Loading...
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