Rolling Hills OKs Construction Review Law Despite Objections

In spite of significant community opposition, the Rolling Hills City Council this week voted unanimously for an ordinance that allows city officials to reject new construction and remodeling plans that conflict with the city’s General Plan.

Council members told an audience of about 150 at Monday’s meeting that by law they must support the goals of the General Plan. The plan calls for preservation of open space, vegetation, hilly topography and the city’s rural atmosphere.

“At present, our ordinances provide us with no review process over . . . drainage, grading, geology and soils,” Mayor Jody Murdock said.

When the new measure takes effect Dec. 28, city officials will review all plans and inspect construction sites before issuing building or grading permits.

Fearing that the measure will limit the potential size of homes on the large lots typical in Rolling Hills, most residents at the meeting said they did not want the ordinance adopted and advocated putting the measure on a ballot.

“It’s time we found out how the citizens feel,” one resident said.

Other residents said the city would be duplicating the efforts of the architecture committee of the Rolling Hills Community Assn., which rules on residential design and aesthetics.

Speaking in Favor

About 10 of the 30 people who addressed the council spoke in favor of the ordinance.

Monday night’s large turnout was attributed to a letter, mailed anonymously to all Rolling Hills residents, that criticized the measure and urged residents to attend.

The council, which had ended the public hearing on the matter Nov. 14 but allowed the audience to continue discussing it Monday, argued that the ordinance would only let the city review plans for specific sites before grading and other construction begins.

“There seems to be a perception that we’re trying to limit your right to develop your property,” Murdock said. “We’re asking for the ability to review.”

Council members agreed to review the ordinance itself in a year and change it if necessary.

“What we’ve done here can be corrected if there’s a problem,” Councilman Godfrey Pernell said after the meeting. “But a 20,000-square-foot house is there to stay.”

Resident Mark Minkes, an outspoken opponent of the measure, said after the meeting that he and others will circulate a petition in hopes of overturning the council’s action by referendum.