Loading...
12/13/1982314 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA December 13, 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 Mayor Pernell at 7:30 P.M. Monday, December 13, 1982. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock, Swanson, Mayor Pernell None Ronald L. Smith Michael Jenkins L. D. Courtright June Cunningham William Kinley William Reichert Sherman Silverman Elizabeth White Frank Elfend Paul Wilkinson Herbert Cooper Douglas McHattie James Colis Shirley Friedman Pamela Burnett Mark Doran Dr. J. Greenhut C. E. Gregory Dorothy Kuhne Wanda Lester Mr. &*Mrs. L. Lusk City Manager City Attorney City Treasurer Deputy City Clerk RHCA Legal Counsel Attorney Attorney Attorney Ultrasystems, Inc. Linscott, Law & Greenspan Cooper Sherman Engineering Co. South Bay Engineering Corp. Chacksfield Merit Homes Court Reporter Residents Bruce Munroe Mark Negri Mr. & Mrs. Wm. Peters APPROVAL OF MINUTES 02 The minutes of the meeting of November 22, 1982 were approved and accepted as submitted on a motion made by Councilwoman Swanson, seconded by Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock Swanson, Mayor Pernell NOES: None ABSENT: None PAYMENT OF BILLS Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh moved that Demands No. 10834 through 10861, 10863 through 10867,.10870 through 10873, in the amount of $76,593.07 be approved for payment from the General Fund; that Demands No. 10837 and 10870 in the amount of $2,736.69 be approved for payment from the Fire and Flood Self Insurance Fund, and that Demands No: 10862 10868 and 10869 be voided. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swanson and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock, Swanson, Mayor Pernell NOES: None ABSENT: None a 315 December 13, 1982 FINANCIAL STATEMENT... _ .. The Financial Statement for November 1982 was presented for Council review. With the concurrence of the City Treasurer the Statement was approved and accepted as presented. UPDATE, SEWER STUDY COMMITTEE 85 The City Manager reported that the Chairman of the Sewer Study Committee met with the City Treasurer to discuss methods of financing, and the possibility of having an underwriter assist was considered.. A meeting with an underwriter has been scheduled for December 20, for the purpose of discussing bonded indebtedness in the City for long term financing, and before any action is taken the Committee will report to the Council. The City Treasurer explained that the back up material he provided for the Council was intended to show the financing costs that might occur under various assumptions, and he said an investment banker could help the Council in analyzing the information.. Councilwoman Swanson, Chairman of the Sewer Study Committee, said the underwriter. - would be invited to attend a Council meeting at which the matter is on the agenda, so the Council can ask questions and obtain information. PROPOSED ORDINANCE.,. -TRAFFI-C, -COMMI'SSION. 125 - The City Manager . said that in response to direction from the Council an ordinance . was prepared which provides that one of the members of the Traffic Commission shall be a member of the Board of Directors of the Rolling Hills Community Association. Further, the Manager reported that at a recent meeting of the Board of Directors a member, Mrs. Betty Hesse, was appointed to the Traffic Commission. Councilwoman Swanson moved that a.proposed ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY'OF ROLLING IF - TLL&_RELATING: TO THE SELECTION ANDMEMBERSHIPOF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION AND PLACING A MEMBER OF'*TH)E BOARD OFDIRECTORSOF-THE ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ON SAID COMMISSION be introduced, 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, Swanson, Mayor Pernell. NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ENACTING DECISION ON ZONING CASE NO. 278, GIACONI­ 160 The City Manager.presented Resolution No. 501 enacting the City Council's decision in support of the denial by the Planning Commission of a request by Dr. Mirko Giaconi for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for construction of a tennis court in the front yard of his property located at 92 Saddleback Road. RESOLUTION NO. 501 Councilwoman Swanson moved that Resolution No. 501 entitled' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - ZONING CASE NO. 278 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 Swanson, Mayor Pernell NOES: None ABSENT: None 50 316 November 13, 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS 180 The Council was advised that on November 16, 1982 the Planning Commission took the following actions: a. Approved determination of the location of the front yard on Lot 57A -1 -MS, located at 1 Georgeff Road; b. Granted an extension of time for two years for use of a mobile home by Mrs. Margaret Wagner, 54 Portuguese Bend Ro c. Approved renumbering of two homes on Upper Blackwater Canyc Road and declined to enact any road name changes The information was received for the file without action by the City Council. RESOLUTION ENACTING PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION RE: RE -NUMBERING 193 The City Manager presented a resolution enacting the recent Planning Commission action of re-numbering.Upper Blackwater Canyon Road by changing the present #9 to #6, and assigning #9 to a new residence constructed on a lot.which•.was recently created by subdi- vision. RESOLUTION NO. 502 Councilwoman Swanson moved that Resolution No. 502 entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALI- FORNIA PROVIDING FOR RE -NUMBERING TWO HOUSES ON UPPER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD, AND CLARIFYING NAMES OF ROADS 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 Swanson, Mayor Pernell NOES: None ABSENT: None REQUEST TO DESIGNATE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AS LEGAL COUNSEL 254 The Manager presented a copy of a letter dated May 10, 1982 from the Chief Administrative Officer of the County of Los Angeles relative to defending the City in property tax refund actions. In a letter dated November 24, 1982 the City Attorney advised that the City of Rolling Hills has been named as a defendant in litigation filed against most of the Counties and Cities in the State, and in view of the cost effectiveness of being represented by the County, - a proposed resolution designating the County of Leos Angeles as Rolling Hills' agent for service of process in property tax refund actions was prepared for presentation to the Council. RESOLUTION NO. 503 Councilwoman Swanson moved that Resolution No. 503 entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DESIG- NATING THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AS ITS AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS FOR ACTIONS UNDER THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE 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, Swanson, Mayor Pernell NOES: None ABSENT: None -3- 31'7 December 13, 1982 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR IMPROVEMENTS, TRACT 30345, GREENHUT 290 The City Manager reported that Dr. Jerry Greenhut, owner of twelve acres of land adjacent to #1 Appaloosa Lane has requested an extension of time in which to make the required improvements to Tract 30345 because of legal proceedings involving the owner and the lessee of the property,:. -explaining that the court has instructed that no improvements be made until the litigation has been completed. Mr. Smith said the County Engineer, acting as the City's Engineer, has recommended that the time extension be granted, and he said cash has been deposited in an account assigned to the City sufficient to cover the cost of the improvements required as a condition of approval of the tract. A motion to approve extension of time until December 1, 1983 for physical improvements to Tract 30345, Dr. Jerry Greenhut, was made by Councilwoman Swanson, seconded by Councilwoman Murdock and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock, Swanson, Mayor Pernell NOES: None ABSENT: None REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP, TRACT 27006, DR. MAX NEGRI 315 In a letter dated November 22, 1982 the Los Angeles -County Engineer advised that the final map for Tract 27006 has been checked by the City Engineer and is ready for Council's approval, subject to certain recommendations stated in the letter. The City Manager said all conditions imposed by the Council in November, 1979 have been. met with the exception of the removal of the gas meter and a stove located in a guest house on the property. A final inspection o.f.the guest house indicated that the stove has been removed, and the owner has assured the Manager that the gas line to the stove will be re- moved. Mayor Pernell said he is concerned that a.stove could be re- installed after the map is approved, unless there is a specific way of preventing it. The Manager suggested that an agreement from the owner regarding the limitation of kitchen facilities in the guest house could be recorded against the property as an assurance that the regulations would not be violated. Councilwoman Murdock said she considered such a recorded agreement a satisfactory method of ensuring compliance with the requirements, and she moved that the final map for Tract 27006 be approved, subject to such a requirement, and subject to recommendations contained in the letter from the _ County Engineer. The City Attorney said.the owner could be required to sign an affidavit stating that the guest.house will not have any kitchen facilities, as a condition of approval of the final.map, and the document could be recorded against the property. The motion to approve the map subject to the stated conditions was seconded by Councilwoman Swanson and'.carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock, Swanson, Mayor Pernell NOES: None ABSENT: None The Manager said a letter was sent to Dr. Negri on November 4,-1982 advising that there are a number of violations relative to substandard property on his property, including a need for repair and painting of the.white rail fencing along Quail Ridge Road North, and accumulation of weeds and debris in close proximity to an accessory building, as well as vehicles which appear to be operational, but are abandoned in the yard. Mayor Pernell asked whether elimination of the noted violations could be made part of the approval of the final map; the City Attorney said they could not, since they are a separate issue brought to the attention of the owner recently. The City Manager was directed to pursue elimination of the unsightly conditions. 318 December 13, 1982 4'9 PUBLIC HEARING, TENTATIVE TRACT 33871 AND FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOT Mayor Pernell opened a Public Hearing on Tentative Tract No. 33871 and a Focused Environmental Impact Report. The City Manager reported that the hearing was noticed as required by law, with publication in the local newspaper and notification of owners of surrounding properties. Mr. Smith said the focused EIR has been made available to interested parties, and copies were provided to the Council for review thirty days prior to the hearing. He said it is the intent to have the EIR provide data to assist the Council in rendering a decision regarding a proposal to divide land consisting of approximately twenty acres, located betwee Crenshaw Boulevard and Johns Canyon Road northerly of Chestnut Lane int eight parcels of approximately two and one half acres each. The Manage said the project is commonly known as the Chacksfield Merit subdivision. The City Manager reviewed the process for preparation of the focused Environmental Report.in compliance with City and State guide lines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act; also, he said all correspondence received in response -to the report has been distributed to the Council, and he read into the record a Western Union Mailgram from Mr.. and Mrs. Samuel Speranza, 12 Johns Canyon Road, stating their opposition to the southerly access to the proposed tract. Councilwoman Swanson asked that the record show that she was absent on August 23 and August 31, but she has listened to the tapes of those meetings and will participate in the discussion. Mr. Smith said that in addition to the focused EIR, the tentative map for the subdivision is before the Council for approval or denial, and a staff report da- ted August 23 is before the Council to assist in making findings. The - Mayor said that Council representatives met with the subdivider, his engineer!.and the City Manager to determine what direction t.he.:fbcused report would take, and which issues should be'addressed. Mayor'Pernell then opened discussion of the report:,. Mr. Frank Elfend, Direct systems, Inc., the firm respo he would make a brief present questions and comments. Mr. access to the tract, and thre evaluated, including a northe Road, a southerly access appr and a westerly access from Si the body of the report the fi westerly access is discussed alternatives. The report uti the two major considerations document was prepared using m mission meetings as well as o of the project supplied by Do Herb Cooper of Cooper -Sherman Mr. Elfend said the first sec which is an important conside He referred to Plate 3, page )r of the Environmental Division of Ultra- isible for preparation of the report,_said ,tion of the report, and would respond to Elfend said his firm was asked to look at different routes were considered and. cly access at the terminus of Johns Canyon )ximately 230 feet north of Chestnut Lane, Lver Spur Road at Crenshaw Boulevard. In ^st two accesses were considered, and the Ln a part of the report pertaining to Lizes a comparative format, he said, and vere evaluated for their merit. The - Lnutes of City Council and Planning Com- ther material furnished, including maps zg McHattie of South Bay Engineering and Engineering, representing Mrs. Kuhne. ;ion of the report evaluates land use,- -ation relative to noise and traffic. L1 of the report, and explained that the northerly access would require that traffic pass seven residences; the southerly access would affect the rear of five residences. He said the southerly access is a dirt road located 230 feet north of Chestnut Lane and is bordered by eucalyptus and other ornamental trees. In order to develop the northerly access'it would_be necessary to remove an existing stone fence, curbing and eucalyp•tus._- at the cul de sac; development of the northerly access would require a maximum cut of five feet at the northern edge and two feet at the southern edge. To develop the southerly access would require two feet of grading over the major part of the road, and a maximum cut of five feet, and the southerly roadway would be located 45 feet at the closest point from a residence; the northerly access would be 180 feet from the closest residence. Mr. Elfend said the information is contained on pages 18 and 20 of the report. He then introduced Mr. Paul Wilkinson, vice president of Linscott, Law and Greenspan, and he said Mr. Wilkinson would address the traffic and circulation aspects, and would show slides of the area to make a visual presentation. ■1,-a i r. .'+4vv-tl..yt'a;cW'".•.'-.:{. :?-.. _. ..-.� t :w. _�.r R.: :•�tf" - .S '. _ ,�Pz. December 13, 1,982 319 Mr. Wilkinson said it is estimated that the proposed eight lots will generate 110 trips a day; 55 each in and out, with a projected maximum of 10 vehicles per hour. Mayor Pernell asked Mr. Wilkinson whether Plate No. 5 on page 13 of the report is being considered as an alternative. Mr. Wilkinson said it was a concept for a northerly access submitted by Cooper -Sherman Engineering Corporation and was not evaluated in detail, since it arrived after the analysis was be- gun, and further, the.basic access characteristics are the same as the northerly access alignment submitted by South Bay Engineering, with internal circulation differences. Mr. Wilkinson said that in evaluating the southerly access it was determined that the 19 foot cross section for a travelled way is very minimum in terms of pro viding adequate access to the site; there are drainage swales, and it was not possible to determine from the drawings whether the swales are driveable, or whether the pitch at the edge of the swale would prohibit such use, so a-22 foot minimum travel width was recommended. It was also determined that the curvature at'the point where it was. : designed to meet Johns Canyon Road was undesireable, and a more di- rect perpendicular intersection would be desireable to eliminate a tendency for lazy left turns.into the site across the outbound lane. Co One of the most significant issues evaluated at the southerly access 0 was the sight distance at that location and at the intersection of. 0 Chestnut Lane with Johns Canyon Road, and the relation of the two intersections with each other. A field investigation revealed that Go there is more than adequate sight distance for a vehicle outbound Co from the property with regard to traffic to the left, or northerly. Q Sight distance to the right, or southerly towards Chestnut Lane is - limited to approximately 80 feet because of a tree which overhangs into the road, as demonstrated by pictures of the area. Mr. Wilkin- son said modification or tr-imming of the landscaping would eliminate the sight distance issue. It was determined that the sight distance at the Chestnut Lane intersection is adequate for practical purposes.. Analysis of headlight glare impact was studied, and it was determined that if any residence is impacted by headlight glare, the residence at 2 Chestnut Lane could be impacted by glare from headlights on both inbound and outbound traffic unless landscaping or berming is installed to intercept the lights. Mr. Wilkinson said the glare would hit thea rear of the property, mainly in the garage area. Further, he said there could be a headlight sweep across the property at 9 Johns Canyon Road from cars exiting the site and making a right turn to Johns Canyon Road, but much of the headlight beam would be inter- cepted by an existing hedge.along the equestrian trail. He said a more perpendicular intersection with Johns Canyon Road could mini- mize some of the problem for the residence at 9 Johns Canyon Road, but there will still be a sweep of headlights from traffic turning _ into Johns Canyon.Road. To a certain extent the Speranza property at 12 Johns Canyon Road and the Kuhne property at 6 Johns Canyon Road. could have a potential lateral impact from headlight glare, but most of that glare will be intercepted by the adjacent side slopes or vege- tation, he said. Mr. Wilkinson said .that the northerly access alter- native incorporates a 24 foot travel width, which is preferable to the 19 foot width in the southerly access. In addition, there is a slight down grade of approximately 2% at Johns Canyon Road, which is preferable to the 5% upgrade of the southerly alternative. With regard to the internal circulation of the northerly plan, Mr.;W'il.kinson said the curve is somewhat limited for that street width in terms of accommodating opposing traffic safely, but he said that comment refers to internal circulation only, and not the access itself. He also said there could be a sight distance problem at the northerly access and it appears the remedy could be achieved by grading, and he said that if Johns Canyon Road were ever extended the northerly five foot bank would be a sight distance problem which should be addressed in a grading plan. Mr. Wilkinson said there would not be a significant headlight problem in that area, since there are existing driveways in the vicinity of the cul de sac. He said the conceptual Crenshaw Boulevard access was evaluated, and based on existing gradient and curvature, as well as the proximity to median construction on Silver Spur Road and Crenshaw, access would have to be limited to right turn - in and right turn out traffic, since it would not be possible to pro- vide a median break. It was Mr. Wilkinson's recommendation that this access not be considered, since it is too close. to a .signalized intersection, and could not constitute a fourth leg of that intersection. -6- 32® December 13, 1982 In summary, Mr. Wilkinson said it was determined that the south- erly access alternative, including over-all alignment, sight distance to Johns Canyon Road with propermaintenance of landscaping and compli- mentary traffic pattern to the Chestnut Lane intersection, since most movements to either location will be left turns, and most movements out will be right turns, are considered to be strengths of that alternative; shortcomings of that access include the basic offsite travel width of 19 feet, a slight "button hook" alignment and 5% upgrade for outbound traffic to Johns Canyon Road and potential headlight impacts on some adjacent properties. Positive features of the northerly access include a 24 foot minimum travel width throughout its length, a slight down- grade towards Johns Canyon Road and the existing sight distance at. - Johns Canyon Road, with consideration of future grading potential to improve the sight distance, should Johns Canyon Road be extended. The shortcomings include the radius and street width within the roadway - on site, a slight angle at Johns Canyon Road and potential sight dis- tance problems because of grading. All of the recommendations relate to the negative features identified in both plans, and Mr. Wilkinson showed slides illustrating the negative features including the 19 foot road width on the southerly alignment, the "button hook" configuration_, the gradient at Johns Canyon Road and maintenance of landscaping; he said they are contained on pages 33 and 34 of the document. Mr. Wilkinson said a letter dated December 8, 1982 from Sherman Silverman was forwarded to him by Ultrasystems, and he wished to com- ment on it for the record. Mr. Silverman forwarded comments by Cooper -Sherman Engineering Co. dated December 7,.1982 regarding miti- gation measures, and Mr. Wilkinson showed slides illustrating the landscaping that should be removed to ensure adequate sight distance. to the north and south along Johns Canyon Road in developing the southerly access. With regard to comments regarding mitigation for a northerly access, the comment that the mitigation measure is not needed on the northerly access plan provided by Cooper -Sherman Engineering Co. is basically a design detail, and does not relate to the question• of which access is better,. specifically the. northerly or southerly. Mr. Wilkinson said the slides were prepared as part of the field work done in conjunction with the study, and were taken to show the driver's view in all cases, and all computations of sight distance and.stopping distances were made using wet pavement as a basis, to provide a safety margin for ordinary driving conditions. With regard to Mr. Silverman's final comment -'relating to traffic and circulation, Mr. Wilkinson said it is basically a re -wording by Mr. Silverman of the County's assessment of the southerly access alter- native made in 1978 in a letter dated February 24, 1978. Revisions were made to the site plan in 1980 which address the concerns expressed by the County, and Mr. Wilkinson said the suggested wording proposed by Mr. Silverman is not appropriate and is basically not correct. Further, he said he would not presume to re -write the County's early findings without their knowledge, but he said the EIR analysis indicates that there is adequate separation between the southerly access and the - Chestnut Lane intersection, as illustrated also by the slides. Mr. Wilkinson said that had the County -maintained a position of inadequacy the County would not have signed the plans, as they have. There.seems to be some confusion about relocation of the trail, he said; it is his understanding that the bridle path will not be located adjacent to the southerly access roadway, but would be relocated to the northerly side of the Speranza property. It it were retained in the present location adjacent to the roadway and the basic elements of the cross section resolved so that there was adequate bridle path width adjacent to the roadway width it would not pose a safety problem, since there are in the City bridle paths adjacent to roadways that have much greater traffic volumes, including Johns Canyon Road, which has a bridle trail across the street from the proposed southerly access. With respect to Mr. Silverman's concern expressed about sight distance.as the southerly access enters the site at approximately 400 feet from Johns Canyon Road and the road curves slightly to the north along a 250 foot centerline radius, an analysis of the location indicates that the equestrian crossing could be retained as planned, and there is no sight distance issue for inbound traffic as long as vegetation does not ob- scure the sight distance. It was determined that outbound traffic could be obscured by a side cut; however, it was determined that an approach speed of 28 miles per hour on wet pavement would be a safe -7- ..e: =:iii;,.%,: - .. . . . December 13, 1982 321 speed, rather than the 20 mile per hour design speed stated by Mr. Silverman. Mayor Pernell asked what the speed limit is, and Mr. Wilkinson said that since it is only a proposed access, speed limit has not been determined or recommended, however, using the adverse features of wet pavement when there is a reduction of side friction going around a curve, it is considered that'25 - 30 miles per hour would be a safe speed, and is consistent with basic design speed of the roadway. Following the presentation of slides Councilman Heinsheimer said he wished to express appreciation for the clarity of the presentation of the slides and report, and he suggested that the following corres- pondence be attached to the EIR as Appendix "C 1. Telegram from S. Speranza, received December 13, 1982- 2. Letter dated December 10, 1982 from William Smiland 3. Letter dated December 13, 1982 from Bruce Lenorowitz, City of Rolling Hills Estates Planning°Director 4. Letter dated December 13, 1982 from Clark Leonard, Lanco 00 5.. Letter dated November 23, 1982 from Los Angeles County . O Fire.Department 6. Letter dated December 8, 1982 from Sherman Silverman m Councilman Heinsheimer-said it is evident that there are several CO issues to be considered, including lights and noise resulting from C[ traffic, but the fundamental difference is the exposure.6f residences that will be affected; in the southerly approach traffic would pass along the side and rear of.houses.which currently do not have traffic in those areas and in the northerly approach.there would be an increase in traffic passing in front of residences which currently have traffic passing by. Mayor Pernell said Mr. Wilkinson made a distinction regarding the difference in roadway widths in the northerly and southerly ap- proaches, and he asked whether an assessment was made of the potential for increasing the 19 foot width. Mr. Wilkinson said he did not, but the cross section is non-specific about the pitch of the swale, and it is possible that the outer swale segment could be travelled if the pitch is slight, or that the swale could be.replaced by curb and gutter. He said the 24 foot width is:a more comfortable approach, but a`.19 foot width could be acceptable. Further, 1.4r..Wilkinson said there are sec- tions of Johns Canyon Road that are 19 feet wide, with areas of signi- ficant curvature. Mr. Elfend advised the Council that the final thing considered in the report was noise,.which was an issue that generated interest as indicated in correspondence. Studies presented by the applicant were reviewed, and an effort was made to take measurements of ambient noise in the area. On November 4 and 5, 1982 monitoring equipment was placed on the Kuhne property and measurements were taken which indicated that the community can generally be considered to be quiet. Noise impact was studied, and it was determined that whether the northerly or south— erly access is developed, noise impact would not be significant. He said that although there would be a difference in the number of cars on Johns Canyon Road if the northerly access were developed,. -the in- crease in noise would be too slight to be perceived. If the souther- ly access were developed anew source of noise would occur,'but-it would not be a significant. level. He said a new source of noise in an area where there currently is no noise could be considered a nuisance, although it will not meet or exceed any criteria for noise. Mr. Elfend said that other topical issues were considered, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, and they included an analysis of the Crenshaw al- ternative, as directed by the judge in the decree, but it is not:.a viable alternative to either the north or south approach. Councilman Heinsheimer asked that the location of the bridle trail be clarified. The City Manager defined the trail location on a copy of the tentative map which was displayed, explaining that the trail crosses Johns Canyon Road and borders the Speranza property adjacent to the proposed southerly access, then dividing into both northerly and southerly directions at.the beginning of the proposed tract. .:-�r�-:� _ 'sir•`_ ,a• _ - 322 December 13, 1982 Councilman Heinsheimer said that in a letter dated October 16, --- 1978 Mr. Donald Brown of the Los Angeles County Road Department stated that the northerly access was preferable because of its location and alignment, and in a letter dated November 23, 1982 County Fire Depart- ment personnel indicated concurrence with Mr. Brown. The City Manager read into the record an update from Mr. Brown dated August 3, 1982, in which he stated that the southerly access is not unacceptable:from_ a strict traffic viewpoint if adequate sight distance is maintained to the north at Johns Canyon Road and for the proposed equestrian crossing west of Johns Canyon Road. Further, Mr. Brown made addi- tional recommendations regarding the equestrian crossing and design of Johns Canyon Road. Councilman Heinsheimer suggested that the Road Department letter dated August 3, 1982 be.added.to Appendix "C". Mr. Smith said the mitigation measures in the EIR are based on the updated letter from the Road Department, and it was on that update that the Fire Department based their comment. Councilwoman Murdock said that Mr. Elfend had stated that -if the southerly access were developed there would be noise from -a new source; she said it was her opinion that there would be noise from a new source if the ndrthe'rly access were developed, as well. Mr. Elfend said that in. neither,;.-,cas.e,-:would it be significant, and probably would not be perceived by the.residents if the northerly access were de-. veloped, and only in certain instances by residents if the southerly access were developed. . Mayor Pernell thanked Mr. Elfend and Mr. Wilkinson for their presentation and invited other interested parties to speak. Council- man Heinsheimer suggested that copies of the EIR and pertinent corres- pondence be provided to the Board of Directors of the Rolling Hills Community Association. Mr. William Reichert of Stearns and Kim, attorney for Chacksfield Merit Homes, asked whether the EIR has been received by the City Council as evidence. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney, said the Council has not acted on the EIR, and he said the Council should hear all testimony presented at the public hearing now under way before acting on the EIR or making any decision. Mr. Reichert said the only things to be considered are the items addressed,by Ultrasystems, namely land use, safety and noise. He said mitigation measures have been suggested, and it is his understanding that there is not a significant impact on the environment according to the EIR. Further, he said the County Road Department has found that the southerly access is not unacceptable. Mr. Reichert said Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering Corpora- tion would comment on how the mitigation measures will be implemented,, including relocation of the equestrian crossing to.a location north Of the Speranza property as shown on a revised map dated 1980, which shows the trail running along the northern boundary of the Speranza property. Mr. Reichert said Mr. Elfend has stated that there would not be a sig- nificant traffic impact difference between the northerly and southerly access, but he did say that there is a certain synchronization of traf- fic pattern from left turn entry and right turn exit on both Chestnut Lane and proposed Morgan Lane, the southerly access. Mr. Reichert said that the source of noise, rather than level of noise, should be considered, and he agreed with Councilwoman Murdock's statement that there would be a new source of noise in either case, stating that one of the Shultz properties would be subject to introduction of a new source of noise and.traf.fic similar to that introduced to a southerly access. Mr. Reichert said more homesites would be affected'by noise if the north access is used. Certain requirements, including drainage improvements, have been required of the developer if the southerly access is developed, and these requirements will be met, he said. With regard to impact on landscaping, there would be a greater impact by the northerly access, which would require removal of 29 trees, than by the southerly access, which would require removal of 1 tree. Further, Mr. Reichert said the northerly access would impact eight properties; the southerly access would impact five properties, and utilization..of the northerly access would require that the City�rescind.-its implied rejection of easements granted to the City of Rolling Hills by Mr. Gordon Shultz when he subdivided his property, which was how the northerly access was created in February, 1973. By rescinding the prior rejection the City of Rolling Hills would create a public ease- ment over which a public road would run, and it would be the only public road within the City of Rolling Hills without access to any December 13, 1982 323 other public road in the area.. Mr. Reichert said he wished to call to the Council's attention Plate No. 5 on page 13 of the EIR, a map of the tract prepared by Cooper -Sherman Engineering Co. addressing an alternate northern alignment.; he said no lot lines are shown on the map, since it would not be possible to create lots as shown that would meet the minimum two acre zoning requirement; therefore, the map could not be considered by the Council.as an alternative. Mr. Reichert said he would answer questions put to him. Councilman Heinsheimer asked Mr. Reichert to expand on the implied rejection of easement, saying that it was his understanding that an easement was provided .at the time the Shultz property was subdivided;1.said:easement was created so it could ultimately be used for access to the property now known as the Chacksfield Merit tract. Mr. Reichert said the easement was offered to the City and was not accepted within the time specified, resulting in implied rejection, which can now be rescinded and the City can accept the easement. Councilman Heinsheimer asked whether the 29 trees that would have to be removed to.develop. the northerly access are planted in the easement. Mr. Reichert said he was advised that the trees were•planted in 1956, and are planted in an area whichwould have to be cleared by removal of the trees if the 00 northerly access were developed. Mayor Pernell asked -the City Attor- O ney whether he agrees with Pair.. Reichert's statements. Mr. Jenkins said that he does essentially agree. CO Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering Corporation, said he CO has been working on the Chacksfield Merit Homes subdivision since 1977 C( Mr. McHattie said a.representation has been made to the Council that if the northerly access was developed the closest house would be 180 feet from the road. He said that is not really true, since the Speranza home is located 60 feet from the paved portion of Johns Canyon Road, and the closest house is 45 feet from the .road, .and all houses would have additional traffic passing if the northerly access were developed. Mr. McHattie said it has been inferred that the sou- therly access is only marginally acceptable to the Road Departrent. He said that after the most recent letter was written in August 1982 he met with representatives of the Road Department and advised them that in response to concerns expressed in the August 3, 1.982 letter f the trail.was.relocated and the design of the road was changed so it' now intersects with Johns Canyon Road ona 900 angle. Mr. McHattie said that based on that, the Road Department has indicated that there is no reservation about approving the southern access concept. He said there is a problem on Johns Canyon Road, as on.other roads in the City, of sight distance being limited by overgrown trees and shrubs; he said the problem could be improved or eliminated if'the over growth were removed or trimmed.back. With regard to the impact of sweeping headlights on the Lester property, Mr. McHattie said there would be a similar impact on the Kuhne property from headlights approaching that property from the north.travelling south on Johns Canyon Road. He said the southerly access could be widened, and the current design with inverted shoulder was.done at the request - and with the encouragement of staff. Mr. McHattie said there is an area three feet wide on the right hand side and three and one half feet on the left hand side of the paved area that are level with the paving, and are dirt which can be driven on. Mr. McHattie said there is no way to construct a roadway on the north at less than an 87o grade at some point. He said there has always been a drainage and ponding. problem in the area of the southerly access at the rear of the homes on Chestnut Lane, and the City has requested that the problem be addressed as part of the study relative to the subdivision. Mr. Mc - Hattie said that if the northerly access is developed no work will be done in the problem area; if the southerly access is developed the drainage problem will be resolved as part of the improvements. Mr. McHattie explained that the problem area is not actually within the tract, and the Flood Control District has indicated that.the developer is not required to remedy the _situation. Councilman Heinsheimer asked Mr. McHattie whether the changes in road design and trail location have been incorporated in the map before the City Council. Mr. McHattie said they have. Mr. McHattie said he asked Road Department representatives to write a third letter, based on his statements'to them regarding the changes, and they declined to do so, stating that their signing the plans indicated their approval. - Councilman Heinsheimer asked the City Manager whether there have been 710717. �J •- i .. Iv 324 December 13, 1982 any serious complaints from Chestnut Lane residents about recent problems of ponding or poor drainage; Mr. Smith said there have not been any complaints in the past six months. Councilman Heinsheimer said it appears that there will be a trade off for those residents between drainage problems and the impact of the southerly access. Mr. Smith said that following the recent heavy storm the Flood Control District was in that area within four hours after the heavy rains, and no word was received about specific drainage problems. Mr'.t McHattie said the northerly access was originally reserved when the property was RAS -1 zoning (minimum one acre) and it was anticipated that there would be approximately 18 homes built on the property. The roadway was planned to ensure adequate circulation. Since the zoning has been changed to RAS -2 (minimum two acre) and eight homes will be built, he said the southerly access would be preferable. Council- woman Leeuwenburgh asked whether there was anything in the record- ation of the Shultz tract that specified that the northerly ease- ment was intended to provide access for 18 homes. Mr. McHattie said there was not.. Mr. Elfend said that in response to comments about distance of homes from roadways, for the purposes of the study the distance of homes from the proposed north and south access was determined, and not the distance of homes from Johns Canyon Road. With regard to the driveability of the inverted shoulders in the narrow road, Mr. Wilkinson said that there would be no problem with a road 19 feet wide. RECESS Mayor Pernell recessed the meeting at 10:00 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 10:10 P.M. With regard to density and road design, Mr. McHattie said the design proposed by Cooper -Sherman Engineering Company could not be developed within the design regulations of the City of Rolling Hills. Mrs. Wanda Lester, 2 Chestnut Lane, said she wishes to re -state her opposition to the southerly access, explaining that it.has:been stated that headlights would sweep across her residence, and she considers the impact from the lights as detrimental to her property. She said there is a drainage problem, but it is her opinion that it can be solved without developing the southerly access. Mrs. Dorothy Kuhne said the houses that were built on Johns Canyon Road after the property was subdivided by Mr. Shultz were built away from the road, and oriented to Storms hill to the rear of the properties, so they would not be impacted by additional traffic on Johns Canyon Road. Mrs. Kuhne asked that the proposed southerly access not be addressed as Morgan Lane, since she said that is subliminal acceptance of the road. Further, she said her house .would not be affected by. additional traffic on Johns Canyon Road to the northerly access, but would be affected by the southerly access road, since the noise would be on _ the living level of the houses on Chestnut Lane and her house. Mrs.. Kuhne said the houses on Johns Canyon Road are built above and away from the road. Mrs. Kuhne said the tree that was shown in the slides as impairing the sight distance was destroyed during the recent storm and is no longer a landscaping problem. Mr. Sherman Silverman asked that the City Attorney affirm that if the northerly access is approved there is nothing to prevent the City from requiring -that the drainage problems at the rear of Chest- nut Lane be remedied. Mr. Jenkins said the problem can be corrected whichever access is approved, and the City Manager has stated for the record that it will be done as a condition of approval of the tract. Mr. Silverman said that in a letter dated October 20, 1982 the Roll- ing Hills Community Association's legal counsel stated that the Asso- ciation is the owner of the northerly access easement, and has ruled out the possibility of access to the subdivision through the norther- ly route. Mr. Silverman said that when Tract 30605 was recorded in 1973 the easement for access was also recorded by Mr. Shultz, the subdivider. Mr. Silverman said only one mitigation measure would be required for development of the northerly access; numerous mitiga- tion measures would be required for development of the southerly access. -11- J 325 December 13, 1982 Mr. William Smiland, attorney representing the Shultz family, asked that the Council consider a letter dated December 13, 1982 from Clark M. Leonard, Lanco Land Consultants and Civil Engineers, in which he.requested that the City Council approve tentative tract 33871, stating that the draft EIR, prepared by Ultrasystems, Inc., an independent agency, states that no significant impacts are anticipated using the southerly access, as long as mitigation measures suggested are used. Mr. Smiland said that pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, the Council should act on the tentative tract based on the findings in the Environmental. Impact Report, and he read into the record the concluding two paragraphs from his letter dated December 10, 1982, which state that the EIR confirms that the southerly access will yield no significant impacts, whether environmental, public health, land use, traffic, safety, noise or otherwise. Mr. Smiland stated in his letter thatno.Council. member could reasonably conclude.that the proposed pro- ject is likely to yield substantial environmental damage or serious public health problems, and that the Council is without the power to deny the developer's right to build the project in the manner proposed. Mr. Smiland said:t.hat the only question before the Council is whether the southern access would cause environmental damage of a substantial 0 nature or public health problems of a serious nature. He asked the 0 Council to consider the issue, and.what the report says about the issue. m Dir. Bruce Munroe, 4 Chestnut Lane, said he disagrees with the CO conclusions of the report, and he said his property would be severely impacted by noise because .the bedrooms of the houses on Chestnut Lane Q closest to the southerly access would be level with the road area. Mr. Munroe said his occupation causes him to sleep in the daytime, so he is not concerned with the odd early morning occasional.noises referred to, but would be affected by daytime noises if the new road is developed in the southerly location. Mr. C. E. Gregory, 13 Johns Canyon Road, said he has two bedrooms and his main living area facing. Johns Canyon Road, which varies from seven to eleven feet below the level of his home. Dor. Gregory said. it is his opinion that the homes on Chestnut Lane are more removed from the road in elevation than the separation of his home from Johns Canyon Road. Air. Herb Cooper of Cooper -Sherman Engineering Co. said he wished to defend the Alternate Northern Alignment, Plate 5, Page 13 of the EIR. In comparing the alignment with the plan for Southern Access Alignment in Plate 3, Page 11, prepared by South Bay Engineering, Mr. Cooper said the alignment of the pads is the same in both drawings,. and the por- tion of the access northerly of the proposed northerly access is also identical, but has been extended southerly using the same roadway,. terminating in a cul de sac in the southerly portion. In response to a question by Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh about the difference in paving required, Mr. Cooper said his plan would require less paving than the South Bay Engineering plan. Mrs. Dorothy Kuhne asked why no slides of the northerly access were included in the presentation. Mr. Wilkinson said the issue that was addressed was sight distance relating to the southerly access; he said he could show slides of the northerly access if requested to do so. Dir. William Peters, 11 Johns Canyon .Road, said his.residence has two bedrooms facing Johns Canyon Road. Hr..Peters said speed has been. a problem on Johns Canyon Road for several years. He said there is a drop of 210 feet on Johns Canyon Road from Crest Road West to Chestnut Lane, and cars build up speed in the downhill approach. Cars turning into Chestnut Lane slow near the intersection, and he said it is his opinion that cars turning left into the proposed southerly access would also maintain a slow approach, but if using the northerly access there would be a tendency.for cars to increase speed between Chestnut Lane and the northerly left turn. Councilman Heinsheimer said that as future development is done, specifically the Storm subdivision which will take access from Johns Canyon Road, there will be a greater need for traffic control, including installation of stop signs in some locations. Mr. Peters said the question of ultimate development needs to be considered, and he said that diverting traffic from any portion of a road as soon as possible benefits all residents of that road, and he urged that the southerly access be approved because of the easy flow into the proposed Morgan Lane and the right hand turn exit. -12- 326 December 13, 1982 Mr. Reichert said he wished to respond to Mr. Silverman's state- ment that if the northerly access were approved only one mitigation measure would be needed, since Mr. Silverman failed to include the skew on the northerly access which was referred to in the Ultrasystems report as something that should be corrected. In response to Mr. Silverman's request that the southerly access area.be kept open -for use for open areas and recreation, Mr. Reichert said the easements were granted for access only, not for other uses. In response to Mr. Munroe's concern about noise, Mr. Reichert said Mr. Wilkinson had stated that the maximum safe speed would be 28 mph, and the total amount of time would be only 2% of the day, or 20 minutes, so noise for daytime sleepers should not be a problem. There being no further testimony, Mayor Pernell closed the both public hearings, the hearing on the EIR and the hearing on Tract 33871. The Mayor asked the City Attorney to address first the EIR, specifically the matter of the public road and the alternatives proposed, with the impact of the alternatives considered, followed by consideration of the tract. Mr. Jenkins said that he wished to clarify his earlier response with regard to the public easement, which Mr. Reichert said had been offered to the public and rejected by implication. In agreei.ng with Mr. Reichert's statement that dedication of.the roadway had been of- fered for public access and that it is available to the City, Mr. Jenkins said he did not agree with all of Mr. Reichert's statements. Mr. Jenkins explained that if the roadway were accepted by the City it would be a public road only if the Community Association declined to accept the easement for roadway purposes, as it normally accepts access easements under similar circumstances. Mr. Jenkins said the EIR is an informational process whereby, when the Council determines that there is a significant impact by a proposal such as a subdivision, conditional use permit, etc., mitigation measures can be developed and the project can be approved subject to the mitigation measures. He said the purpose of the document is to assist the Council, but.does not dictate how the Council is to act in considering the project, so it does not result in unnecessary impact. He said, further, a pro- ject can be approved without mitigation measures if there are over- riding considerations justifying the project, even if there is a significant impact resulting from the project. In the case before the Council the EIR indicates that there will not be a significant environmental impact, whether the northerly or southerly access is approved, but it points out positive and negative aspects of the alternatives to assist the Council in makir-, a determination as to how the map will be approved. Mr. Jenkins said it would be appropri- ate to approve a project as proposed where there is no significant environmental impact, if the Council wishes to do so. He said he does not agree with Mr. Smiland's position that it would be outside of the power of the Council to act in a way other than that which _ has been proposed by the applicant. Mr. Jenkins said the proposal is to develop eight lots on property to which there are two possible dedicated easements, and he considers it within the discretion of the Council to choose one. He said deference should be given to the one which was proposed by the applicant, and the EIR has demonstrated that the access chosen by the subdivider does not create a signifi- cant environmental impact, but he said the Council is not tied to that proposal if there are overriding considerations which, in the opinion of the Council, make the alternate access preferable. Councilman Heinsheimer said information is now available to the City which was not considered by the Association, and he suggested that the report" and testimony be made available to the Board of Directors, and that acquisition of the northerly easement be pursued for access, and that the southerly access be reserved for equestrian use. Mayor Pernell said he does not agree that the new information indicates that the northerly access is superior in any way to the southerly access; further, the Mayor said the Council's decision should be made inde- pendently, and not based on any conciliation or compromise with the Community Association. Mayor Pernell said there seems to be a per- ceived loss of the northerly easement and he asked whether it could be restored for use. Mr. Jenkins said it could be used for other easement uses, such as equestrian uses, bixt-'.not -for vehicle .access:. -13- 327 December 13, 1982 Councilman Heinsheimer asked whether it would be possible to enforce clearing of the easement of obstructions so that it could be used for the benefit and enjoyment of the residents in the area, rather'.than for the present private use. Mr. Jenkins said that.once an•access has been approved by the Council and developed by the applicant, development of the alternate easement, and funds to do so, would have to come from another source. Mayor Pernell said it is his opinion that if anything is going to be done with the northerly easement, it should be done at this time; Councilman Heinsheimer agreed that it should be part of the overall consideration. RECESS The meeting was recessed at 11:25 P.M. and reconvened at 11:35 P.M. Councilwoman Murdock moved that the Council accept the Environmental Impact Report and.that the City Clerk be instructed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of Los Angeles County and with the State of California that the EIR has been reviewed and utilized as an informational document by the City Council in evaluating Tract 33871; that all legal requirements were met pursuant to CEQA;: and -that the EIR was prepared and processed pursuant to CEQA and has been so certi- fied. The motion was seconded by Councilman Heinsheimer and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock, Swanson, Mayor Pernell NOES: None ABSENT: None Councilwoman Murdock moved that Tentative Tract 33871, as pre- sented, with modifications a.nd mitigations as recommended, be approved subject to the following findings: that the proposed map is not incon- sistent with the General Plan of the City.; that the design for improve- ment of the subdivision is not inconsistent with the General Plan of the City; that the site is .physically suitable for -the type of develop- ment proposed; that the site is physically suitable for the density.. proposed; that the design of the proposed improvement is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or .wildlife; that the design.of the subdivision and the type of improvements is not likely to.cause serious health.problems; and, that the design of the subdivision will not conflict with ease- ments acquired by the public for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. The.City Attorney said the findings which were made in the staff report and which are contained in the record should be incorporated into the motion. The maker of the motion agreed with the recommendation and.it was so ordered. The motion was amended -to -include a requirement that the bridle trail be moved from the present location in the southerly portion of the tract.to thee... northerly easement, which is to be improved to accommodate whatever equestrian or other purposes it will be used for in the future, and that appropriate landscaping be required to mitigate the impact in the area. The City Manager said a list of conditions including the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR has been prepared and was distributed to the Council, and he suggested that these also be added to the approval of the map. Mayor Pernell asked whether the applicant had seen the additional conditions. fir. McHattie said he had, and was agreeable to complying with them. Landscaping requirements were discussed, and methods of bonding or deposits to guarantee performance were also discussed. Councilwoman Swanson asked Mr. McHattie .whether there is a plan -for a sound.attenu- ation wall to eliminate noise near the proposed southerly access, and Bir. McHattie said that was eliminated, since no one wanted it. The City Attorney said. that with regard to requirements for landscaping and other requirements, the final. -map should not be approved unless all.. requirements have been complied with. Additional requirements submitted by staff were incorporated into the approval: -14- December 13, 1982 1. Modify connection to Johns Canyon Road to minimize the "semi -button hook" configuration now indicated on the plan. (EIR mitigation). 2. Modify the gradient of the roadway at Johns Canyon Road to provide a 50 foot landing with gradient of no more than two percent (EIR mitigation). 3. Maintain the trees and shrubbery adjacent to the roadway so as to insure adequate sight distance from the access to the south (EIR mitigation). 4. Landscaping with an automatic or drip irrigation system is to be installed along the southerly boundary.of the tract adjacent to the access roadway, and is to be completed or bonded for prior to recordation of the final map. Said landscaping is to be maintained weed and disease free.by the property owner for a period of twenty four months from dateof installation. The landscaping materials, gallonage and blossum coloring are to be approved by the staff of the City of Rolling Hills upon consultation with a committee specializing in landscaping serving the Community Association of Rolling Hills. This landscaping plan is intended for purposes of screening adjacent residential uses by bulk and height. 5. Drainage plans for the access roadway (Morgan Lane) and westerly thereof are to be prepared and approved by the City Engineer. 6. Northerly roadway easement obtained via approval of Tract 30605 is to be opened, cleared, and used as a_ private community roadway which is to include a bridle trail and availability for potential vehicular and emergency access. This is to.be.done by the developer ,�(� at no expense to.the City of Rolling Hills. The im- provements are to be completed or bonded for prior to J final recordation of tract 33871. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swanson .and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock Swanson, Mayor Pernell NOES: None ABSENT: None The City Manager said a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 33871 will be prepared for adoption at the next regular meeting of the City Council. ANTENNA TOWER Councilwoman Swanson said it is her understanding that Mr. William King and Mr. Robert Mohr have been meeting in an effort to resolve the issues concerning the antenna tower, and she asked that the record reflect her request that they be asked to submit in writing to the Council a report on the progress of their dis- cussions, such report to be made prior to February 1, 1983 so -the matter can be scheduled for the agenda of a City Council meeting soon after that date. -15- December 13, 1982 RESPONSE BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON DURING STOR1*l .2400 Councilwoman Swanson asked that Southern California Edison be advised of the Council's dissatisfaction with their company with respect to lack of communication with the City following the storm on November 30, 1982. Mayor Pernell said a letter is being drafted for his signature, advising the president of Southern California Edison regarding their lack of preparation for the emergency and the lack of communication during the power outages, with copies to the Public Utilities Commission. INSURANCE, 2420 Councilwoman Murdock.said a decision will be made by the Board of Directors within a few days about whether to combine insurance coverage jointly with the City of Rolling Hills. PURCHASE OF ROLLING HILLS BOOKS 2430 .The City Manager advised the Council that a resident has of.ferel.' to purchase 100 copies of the A. E. Hanson book about Rolling Hills if they can be made available at a discounted price. The Manager was authorized to sell the books at the best price, not lower than $4.00 each. PLANNING COMMISSION TERMS OF OFFICE 2445 The Manager advised that a recently adopted ordinance requires re -appointment of the current Planning Commission or appointment of new Commissioners,'since all current terms of office will expire on December 31, 1982, and the Council will not meet again until the second Monday in January, 1983. Councilman Heinsheimer moved that the terms of office of current Planning Commissioners be extended until February 1, 1983, and that. appointment to the Planning Commission be scheduled for the January 10, 1983 City Council agenda. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swanson and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock; Swanson, Mayor Pernell NOES: None ABSENT: None REGIONAL POLICE MEETING 2462 The City Manager reported that at a recent Regional meeting a report of enforcement of the DUI (Driving Under the Influence) program was given, and it was reported that during the first month there were 35 arrests; 23 of those were not Peninsula residents; and several_ marginal cases were not detained. HOLIDAY HOURS The Manager reminded the Council that the City offices will be closed Thursday afternoon, December 23 and 30, and all day Friday, December 24 and 31 in observance of the holidays. - ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 A. M. Tuesday, December 14, 1982 to reconvene on Monday, January 10, 1983 at 7:30 P.M.