7/25/198800
LO
7
m
Q
1
17'7
MINUTES OF A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
July 25, 1988
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 Murdock at
7:37 p.m., on Monday, July 25, 1988.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmembers Leeuwenburgh, Pernell, Swanson,
Mayor Murdock
Councilman Heinsheimer (excused)
Terrence L. Belanger
Michael Jenkins
Larry Courtright
Betty Volkert
Ann Johnson
Ursula Wiljanen
Purandar Amin
Dr. Basque
Lowell Blau
Dr. & Mrs. Brody
Roy Campbell
Ann Carley
Mr. & Mrs. Carroll
Myrna Frame
Virginia Gibson
Mary Jo Hall
Mrs. Judy Hassoldt
Carole Hoffman
Dr. Richard Hoffman
Nick Hornberger
Edward Kunda
Mr. & Mrs. Lindstrom
Norman Miller
Dr. Mark Minkes
Joe Rich
Rod Rodriguez
Arlene Rodriguez
Mr. Larry Saks
Kenneth Staub
George Taus
Janice Taus
Stephen Taus
City Manager
City Attorney
City Treasurer
Deputy City Clerk
Los Angeles Times
Daily Breeze
Resident
Resident
Resident
Residents
Resident
Resident
Residents
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Residents
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Councilman Pernell moved that the items on the Consent Calendar
be approved and accepted as presented. Councilwoman Swanson seconded
the motion, and it carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council held on July
11, 1988, were approved and accepted as written.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
Demands Nos. 3013 through 3041 and 3043 through 3045, in the -
amount of $18,591.15, were approved for payment from the General
Fund. Demand No. 3042 was voided.
1'78
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
The Financial Statement for the month of June, 1988, was accepted
as presented.
OLD BUSINESS
URGENCY ORDINANCE REGARDING CONSTRUCTION WITHIN ESTABLISHED FRONT
YARDS
The City Manager reported that at the last City Council meeting
the Council considered an urgency ordinance which would have placed a
moratorium on construction in established front yards. After
extensive discussion involving the audience, staff was directed to
return with an ordinance that sets forth criteria related to
encroachment into established front yards but that does not declare a
moratorium. Pursuant to the Code, adoption of the revised urgency
ordinance, which would amend the zoning code, would require a public
hearing and review by the Planning Commission followed by a public
hearing and review by the City Council, afterwhich, the City Council
could adopt the urgency ordinance without a second reading.
The urgency ordinance with which staff has returned is a draft
ordinance and simply deals with encroachment into established front
yards relative to an existing residential structure and does not deal
with encroachment into established front yards relative to structures
that are razed.
The City Manager explained, for the benefit of those present who
were not present at the previous meeting, that the purpose of the
proposed ordinance is to provide a process by which applications
requesting this type of encroachment can be processed. Currently,
this type of encroachment requires that a Variance be granted, which
requires that specific findings be made that are, often times, very
difficult to make.
Mayor Murdock asked if anyone wished to address this issue.
Mr. Kunda, 1 Blackwater Canyon Road, stated his principle
objections to ordinances, in general. It is his feeling that,
usually, the solution is worse than the problem. In his opinion, the
purpose of the City Council, Commissions, and staff should be to
serve the residents of Rolling Hills and to maintain the goals of the
community consistent with the desires of its residents. The City
Council and staff should try to solve problems in a realistic manner
which imposes minimum hardship on the community. Mr. Kunda also
feels that there should be adequate notice of meetings and that the
community should be fully informed so that they can be prepared for
the meetings.
Mrs. Ann Carley, 2900 Palos Verdes Drive North, commented that
she feels that she has always been adequately notified and fully
informed of meetings, and that the previous comments were an unjust
attack on the City Council.
Since the only action that the City Council could take on the
ordinance would be to abandon it or to refer it to the Planning
Commission, Councilwoman Swanson moved that the draft urgency
ordinance be remanded to the Planning Commission for a public hearing
and review. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh seconded the motion, and it
carried unanimously. Mayor Murdock announced that this matter would
be on the August 16, 1988, Planning Commission agenda for a public
hearing.
URGENCY ORDINANCE REGARDING MAXIMUM SIZE OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES
Councilwoman Swanson moved that the draft urgency ordinance
regarding maximum size of residential structures be remanded to the
Planning Commission for a public hearing. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh
- 2 -
1'7:9
seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Mayor informed
the audience that this matter would be before the Planning Commission
for a public hearing at the ir;Augsta 16, 1988 meeting.
Mr. Kenneth Staub, 22 Cinchring Road, addressed the Council and
remarked that the residents came to the meeting prepared to give
their input and comments, and should be allowed to do so, if they
wish.
The Mayor explained that, as required administratively, the
Council has referred the draft urgency ordinances to the Planning
Commission for a public hearing. However, if anyone wished to
comment on the ordinances they were welcome to do, although, their
comments would not be official testimony since a public hearing
regarding this matter will not be held by the City Council until
after the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing and
reviewed these urgency ordinances.
4. There are already restrictions limiting the amount that a
property can be developed.
5. The maximum size should be calculated according to the size
of the property.
6. Would impose a lengthy and time-consuming process to get any
development approved in the City.
7. Should not enact an ordinance where the exception to the
ordinance would be the rule.
8. The building pad area should be taken into consideration
when calculating the size of structure allowed.
9. Landscaping is an effective means of mitigating the impact
of large homes.
10. Should take into consideration the size of homes and
amenities that someone wants who has $1 million or more to
invest in property in Rolling Hills.
11. The socio-economic makeup of the community will decline.
Councilman Pernell advised the audience that the urgency
ordinance is in "draft" .form, and that the maximum sizes are only
advisory and are subject to modification at the Planning Commission
level and again at the City Council level.
Mayor Murdock reiterated that the ordinances that have been
forwarded to the Planning Commission are simply "draft" ordinances
and that the size limitations are not finalized. The Mayor explained
that the purpose of the public hearing is to get input and to take
that input into account. At this point, the City Council is not
empowered to redraft the ordinances. The Planning Commission will
present their recommendations to the City Council after their public
hearing. Mayor Murdock informed the audience that there have been
numerous concerns expressed about the way the City is developing.
- 3 -
The following
residents spoke in opposition to the
draft urgency
ordinances: Mrs.
Myrna Frame, Mr. Terry Carroll, Mrs.
Mary Jo Hall,
00
Mr. Edward Kunda,
Mr. Lowell Blau, and Mr. Norman Miller.
A summary
of the concerns and
objections that were expressed are as
follows:
1. Until a
decision is made, nothing will be
approved and,
therefore,
everyone with plans in the works is
in a holding
CO
pattern.
a
2. Property values will be negatively affected.
3. Size limitations are inappropriate and too low.
4. There are already restrictions limiting the amount that a
property can be developed.
5. The maximum size should be calculated according to the size
of the property.
6. Would impose a lengthy and time-consuming process to get any
development approved in the City.
7. Should not enact an ordinance where the exception to the
ordinance would be the rule.
8. The building pad area should be taken into consideration
when calculating the size of structure allowed.
9. Landscaping is an effective means of mitigating the impact
of large homes.
10. Should take into consideration the size of homes and
amenities that someone wants who has $1 million or more to
invest in property in Rolling Hills.
11. The socio-economic makeup of the community will decline.
Councilman Pernell advised the audience that the urgency
ordinance is in "draft" .form, and that the maximum sizes are only
advisory and are subject to modification at the Planning Commission
level and again at the City Council level.
Mayor Murdock reiterated that the ordinances that have been
forwarded to the Planning Commission are simply "draft" ordinances
and that the size limitations are not finalized. The Mayor explained
that the purpose of the public hearing is to get input and to take
that input into account. At this point, the City Council is not
empowered to redraft the ordinances. The Planning Commission will
present their recommendations to the City Council after their public
hearing. Mayor Murdock informed the audience that there have been
numerous concerns expressed about the way the City is developing.
- 3 -
HE
E
After further discussion, Mayor Murdock suggested that the
"draft" urgency ordinance be forwarded to the Planning Commission
without stating any figures for the maximum size.
In addition, Councilwoman Swanson suggested that the Planning
Commission consider separating living space square footage and the
square footage of the garage.
Mr. Norman Miller, 4 Chesterfield, thanked the City Council for
allowing public comment even though it was not required of them. He
commented that he understands that the Council has real concerns and
simply asked that the Council take into consideration the legitimate
concerns which have been expressed.
Councilman Pernell thanked Mr. Miller for his comments, and asked
Mr. Miller if a "site development" ordinance would be more
acceptable; an ordinance which examines all the elements involved in
developing a site without specifying particular numbers.
It was Mr. Miller's opinion that the ordinance should not be too
subjective; it needs to be structured enough so that one is not
subject to the whims of a Planning Commission or City Council. He
feels that some degree of control with a certain amount of
flexibility could be built into the ordinance.
Councilman Pernell explained that the proposed "draft" urgency
ordinance is intended to be a threshold device and is not intended to
be a limiting device.
Mrs. Patty Brody, 2 Georgeff, and Mrs. Hassoldt, 10 Pine Tree
Lane, spoke in favor of the proposed urgency ordinances, stating that
the rural atmosphere and character of the City should be maintained,
and that people also buy property in Rolling Hills for the open space
and green belts.
Mayor Murdock informed the audience that the Planning Commission
would be conducting a public hearing regarding the two proposed
"draft" urgency ordinances on Tuesday, August 16, 1988, and that the
public hearing would be noticed in the newspaper and would be
published in the newsletter.
MEETING RECESSED
Mayor Murdock recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
MEETING RECONVENED
The meeting was reconvened at 9:03 p.m. by Mayor Murdock.
BFI AGREEMENT
City Manager Belanger reported that
Representative, had requested that this
City Council meeting on August 8, 1988,
to review the agreement.
NEW BUSINESS
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM ADVISORY ELECTION
Mr. Stuart Axelrod, BFI
matter be continued to the
to give him the opportunity
The City Manager explained that a series of resolutions had been
prepared calling an advisory election which would ask the citizens of
Rolling Hills whether or not they would be supportive of the design
and construction of a sanitary sewer system that would cost $3,000
per year for 20 years or, alternatively, a one time only lump sum
payment of approximately $27,000.00. The purpose of the election
would be to determine the desires of the community with respect to
construction of a sanitary sewer system and the anticipated costs for
that system. The $3,000 per year cost was calculated assuming a 20
year debt service period at 8.5% interest on a $20 million debt.
- 4 -
I81`
Staff recommended that if the Council decided to proceed with the
advisory election, they determ 4
iit-!Yo would write the ballot argument
in favor of this measure and that staff be directed to prepare the
appropriate resolution that establishes who will write the ballot
argument and who will be on the ballot argument itself (a maximum of
five people). The ballot argument in support of the measure could
include information regarding how the cost per year was calculated.
Individuals in the community also have the right to submit a ballot
argument in opposition to the measure.
Dr. Basque, 49 Eastfield Drive, asked if the cost included the
hookup fee, and was informed that it did not. He also asked about
the status of the information packets that were to be mailed to all
residents, and the City Manager indicated that they are at the
printers and would be mailed this week.
Dr. Richard Hoffman, 3 Hillside Lane, addressed the Council
regarding this issue. It is Dr. Hoffman's opinion that this is the
most critical issue that will face the City in the next 20 years. He
00 feels that the benefits of installing a sewer system have been
rq completely ignored, and that a concerted effort should be made to
Lo inform and educate all the residents to the benefits and need for a
sewer system. Dr. Hoffman felt it would be premature to have an
advisory election without making every possible attempt to properly
educate the residents, and that an advisory election at this point in
Q time would be doomed to fail. He suggested that the advisory
election be postponed for a year. This would provide time to educate
the residents to the benefits of sewers from the viewpoint of experts
in the field of geology.
However, Councilwoman Swanson felt that it would be a mistake to
postpone the advisory election and favored proceeding with the
advisory election in November, 1988. It was her feeling that that
would be adequate time to provide any additional information to the
residents. Councilwoman Swanson questioned what additional
information could be provided to the residents that has not already
been provided. It was her opinion that an advisory election would
give the City Council a better understanding for direction.
A lengthy discussion ensued amongst the Councilmembers and
staff. The City Manager informed the Council that there would be a
County election in June, 1989, and an election in November, 1989,
either of which the City could -consolidate with and the cost would be
same as it would be to consolidate with the General election in
November, 1988. However, the cost .to hold a "Special" Municipal
election would be considerably more, approximately $10,000.00.
Although Councilwoman Swanson continued to favor holding the
advisory election in November, 1988, after further discussion it was
the consensus of the Council to postpone the advisory election until
June, 1989.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh agreed with Dr. Hoffman's viewpoint and
welcomed his assistance. She suggested that perhaps the committee
which was formed previously to investigate the feasibility of sewers
could be reactivated.
Following further discussion, Mayor Murdock directed that staff
return with suggested alternatives, options, and procedures to
accomplish the stated goals.
OPEN AGENDA
No one spoke on any item not on the agenda.
MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
There were no additional issues from Members of the City Council.
- 5 -
MATTERS FROM STAFF
Staff had no additional matters to present.
CLOSED SESSION
An executive session was not necessary.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m. by Mayor Murdock.
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Clerk
1