8/31/1982•
a�
`MINUTES OF AN
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
August 31, 1982
An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City
Hills was called to order at.the Administration Building,
Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California by Mayor Pernell at
Tuesday, August 31, 1982.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
259
of Rolling
2 Portuguese
7:40 P.M.
Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock,.
Mayor Pernell
Councilwoman Swanson
Ronald L. Smith
Michael Jenkins
June Cunningham
William Kinley
William Reichert
William Smiland
Sherman Silverman
Elizabeth White
Douglas McH.attie
Randy Wood
Harry Hansen
James Collis
Mr...& Mrs. C. E. Gregory
Mrs. D: Kuhne
Mrs. W*Lester
Mrs. B. Raine
Miss B. Raine
Mr. & Pars .. S . Speranza
City Manager
City Attorney.
Deputy City Clerk
Attorney
Attorney
Attorney
Attorney
Attorney
South Bay Engineering Corp.
Palos Verdes Penin. News
Court Reporter
Subdivider
Residents
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33871 - CHACKSFIELD MERIT HOMES 40
Mayor.Pernell stated that the purpose of .the adjourned meeting was
for the Council to consider the findings of fact with regard to a pro-
posal for creation of eight lots on twenty acres in Rolling Hills on a_
plateau located between Crenshaw Boulevard and Johns Canyon Road. The
Mayor said testimony was taken at a public hearing on August 23, 1982,
and the hearing was closed on that date. He said each finding in the
findings of fact prepared in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act
needs to be weighed against the evidence in the record and as -present
ed at the public hearing.* The City Manager reported that the seven
findings were prepared in compliance with Section 66474 of the Califor-
nia Government Code, which.mandates that the maprriust be denied on the
basis of failure to comply with any of the seven findings. The Mayor
thereafter opened discussion of the findings (a) through (g).
Councilman Heinsheimer asked whether the corrected version of the
testimony taken at the August 23 meeting had been made available to
everyone. The City Manager explained that the minutes were distribu-
ted in rough draft form as soon as they were typed; subsequently the
minutes were prepared in final form to be submitted for the record.,
with minor corrections of form and typographical errors; there was
no substantive difference from the minutes which were distributed to
the Council earlier.
Councilman Heinsheimer said .that in reviewing the files it was
his opinion that an important aspect is the agreements and conditions
which were part of the approval of subdivision of the Shultz property,
specifically a street dedication which'is recorded on the final map,
for access to the proposed subdivision from both a northerly and a
southerly access route. He said the dedication is shown on the final
map of Tract 30605., which was recorded in 1973, and the two means of
access were required and were dedicated as part of a master planning
activity. Further, he said that when Tract 33871 was considered, the
majority of the bodies considering the subdivision found that the
northerly access was compatible and was preferable, but as a result
of problems, the southerly access was ultimately approved. Council-
man Heinsheimer said the map has been remanded to the City asa
result of litigation in the matter, and Exhibit 1, which was submitted
26®
August 31, 1982
to the Council, addresses only the southerly access, implying that
this is the access to be considered. Councilman Heinsheimer asked
that the Council not approve the map as submitted for the Tentative'
Tract 33871, as Conditions -No. 7 and 8 pertain to modifications of
lot width requirements and lot depth requirements. It was his recom-
mendation that the subdivider be requested to submit a map which con-
forms to the requirements of the subdivision ordinance or submit a map
which shows the other access as well. Councilwoman Murdock said she
thought Councilman Heinsheimer brought up a valid point, and she agreed
that the tract should be considered from an overall planning point of
view, with all options considered. Councilwoman Murdock said any sub-
division submitted should be considered in this manner. Councilwoman
Leeuwenburgh agreed. Mayor Pernell said any property owner has the
right to develop his property as he sees fit, and if the proposed
development is not unacceptable the Council should go along with it,
without requiring alternatives. With regard to conditions, Mayor
Pernell said that during his time on the Planning Commission and the
City Council it was his recollection that all subdivisions required
some modification of the Subdivision Ordinance for approval.,. because
of the unique topography in the City. The Mayor said he wished to
go through the staff findings, with the assistance of the City Attor-
ney and the City Manager., to determine whether the map is consistent
with the General Plan, as required. The City Attorney advised the .
Council that the approach in the findings is in the negative, explain-
ing that the Council is not required to approve the proposed.:map:-if .it
is demonstrated that.the map isnot consistent with applicable general
and specific plans.
The City Attorney advised that the first finding, (a), is that the
proposed map is consistent with the general and specific plans, saying
that in this case there is no specific plan. Mayor Pernell said that
the zoning for the proposed tract is RAS -2, which is in compliance with
the City's General Plan. Councilman Heinsheimer said the zoning was
changed from RAS -1 to RAS -2, and by elim-inating the northerly access
the Council was precluded from considering that access, which is an
inconsistency in the Council's planning option. He said the Council
should consider not only the City's General Plan, which he said is
vague, but should also consider the specific plan as contained.in the
record of the Planning Commission and City Council and the maps of
the area which have been recorded. The City Attorney said the map
should be applicable to and consistent with the land use element of
the General Plan.
Mayor Pernell polled the Council regarding their opinion of
whether the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh said she had no object-
ion to finding (a) as stated. Councilwoman Murdock said it is her
opinion that the proposed subdivision is not in conflict with the
City's General Plan; Mayor Pernell agreed. Councilman Heinsheimer
said the map is inconsistent with the General Plan, and he objects to
the procedure, since he.doe.s not think the consideration by the.
Council should be separated into segments.
Mr. Jenkins read finding (b) into the record: "That the design
or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with appli-
cable general and specific plans", and suggested that the Council
refer to the staff's report which discusses some of the things which
must be considered in making a finding of inconsistency. Mayor
Pernell said he finds that there is no inconsistency. Councilwoman
Murdock said she does not have a problem with the proposed density
of the development, but does have a problem with the proposed access.
as it relates to the General Plan, which addresses the overall.impact
on individual properties; as well as the impact on the City itself.
She said she finds it difficult to separate the two, and to deter-
mine which the Council should consider as far as the General Plan is
concerned. She asked the City Attorney whether the General Plan is
meant to be a basic overall philosophy without specific application,
or whether what is in the General Plan should be applied to each in-
dividual property. The City Manager said General Plans differ from
city to city, with some cities being more specific than others.
-2-
August 31, 1982
261
Mr. Smith said that unless the City Council can find that the first
two findings are inconsistent with the City's General Plan, they
should move on to the remaining findings. He said that the law is
very clear; in California seven findings are required, and if any one
finding cannot be made, the law mandates that the subdivision not be
approved; using the wording "shall be denied".. Mayor Pernell said
some members of the .Council are having a problem with t_he access, and
he asked where that consideration comes in.. Mr. Smith said it could
be considered under finding (c), "physically suitable for the type
of development'.', or (d), "physically suitable for the proposed den-
sity of development", (e) "substantial environmental damage", or (f)
"serious public health problems". Mayor Pernell said the site was
originally a possible 20 home site, and the fact that it is now be—
fore the Council as a proposal for eight additional sites is of
benefit.to both the City and the entire community, since it is only
40% of the original potential. Councilwoman Murdock said there is
no basis, in her opinion, -of support for a finding that the proposal
is inconsistent with the General Plan; Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh
agreed. Councilman Heinsheimer said that on page 4 of the staff
report, section 1. c. indicates that the location and lengths of
00 proposed streets are appropriate; since the length and location of
O one of the streets shown on Tract 30605 is not included,, the map is
incompatible, and because it has been converted for personal use, it.
is inconsistent with the General Plan. Mayor Pernell said.he consid-
ers it consistent with the General Plan.
m
C[ The City Attorney explained that finding (.c), that the -site is
physically suitable for the type of development addresses the single
family residence type of development planned for the subdivision.
All members of the Council agreed that this is consistent with the
.General Plan. In discussing finding (d), t hat the site is physically
suitable for the pro.posed density of'development, Mr.*Jenkins said it
refers to a proposal for eight building sites in an area originally
planned to accommodate 20 building sites. Councilwomen Leeuwenburgh
and Murdock and Mayor Pernell agreed that it is consistent with the
intent of..the General Plan. Councilman Heinsheimer said the Council
is giving away lot width and lot depth requirements, which is usually
used in the end of a subdivision process and is the key element the
Council has in exercising its prerogatives, and is usually arrived
at as a mutually agreeable settlement. Mayor Pernell said it is his
understanding that accepting the findings does not necessarily mean
that the Council must also accept all of the conditions.of approval
as stated; the City Attorney said that is correct, and the Council
will have an opportunity to impose conditions. Councilman Heins-
heimer-said he thought density should include, in addition to the
square footage of each lot, other aspects of density including.lot
separation, width and depth requirements and residence separation.
Mayor Pernell suggested that the Council proceed with the rest of
the review and return to density at a later time if it seems desire -
able. Councilman Heinsheimer agreed.
In discussing finding (e), that the design .of the subdivision
or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial envir-
onmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wild=
life, the City Attorney said he wished to address the use of the
term "substantial environmental damage", stating that it is, in his
opinion, synonymous with "significant environmental impact", or very
close thereto. Councilman Heinsheimer said he has no objection,
since the Environmental Quality Board has reviewed the project.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh said she wished to comment, stating that
she has researched the matter, and wished to state her opposition,
based on a letter from the Road Department; the closeness of the
proposed intersections, which would be only 180' apart; concern
for the Hansen property which is 1.6 acres gross, the Munroe pro-
perty which is 1.9 acres gross, and the Lester property which is
1.11 acres gross, surrounded by two acre development; closeness of
the road to the Kuhne property and the Speranza guesthouse, which
she said is unacceptable. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh said she is
the only member of the Council who has not previously considered
the matter, and she researched 00 separate.streets in the commu-
nity. She said there are six p perties in the City of over 600
houses which arP..bordered by thr separate streets, including:
hree (CC 9/13/82)
-3-
262
August 31, 1982
the Leake property, 2 Crest Road East, which consists of 1.219 acres,
was subdivided in August 1946, and is bounded by Portuguese Bend and
Cinchring Roads; the Marano property, 2. Southfield Drive,. developed
in April 1950, which is bounded by Crest Road and Flying Mane Road;
the Kazarian property, 14 Blackwater Canyon Road, consists of 8.448
acres, was developed in 1936 and is bounded by Blackwater Canyon Rd.,,
Pine Tree Lane and Portuguese. -Bend Road; the Okada property, 2 Acacia
Lane consists of 1.95 acres, was developed in June 1937 and is bound-
ed by Acacia Road, Acacia Lane and Portuguese Bend Road; the Ormsby
property, 2 Eucalyptus Lane, bounded by Eucalyptus Lane,_ Saddleback
Road and Portuguese Bend Road, consisting of 1.59 acres, and devel-
oped in January 1937. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh said the Zuehlke
property has a six -sided lot,.with roads on four sides, is located -
at 1 Acacia Lane and -consists of 2.40 acres. She said her research
indicates that there has been no modern development similar to that
proposed; the most recent subdivision done in this manner was in 1950.
Councilman Heinsheimer asked whether any of the -roads were added after
the land was subdivided; Mayor. Pernell said the Marano property, the
most recently developed in 1950, was created with three boundary
roads when Flying Mane Road was put•in.,'Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh
said it is her opinion that the proposed tentative map is likely to
cause substantial environmental damage to the Hansen, Munroe, Lester,
Speranza, and Kuhne properties because of the proximity of the pro-
posed access road. Mayor Pernell asked the.City Attorney whether
that would be environmental damage. Mr..:Jenkins said the resulting
noise and traffic could be considered environmental impact. There
is a stop sign on Chestnut Lane, Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh said,
and there would be a need for an additional stop sign. Councilwoman
Murdock and Mayor.Pernell agreed with the concerns expressed by Coun-
cilwoman Leeuwenburgh, and the Mayor noted that the Council is still
3/1 in their opinions, since Councilman Heinsheimer said he did not
have any objection to finding (0. Councilman Heinsheimer said he
thought Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh made some very_ good points, but he
would not have included them under environmental impact, but would
have discussed them under finding (f), or as a general comment.
Mr. Jenkins read finding (f), that the .design of the subdivision
or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health.
problems. The Mayor said that'in considering noise and traffic in
connection with this finding, a noise study has been submitted, and
a letter from the Los Angeles County Road Department has indicated
that the proposed southerly access is not unacceptable, providing
there are provisions made for sight distance and safe equestrian
crossing. The City Manager reported that in the General Plan
decibel ratings of 43-55 were established; according to the noise
level study it was determined that the average ambient noise level
of 45-50 is within that range.. Councilwoman beeuwenburgh said it
is her opinion that -the amount of traffic and the resulting noise
from two stop signs would have an unfavorable impact on the Lester,
Munroe and Kuhne properties and would be unacceptable.: Council-
woman Murdock said she shares Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh's concern
in connection with the traffic and noise, but has difficulty with
the concept of "serious public health problems", and she. does not
find it inconsistent on this basis. Mayor Pernell agreed. Council-
man Heinsheimer said. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh's concerns about
finding (e), could be applied to this section, stating that many
people have testified about the adverse impact of the proposed
access. Councilman Heinsheimer said he agreed that an additional
stop sign would be needed, and would result in added noise; he
suggested that general traffic'study.would be needed when the Storm
property is developed, but he said that in this instance the subdi-
vider has not indicated any precedent for surrounding an existing
property on three sides with roads, which would increase traffic and
noise to a point which appears to be unprecedented in the City, and
which would put a burden on the property owners involved, and would
result in two blind exits very close to each other. He said the-.
County statement that the proposed access is not unacceptable is an
indication that another access would be preferable, and he considers
it a clear signal to the City Council that the County might suggest
that the Council use its discretion with regard to the access.
Councilman Heinsheimer said he agrees with Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh
in her concerns.
-4-
r'TyK'Z^.�Jny3J�
August 31, 1982
263
Mr. Jenkins read finding (g) that the design of the subdivision
of the type of improvements will conflict with.easements acquired by
the.public at large for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision. Mr. Jenkins said staff has advised that in
this connection the governing body may approve a map if it finds
that alternate easements for access or for_use will be provided,
and that these will be essentially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. The City Attorney said that staff also
indicates that an easement for public sewers, has been obtained
through the proposed subdivision and all roadway and equestrian
trail development will be private, and not publicly owned. The Mayor
said the finding applies to easements for drainage and sewers, and
he asked for comment. Councilwomen Leeuwenburgh and Murdock said
they thought there was no conflict; Councilman Heinsheimer said
there is a conflict regarding easmenis acquired by the public at
large. He said the easements being discussed for access are not on
the property itself, but were given to.the City and its residents
as a condition.of a previous subdivision. William Kinley, attorney
for the Rolling Hills Community Association, stated that incorrect
information was being given, and he asked that the meeting be opened
. and that he be permitted to comment on the matter of easements.
0 The City Attorney advised that since the public, hearing was closed
on August 23.it would not be possible to open the meeting without
m giving the required notice. The Mayor said.that'the Council had
heard the objections expressed by Mr. Kinley, and the discussion
CO was resumed. Mr. Jenkins said the finding addresses actual conflict
Q with easements acquired by the public, and it is his opinion.that
there is no such conflict. The City Manager explained"that the
finding pertains to easements of public ownership, including ease-
ments for sewers and storm drains, and does not pertain to private
access ways. Councilman Heinsheimer said the map shows a 60 foot
wide future street leading to the proposed tract, but not actually
on the property. In this context, public is interpreted as the
residents of the City of Rolling Hills, he said, and if the Council
accepts this and abandons the easement which the citizens have had
rights to until this time, it is his opinion that there would be a
conflict. Councilman Heinsheimer asked whether there is a difference
in interpretation regarding an easement outside of the property which
is intended to give access to the property and an easement which is
actually on the property. The City Attorney explained that the
finding pertains to easements on the property--for-improvements' such
as sewers and storm drains, and in this case there is no conflict.-
Mayor
onflict.
Mayor Pernell said there is an impasse on finding (f) with
regard to noise and traffic,. and he asked the City Attorney to advise
the Council on the latitude and discretion they have with regard to
the testimony on the record and the adequacy of the findings.. He
said the Council has expert testimony, and he asked whether they
could vote on the basis of their opinions, if they are inconsistent.
with the testimony of experts. Mr. Jenkins said there must be evi-
dence to support the findings. He said the role of the Council is
to consider all of the evidence, weigh it,;and make a determination
about which evidence is most persuasive where there is a conflict
of evidence. In this particular matter there is conflicting evidence
which the Council must evaluate. Mayor-Pernell asked Councilwoman
Leeuwenburgh to explain her opinion that finding (f) is inconsis-
tent, in view of the evidence which has been presented to the Council.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh said she has researched earlier subdivisions
in the area, as well as properties which are bounded by three different
streets, and based on her. -research it is her opinion that creation of
a third street would work a hardship on certain properties. Mayor
.Pernell said the Council is not.considering hardship, but must con-
sider traffic safety, noise impact and consistency with use. Council-
woman Leeuwenburgh said it is her opinion that the impact of noise
and increased traffic on the Kuhne, Munroe, Iiansen,..'Speranza and
Lester properties would not be consistent with Rolling Hills de-,
velopment. Mayor Pernell asked the City Attorney whether the Council
has the discretion to make a decision based on feeling as well as on
evidence. Mr. Jenkins said each Council member should make their
decision based on their evaluation of the evidence presented. Coun-.
Gilman Heinsheimer said his concern has a different thrust, stating
that his concern is traffic safety, since there is evidence in the
record that there is an alternative which may be safer, and the
=5-
264
August 31, 1982
County's acceptance was marginal in his opinion; he said it is
incumbent on the.Council to explore the safest possible access to
the area, and there is no evidence that the access being proposed
is that, but there is evidence that there is a viable alternative.
He said he would agree with Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh that the
finding is inconsistent, but for different reasons. Councilwoman
Leeuwenburgh said she gave five reasons for her objections, and the.
first was the letter from the Road Department.
Mayor Pernell said the Council has reviewed seven findings.
No inconsistencies have been revealed in six of the findings, and
the Council has reached an impasse on one of the findings; he
asked the City Attorney about the next step with regard to the
application. Mr. Jenkins said the Council should consider any other
matters before them in connection with the application, and after all
matters have been discussed, a motion should be made. The Mayor then
opened a discussion of the proposed conditions of approval, inviting
comment on any exceptions. The City Manager explained that the
conditions were placed on the original tentative map when it was
approved by the City Council, with the addition of Condition 19
which covers contemporary practice on solar energy requirements for
subdivisions. Councilman Heinsheimer said he has objected to con-
ditions 7 and 8, since they were included without giving the Council
an opportunity to discuss modifications of lot width and depth, and
he suggested that condition 16 which pertains to lot footages along
street easement line be. included. The City Manager explained that
standards for lot design are contained in the Municipal Code, and it
appears that because of the topography and terrain in the City there
has been a precedent for modification of .the requirements by the
Council. Mr. Smith said this is strictly a discretionary matter,
and is not mandated. Councilman Heinsheimer agreed, explaining that
historically, at the end of the process of review of a subdivision,
when it is obvious that the proposal before the Council is the best
proposal for development of the land and will be of benefit to the
citizens, some modifications are granted. He said -that in so doing
there has been a tendency to minimize the number of modifications as
well as negotiate to minimize the number of lots developed, create
riding rings, based on discussions of the modifications. He said
the process should be in the final stage, and it was his opinion
that the modifications should not be included in the list of con-
ditions of approval, stating that it is inappropriate for the Council
to give away the modifications contained in items 7 and 8, since there
is still considerable question about whether the proposal before the
Council is the best subdivision of the property.
On the recommendation of the City Attorney, Mayor Pernell opened
discussion of the Environmental Impact Assessment Negative Declaration
which was prepared by Planning staff and approved and adopted by the
City's Environmental Quality Board. Councilwoman Murdock notedithat
the assessment addressed only the southerly access.. Councilman Heins-
heimer said he objected to statements that "----the project will not
have a significant effect on the physical environment since it will not:
1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system;
p) Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining
areas;
v) Create a potential public health or safety hazard; or involve
the use, production or disposal of materials which pose a
hazard to people or animals or plant populations in the area
affected;
Mayor Pernell,said the Council must either accept or reject the
report, and if the report is not accepted, there must be convincing
evidence as a basis for disagreement. Councilman Heinsheimer said it
is important to note on the last page, near the date of approval on
August 11, 1980, identification of the map used for the report, to
assure that it is the same map now being considered by the Council.
The City Manager reported that he discussed the matter with Richard
Anderson, the City's Planning Advisor, and he indicated that he had
•
a•
[1
August 31, 1982
265
walked the site with the staff member who prepared the Negative Dec-
laration, they discussed a number of items including an alternative
access, and it was their opinion that overall there was not a substan-
tial environmental impact. Based on that, the Negative Declaration
was prepared and submitted. Councilman Heinsheimer said mitigation
measures have been recommended to avoid potential significant environ-
mental effects, but do not include items p) and v). The City Attorney
explained that when an Environmental Impact Assessment is prepared,
mitigation measures are recommended for items which may have an impact.
In reviewing the assessment, the Council has the discretion to find a
significant environmental impact other than that found by staff, but
the Council's finding must be based on factual evidence. He agreed
with Councilman Heinsheimer that if the Council finds that there is a
potential for a significant environmental impact, a focused report
can be requested, addressing the specific items of concern, providing
that there is a basis for doubting the original findings by staff.
Mayor Pernell said that in recommending mitigation measures, staff
did not indicate a concern about traffic, noise, public health or
safety hazard.
Commissioner Murdock said that in a letter dated August 3, 1982
from the County Road Department recommendations to make Proposal B
acceptable were outlined, and she asked whether those recommendations.
had been incorporated into the map before the Council. Mayor Pernell
said compliance with the recommendations could be made a condition.of
approval. Councilman Heinsheimer said it should be made incumbent on
the subdivider to submit evidence to the Council, since mitigation
measures in the environmental assessment did not include traffic or
ambient noise, which were issues raised at the public hearing. The
City Manager recommended that if the Council wishes to direct that
documentary evidence be submitted in the form of a focused environ-
mental report, preparation of the document should be done by an
independent.professional firm, with the contract initiated by the
City and paid for by the applicant. Councilman Heinsheimer said the
report should be a focused document, and should address only those
items which are of concern to the Council. Mr. Smith said that
could be done. The City Attorney said that if the Council has any
doubts about the correctness or completeness of the Environmental
Impact Report the document should not be approved and further envi-
ronmental information should be requested. Mr. Jenkins said it is
necessary to determine whether the report is to address the map as
submitted, or whether it should address the map and alternatives.
Mayor Pernell said it appears that the Council would be receptive
to a proposal of an alternative '.in addition to the map submitted.
The City Manager said one of the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act is that alternatives be considered in
the event that there appears to be a substantial impact. Mr.
Jenkins said that based on what is being discussed by the Council
it is apparent that additional.information is needed, and an
analysis of an alternative access should be presented.so the -Coun-
cil can consider the impact of both routes of access. Councilman
Heinsheimer said the Council is not predisposed, but since there
is a.potential for an effect on the environment, a report which
focuses on the issues should.be submitted for Council's consider-
ation. He agreed that the report should be done in coordination
with the applicant, with the work being done by an independent party .
under contract with the City, with all charges being paid by the
applicant. The City Manager suggested that the report also be re-
viewed by the Environmental Quality Board. Mayor Pernell said the
applicant has a right to a decision at this time, and he said he
wished to recess the meeting to give the applicant an opportunity
to confer with his attorney. The City Manager suggested that the
Council have a scoping meeting to determine what issues should be
covered in the focused environmental impact.report. Councilman
Heinsheimer said the concerns of the Council will be reflected in
the minutes of the meeting, and it should not be necessary for the
Council to have another meeting on the areas of concern.
RECESS
The meeting was recessed at 9:20 P.M. and was reconvened at 9.:35 P.M.
-7-
266
August 31, 1982
The City Attorney reported that he had discussed with the appli-
cant and his attorney their wishes with regard to having a decision
at this meeting. It was agreed that there is a paucity of evidence
in certain areas and as a result the Council has some questions about
the completeness of the Environmental Impact Review. Mr. Jenkins
said the attorney for the applicant has indicated that if the Council
wishes to have a focused impact report on questions which have been
raised pertaining to access, the impact of the access as proposed,
and alternatives to it, such a study will be prepared at the appli-
cant's expense, subject to a dollar limitation and limitation of the
scope of the study, which is meant to address only specific items.
Mr. Jenkins said the applicant and his attorney have requested an
opportunity to review the document prior to discussion, and he said
a public hearing should be held within a definite time after prepar-
ation of the document. finally, the applicant asked that he be
given the opportunity to object to the selection of the person hired
to do the environmental study, should that person be objectionable
for some reason. Mayor Pernell asked staff and a subcommittee of
the Council to work with the applicant in the matter, and he asked
Councilwomen Leeuwenburgh and Murdock and Mr. Smith, the City Manager,
to work with the developer or his representative on what should.be
presented to the Council. Mr. Collis, the developer, agreed to do so.
ADJOURNMENT 1380
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M., to the next regular
meeting at 7:30 P.M. Monday, September 13, 1982.
W -M
City Clerk