, one the loss of the cul-de-sac and the other traffic safety.
He said he reviewed the number of cul-de-sacs in Rolling Hills and
counted 35, which would say the city is a city of cul-de-sacs, and the
reason is that cul-de-sacs create slow traffic and a fine way of life.
Mr. Williams pointed out the various cul-de-sacs on the aerial map.
He stated there are seven parcels off the Chestnut cul-de-sac, and
the proposed map puts eight parcels off that cul-de-sac. He felt the
city has shown good planning. With the northerly access, he said,
here would be fifteen houses on the street. With reference to traffic,-
he
raffic,he said, the number of cars would be the same. He pointed out that
from Crest Road to the intersection of Chestnut there is a vertical
drop of 210 feet, and would necessitate a slow speed to make the left
turn into the southerly access, whereas cars continuing further would
tend to gain speed.
-11-
253
August 23, 1982
Mr. Steven Shultz, 14 Johns Canyon Road, said that his family
prefers the southerly access, and that the concrete fences were put
in in 1957, as were the myroporems.
Mrs. Vanda Lester, -2 Chestnut Lane, said the southerly road that
is being discussed would go directly behind their property and she
wished to go on record that they are very opposed to the southerly
access. She said the road would be extremely close to their residence.
Mrs. Lester said they have'.lived here for 12 years,. and were here when
Mr. Yoshioka owned the land. She said the road is not in usable con-
dition at this time and was often in very poor condition when Mr....
Yoshioka was using it, and every time it rained they would have to park
their truck up on Johns Canyon and walk in. She said the drainage was
not always effective because that road drained across the lower pad of
their property, washing it away. Mrs. Lester said she supported IIrs.
Kuhne's position.
Mr. Sherman Silverman, attorney representing P4rs:_ Dorothy Kuhne,
addressed the Council, and stated he has been on the case since May 1979.
He said Chacksfield-Iferit submitted their original subdivision plans in
CO late 1977 or 1978, at which time they submitted a plan to the Community
O Association which provided for a northerly access.. The Architectural
Committee approved the plan showing the northerly access, mindful that
m by using the southerly access the house at 6 Johns Canyon Road would
M become a peninsula. The Community Association then asked for a plan
showing the southerly access, he said. Chacksfield-Merit submitted their
Q tentative tract map to.the City, and through the process of review, both
the Environmental Quality Board and the Planning Commission rejected the
southerly access, recommending that the subdivider file an alternative
plan showing the northerly access.. The matter was brought to the City
Council's attention on May 14, 1979 and it overruled the Planning
Commission, approving the southerly access. At the time the decision
was made, he said., there were no specific findings; however, one set of
Council minutes indicated evidence that the Council's decision was
predicated on the rationale that if the 2/3 rule applied., there could
be no subdivision because Mr. Shultz, representing 34 or more percent
of the contiguous land, had a veto vote. From that approval, Mrs.
Kuhne has sought to assert her rights, he said, and they proceeded to
litigate in the Superior.Court. The matter never came to issue, he said,
because before a hearing was held, in June 1980 the Council revoked and
rescinded the approval and allowed Chacksfield-Merit to file an amended
map, which was substantially the same map as approved in May 1979.:
Prior to the submission of the amended map the Council adopted Ordinance
161, which is the Land Division Ordinance, and presumably the processing
procedures that followed filing the amended map were in compliance with.
that ordinance, he said. Again, the Planning Commission reviewed the
plan, looked at the reports, and denied approval, recommending rejection
of the plan. He said at this point the Architectural Committee had
disapproved the southerly access, the Environmental Quality Board.
disapproved it, and the Planning Commission disapproved it on two separate
occasions. Following the November 3, 1980 approval by the Council, Mr..
Silverman said he amended his pleading and went back to court.. There
were many issues raised, but the primary one related to the 2/3 rule, and
as far as that court is concerned, he said, it is not only not applicable
as far as the City Council is concerned, but he said he takes the position
that it is not applicable as far as the Community Association is concerned;
therefore the Council should not entertain the idea that even if they
approve a northerly access, the Community Association would be at liberty
to prevent it with the 2/3 -rule. He said the court determined that
Declaration 150E, which is applicable to the property in question, is not
applicable as far as subdivision is concerned. In conclusion he said
he feels the northerly access is the more desirable, that the subdivider
originally submitted plans with a northerly access, and the.Road De-
partment deems it preferable. Mr. Silver suggested that at some future
point in time if there is an accident at the southerly access, the City
may be found liable for approvinga situation that may have safety hazard
implications.
Mr. Silverman referred to the 14 -acre parcel of undeveloped_ land
to the north of Mr..and Mrs. Shultz property, stating that when it is
developed, the road would break through the cul=de-sac at the end of
-12-
254
August 23, 1982
Johns Canyon Road, because it is not economically feasible to enter
from Crenshaw Boulevard. If that is the case, he said, why impose
a third roadway on the Kuhne property.. He said the points raised in
Mr. J. R. Luger's letter of May 14, 1979, have never been refuted,
and he read into the record the seven points in favor of selecting
the northerly access. He asked that the Council not only consider the
position of the subdivider, but recognize that other people,.;mainly
Mrs. Kuhne, the Speranzas, and those who live on Chestnut Lane, will
be adversely impacted.
Councilman Heinsheimer, referring to the 14 -acre parcel to the
north of the Shultz property, stated that it was a requirement on the
subdivision, agreed to by Mr. Shultz and the City, that in return for
the granting of the subdivision that created the lots, Lot 6 and the
turn -about were temporarily placed at a more southerly location, with
an understanding that as part.of this,: the access that originally had
been accorded to the lot.on Crenshaw be abandoned,._and.that the lot be
accessible only by means of an extension of Johns Canyon Road.
Mayor Pernell asked Mr. Silverman which Findings of Fact, listed
earlier by staff, did he feel had been violated. Mr. Silverman said
he felt Finding B, E, and F could be used. Regarding B, he said he
didn't feel the general and specific plan refers to the creation of.a
peninsula at the terminus of the proposed access road, Johns Canyon Road
and Chestnut Lane. Regarding E and F, while there has been a Negative
Declaration., he said that does not effect your right to conclude that
it is likely to cause substantial environmental damage, the environment
being 6 Johns Canyon Road, and loss of life and limb because of a safety
problem is a serious public health problem.
Mrs. Dorothy Kuhne, 6 Johns Canyon Road, addressed the Council.
She said the use of language that everyone has used has been marvelous
but psychologically misleading, that the"deliberate"addition'to her
home was deliberate, that everything they have done to make their home
beautiful has been deliberate, not careless. She said when they put
their new bathrooms in, there was no thought given to future traffic..
She said also the use of the word "canyon" is psycho. logically misleading
and does not feel'a canyon will be created. Mrs. Kuhne said she walked
the 20 acres with an engineer recently, and'they were blocked by.barbed
wire fences in the field, old eucalyptus trees, and newly planted other
bushes. The cul-de-sac does.have a cement fence and very large bushes,
and she suggested that once Mr. Shultz deeded the easement to the City
it would have been an honorable thing for him to do to remove the cement
fences and bushes so it could be used as an easement. She corrected Mr.
McHattie on the point that the bathrooms of her house are.not the closest
point to the southerly access, but there are two bedrooms closest. The
integrity of the cul-de-sac has already been violated, she said, by Mr.
Shultz.treatment of the whole area, which is a compound. The easements
are neglected, there is a 1 ft. high stone wall the entire length of the
cul-de-sac, which reflects the Shultz' attitude toward the cul-de-sac,
she said, it is theirs. The Kuhne house was the last one on Johns
Canyon Road at one time, with a gate across the road at the southerly
access to the Shultz property, and she said they did nothing to stop
Mr. Shultz' subdivision.- She said there is now a streetlight at the
end of Johns Canyon Road, which has disturbed her guests. Referring
to Mr. Reichert's statement that there would be fewer homes disturbed
if the southerly access was used, she said the Peters and Gregorys
homes are raised up from the road and their living areas are away from
the road, whereas her bedroom area is level with the proposed access...
She supported Mrs. Lester's testimony that the road was not well-
maintained, and said.there has never been any decomposed granite used.
With reference to traffic speed, she said the speeders are residents
who live beyond 6 Johns Canyon Road. She agreed that it is a very
emotional issue, but felt it selfish of the people who live further
down Johns Canyon Road. She said there is more at stake that just what
is written, and asked the Council to consider her request.
Councilman Heinsheimer pointed out that the development that took
place around #6 Johns Canyon Road continued to move the improvements in
all the other directions as well, with Johns Canyon Road widened on the
Kuhne side, with the white fence disappearing; subsequently Chestnut
Lane was added.
-13-
255
August 23, 1982
Mr. Bruce Munroe, #4 Chestnut Lane, stated that the map as submitted
would, in his opinion, have a serious adverse effect on the environment..
He said they are not as impacted as the Lesters and Mrs. Kuhne, but that
their bedroom is the closest part of the house to the road... With
reference to traffic hazard, he said it would be a very tricky inter-
section. The sweep of headlights on the properties was discussed. The
elevations of the homes were listed as Lesters, 1003, Munroes, 994, and
the road at 992 ft. and 996 ft.
Mr. Gary Hansen, 6 Chestnut Lane, said his concern is the beautiful
and well-maintained trail at the end of Chestnut Lane, which is a well -
used trail by many of the children in the community since it is the
only trail that leads to McDonalds. He said his main objection was
that if a roadway is put in, the horse trail will have to cross the
road. With everyone's concern about safety and rural atmosphere, he
feels that would be taking away what we have already.
Mr. Donald Williams, 9 Johns Canyon Road, stated his family is in
favor of the southerly.access for the reasons previously outlined. He
stated there is a speed problem on lower Johns Canyon Road, and that
00 there have been three dogs hit in front of his house by residents. He
0 said he was mystified at all the discussion of the northerly access
when that is not the plan in front of Council.
Mr. McHattie presented a map showing the existing residences,, circled
m in red, that are surrounded on three sides by roads, and said there are
Q 30 some such.homes in the City.. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh.asked how
many of them were surrounded by a single portion of the same road and
how many are like this situation with two roads. Mr. McHattie said he
didn't have them listed separately, but they all have roads on three
sides: Councilman Heinsheimer stated it includes people who live on
curves of roads where one road wraps around the property.. Referring
to Mr. Silverman's statement about the Community Association, Mr.
McHattie said that whether the people who live in the vicinity can
control the subdivision is one thing, but the Association still con-
trols the fact that there wouldn'tbe any building sites whatsoever.
He said the original submittal he made was the north and had twelve
lots., and subsequently was -down zoned and went to eight lots., and the
southerly was considered the best access then because it was already
there. Referring to Mrs. Lester's concern about drainage, the southerly
access clears up any drainage and makes. the trail better, makes every-
one's back yard much more usable than now. Referring to the..judge's
suggestion to come up from Crenshaw, Mr. McHattie said.it'.s too steep..
Mayor Pernell.asked why he submitted the northerly access in the first
place, and Mr. McHattie said it was on the advice of Teena Clifton, .when
the area was zoned 1-acre.pareels, and a roadway continuing through the
tract was planned. He said Mr. Luger's point about the. new roadway
construction, he said the overall amount of construction would be 1320
on the south, and 1160 on the north. The noise decibel.cr.eated by cars
going by would not be that loud that it would impact anyone. He said
.the steepest the southerly access gets is 8.27o, and Chestnut is 8.50,
with the grade at the Johns Canyon intersection of 4% for the first
35 feet. He said there would be need to take out only one tree.
Mr. Clark Leonard..said he counted 28 lots in the City that have
roads on three sides in Rolling Hills. He stated that Mrs. Kuhne was
not there before Chestnut Lane was built, and bought it'after Dr.
Wilcox subdivided Chestnut, knowing that there were roads on three
sides. Mr. Leonard said the flower farm road was a well-maintained
road, a used road, even though it did have some washouts. He said Mr.:
and Mrs. Kuhne fought Mr. Shultz' subdivision, and they did not go
along with the subdivision. He said they did not take up trees in
front of the Kuhne residence, and had never.talked to her about using
her yard. He said they moved the road away from the front of her
yard, further to the east. Councilman Heinsheimer asked what happened
to the white fence in front of the property before.the tarmack was
put in; Mr. Leonard said they did not put any tarmack on her side of
the road.
Mr. Reichert stated that Mrs. Kuhne and Mr. Silverman did not have
an engineer at the Council meeting, even though they had employed one.
-14-
256
August 23, 1982
He said there has been no engineering testimony on the other side as
to the lack of satisfactory characteristics of the south access.
Referring to Mr. Silverman's statement that creation of a peninsula is
not consistent with the general or specific plans of the City, Mr.
Reichert said he didn't point out that that's not what the finding is,
the finding is that it is against the general or specific plan, and
that has not been shown. No evidence is on the record that this
particular subdivision plan and the south plan does not conform with
the general and specific plans of the city. He said in Findings E and
F Mr. Silverman was unable to point out anything in particular, only th
it impacts Dorothy Kuhne's property. Mr. Reichert said whichever acces
is picked it impacts someone's property., and it is up to the Council to
determine if it is so substantial as to rise to the level of requiring
denial of the tract map. 'Regarding the Johns Canyon cul-de-sac that.
will be extended when the parcel to the north is developed, he said it
would be putting a great deal of traffic on the north end'of Johns
Canyon Road to have roads servicing both tracts from the cul-de-sacr
and it would be better to siphon off the traffic on the south access.
Dorothy Kuhne said she.had aerial photographs which show the
condition of the road before Mr. Shultz made his subdivision; andQ
can see the cut that was made in front of her house. She said Chestnut
Lane was not in when they bought the house, and they did not know it.—
was
t —was going in. She said when they bought the property, they had to
sign something that said they would not interfere with any development
on the rest of the 11 acres. She said the trees were encroached upon,
were cut back, and the cut in the road was put there when Mr. Shultz
subdivided his property, she said. The subdivision they objected to
of Mr. Shultz was the one where he wanted to put multi -family homes
at the lower part of his property, she said.
Mayor Pernell closed the public hearing, and asked the City Attorney
to redefine the questions facing the Council. The Mayor said it was
his understanding that there is a proposal submitted to be considered n
in.the alternative but.on its face, and consider the findings in the
negative, and if we can establish any of these findings, we need to
deny the application.
The City Attorney stated that approval or denial of the tract map
is governed by the criteria set forth in the Subdivision'Map Act.and
he suggested that the Council go through each of the criteria as they
are set out in the staff report and make a determination on the
evidence presented at the hearing as to whether or not the findings
can be satisfied. The satisfaction.of the findings, and a finding
of no significant environmental impact on the basis of the Negative
Declaration which has been prepared would warrant approval of the map
as proposed by the subdivider.. A finding of inconsistency of the
general plan or any of the other findings would warrant a denial of the
map for failure to meet the criteria set forth in the Map. -Act. The
most appropriate way to establish the findings is to go through them
one by one and discuss the evidence presented and come to an informal
conclusion so that an ultimate decision can be reached.
The City Attorney said he must report to the court that there has
been compliance with the order on Wednesday of this week. With all of
the attorneys present, if they are agreeable, we can present a request
to the court to extend the return date.until after a continued hearing
dater 'he said.
The Mayor stated he would not accept any additional testimony, and
the deliberation was continued until after.a recess.
THE MEETING RECESSED AT 11 P.M. and RECONVENED AT 11:10 P.M.
The meeting reconvened and the Mayor announced that deliberations
regarding Tentative Tract 33871 would continue on Tuesday August 31,
1982 at 7:30 P.M.
GANN APPROPRIATION LIMITATIONS
The report on the Gann Appropriations Limitations was postponed
until the meeting of September 13, 1982.
-15-
August 23, 1982 257
RESOLUTION 497, GUIDELINES 1982, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 2205
Councilman Heinsheimer moved that a proposed resolution entitled
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REPEALING
RESOLUTION NO. 445 AND ADOPTING PROCEDURES IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONENTAL QUALITY ACT AND THE GUIDELINES OF THE SECRETARY FOR THE
RESOURCES AGENCY, AS AMENDED IN 1982, AND RESCINDING ALL PREVIOUS
ACTIONS INCONSISTENT HEREWITH be adopted, and that reading in full be
waived. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh and
carried by the following roll.call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock
Mayor Pernell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilwoman Swanson
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS. 2210
Variance for tennis court in front yard. Denied.
C. SUBDIVISION NO. 73, PARCEL MAP NO. 14468, DR. BRADEN STAUTS,
2 PINE TREE LANE.
Application for subdivision. Approved
Public Hearing set for September 27, 1982
MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
COUNCILWOMAN MURDOCK
Councilwoman Murdock said she will be meeting with Mrs. Hesse, Mr.
Watts, and Mrs. Hollirigshead on Wednesday morning,. August 18, 1982,.to
discuss the concerns of the community regarding two-story houses in
the City and the direction we would like to see them take. An area
under question is Williamsburg Lane, and she asked for guidance from
the Council. Mayor Pernell said Williamsburg Lane -has always been
treated with their own special rules, and agreed with that policy,
but the rules ought to be consistant within that.area. Ile asked _.
that the committee also consider other inconsistancies that exist with.
regard to the Community Association regulations and the City's.
LA CRESTA SCHOOL SITE
Councilwoman Murdock announced there will be a meeting of the La
Cresta School site committee on Wednesday, August 24.
MATTERS. .FROM THE CITY MANAGER
Tabatabay property, 5 Crest Road West is undergoing certain pro-
ceedings before the County of Los Angeles, Building and Safety Department,
the Manager announced, and the City Attorney and City Manager will:be
meeting with the Superintendent of Building and Safety on August 24 to
discuss certain factors of safety existing on the site, and also the
Sheriff will be filing a report on safety hazards on the site.
The Manager said his usual.policy on zoning enforcement has been
to enforce those violations which are brought to the City's attention,
but do not go out and look for violations, and asked the Council if
that was an acceptable policy.. The Mayor agreed.
-16-
The
Council was
advised that at a meeting -of August 17, 1982, the
CO
Planning
Commission
took -the following.action:
0
T..i
A.
ZONING CASE
NO. 277, DONALD BARCLAY, 7 QUAIL RIDGE ROAD .NORTH -
m
Variance of
front setback requirements, residence addition
m
Approved.
Q
B
ZONING CASE
NO. 278, DR. MIRKO GIACONI, 92 SADDLEBACK ROAD.
Variance of
front setback requirements and Conditional Use
Permit for
construction of a swimming pool, jacuzzi and
cabana in front
.yard. Approved
Variance for tennis court in front yard. Denied.
C. SUBDIVISION NO. 73, PARCEL MAP NO. 14468, DR. BRADEN STAUTS,
2 PINE TREE LANE.
Application for subdivision. Approved
Public Hearing set for September 27, 1982
MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
COUNCILWOMAN MURDOCK
Councilwoman Murdock said she will be meeting with Mrs. Hesse, Mr.
Watts, and Mrs. Hollirigshead on Wednesday morning,. August 18, 1982,.to
discuss the concerns of the community regarding two-story houses in
the City and the direction we would like to see them take. An area
under question is Williamsburg Lane, and she asked for guidance from
the Council. Mayor Pernell said Williamsburg Lane -has always been
treated with their own special rules, and agreed with that policy,
but the rules ought to be consistant within that.area. Ile asked _.
that the committee also consider other inconsistancies that exist with.
regard to the Community Association regulations and the City's.
LA CRESTA SCHOOL SITE
Councilwoman Murdock announced there will be a meeting of the La
Cresta School site committee on Wednesday, August 24.
MATTERS. .FROM THE CITY MANAGER
Tabatabay property, 5 Crest Road West is undergoing certain pro-
ceedings before the County of Los Angeles, Building and Safety Department,
the Manager announced, and the City Attorney and City Manager will:be
meeting with the Superintendent of Building and Safety on August 24 to
discuss certain factors of safety existing on the site, and also the
Sheriff will be filing a report on safety hazards on the site.
The Manager said his usual.policy on zoning enforcement has been
to enforce those violations which are brought to the City's attention,
but do not go out and look for violations, and asked the Council if
that was an acceptable policy.. The Mayor agreed.
-16-
258 August 23, 1982
ADJOURN14ENT 2266
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 P.M. until August 31, 1982
at 7:30 P.M.
-17-
City Manager/City Clerk