Loading...
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