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.