Loading...
7/11/1988MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA July 11, 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 on Monday, July 11, 1988, at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmembers Leeuwenburgh, Pernell, Swanson, Mayor Murdock Councilman Heinsheimer (excused) Terrence L. Belanger Kevin Ennis Larry Courtright Betty Volkert Ann Johnson Anne La Jeunesse Carol Ryan Doug McHattie Bob Barth Tom Boyd Roy Campbell Terry Carroll Karyl Eugene Shahla Hemmat Carole Hoffman Nick Hornberger Sherry Ikezawa C. V. Inducil J. Inducil S. T. Inducil Mr. Kunda Major D. Langer Thomas Lindstrom Dana MacKay Carol Uhd Marrone Alfred C. Marrone Vic Martinov Dr. Mark Minkes Rod Rodriguez Mrs. B. Roe Martin Rosenzweig Kenneth Staub George Taus Janice Taus Stephen Taus City Manager City Attorney City Treasurer Deputy City Clerk Los Angeles Times Palos Verdes News Daily Breeze South Bay Engineering Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh and Councilwoman Swanson requested that the minutes of the June 27, 1988, City Council meeting be removed from the Consent Calendar. Furthermore, the City Manager informed the City Council that an additional warrant, number 03012 in the amount of $1,454.20 payable to the Softwaire Center, had been added to the list of demands. Councilwoman Swanson moved approval of the payment of bills. Councilman Pernell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh requested that an additional sentence be added to the next to the last paragraph on page 7, indicating 16=9. that, after further discussion, she did not feel that it was appropriate to proceed with an advisory election until the Council had the opportunity to review the information packets and feedback from the residents has been received. Councilwoman Swanson corrected page 4, third paragraph, last sentence to read "...should not be allowed to happen more than once without appropriate action taken." Councilwoman Swanson moved that the minutes of a regular City Council meeting held on June 27, 1988, be approved as amended and corrected. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. PAYMENT OF BILLS Demands Nos. 2979 through 3012, in the amount of $29,308.91, were approved for payment from the General Fund. OLD BUSINESS 00 There were no matters for discussion under "Old Business". LO NEW BUSINESS 7 m URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 52 Q This urgency ordinance is entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURES WITHIN EXISTING FRONT YARDS AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF". Currently, an established front yard is determined to be that area between the front yard easement and a line drawn from side yard to side yard which touches the main residential structure, or a portion of the structure attached thereto. The City Manager explained that the purpose of this ordinance is to place in moratorium, the consideration of variances into established front yards in order to allow for a study and, ultimately, the establishment of policies to deal with that kind of encroachment. The ordinance provides that individuals who wish to propose a plan that would have that kind of encroachment could apply through the Conditional Use Permit process to request that kind of encroachment. Currently, if an individual wishes to encroach into the established front yard they must go through the variance process. It has been determined that there is a more appropriate process to deal with that kind of encroachment and, until the language in the zoning code can be. reviewed and amended, this ordinance would create a Conditional Use Permit process to deal with this kind of encroachment. Councilman Pernell asked staff to explain the urgency and to also explain the difference between the variance process and the Conditional Use Permit process. The City Manager stated that the reason for the urgency is to allow processing of these types of requested encroachments, of which there is one before the Planning Commission at the present time. In terms of the variance process, the Planning Commission would not be able to make the kinds of findings necessary under the code to sustain the issuing of a variance for this kind of encroachment. On the other hand, the Conditional Use Permit process allows for a discretionary act on the part of the Planning Commission. As it relates to the encroachment into the established front yard, it does not require the kinds of findings that are required for a variance. Councilman Pernell asked how this would affect applicants. The City Manager explained that it would change the kind'of action that they would apply for; instead of applying for a Variance they would apply for a Conditional Use Permit. There would be a difference in cost of $150.00, and the time -frame would be same as for a Variance. - 2 - 170 Councilwoman Swanson asked that the differences between a Variance and a Conditional Use Permit be explained. Mr. Kevin Ennis, representative from the City's law firm, explained that the primary difference between the two is that to obtain a Variance there are basic findings that must be made, i.e., that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist, unnecessary hardship or that the general intent of the zoning code would be enhanced, whereas, a Conditional Use Permit allows for a number of other factors to be taken into account but there are no rigid findings that must be made. Also, a Conditional Use Permit allows for reasonable conditions to be imposed upon approval. Therefore, the Conditional Use Permit process is much more flexible and is not as burdensome as the Variance process. Councilman Pernell asked for an explanation of the difference between an urgency ordinance and a regular ordinance. The City Manager explained that an urgency ordinance allows, with a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council, for the adoption of the ordinance, citing specific findings, and becomes effective immediately upon adoption. A regular ordinance requires two readings and becomes effective 30 days following adoption. Councilman Pernell asked what would happen to applications currently being processed. The City Manager explained that they would be converted from a Variance application to a Conditional Use Permit application. Currently, there is a variance request for this type of encroachment before the Planning Commission. Mayor Murdock invited comments from the audience. George Taus questioned the need for the ordinance if, basically, nothing is going to change. Mayor Murdock explained that this type of encroachment would be handled as a discretionary permit as opposed to a variance procedure. The City Manager went on to explain that, arguably, the finding of hardship would be difficult to make for an encroachment into the existing front yard. The purpose of the urgency ordinance is to create a process that is less rigorous and not more rigorous. Carol Hoffman expressed concern that the proposed urgency ordinance would affect all encroachments into the front yard, including the setback. The City Manager reconfirmed that the ordinance only addresses encroachments into established front yards not encroachments into the front yard setback, which would still require a variance. Dr. Minkes, 44 Chuckwagon, stated his opposition to the proposed ordinance citing the following reasons: 1. Feels that classifying this ordinance as a means of making the process easier is a misrepresentation; it is a moratorium on construction in the front yard. 2. It serves no purpose. 3. There has not been any community input regarding this matter. Feels there should be considerable input before taking such measures. Mr. Kevin Ennis, City Attorney, explained that this urgency ordinance is an interim ordinance which, if adopted, is effective for 45 days. If adopted subsequent to that, it would be effective for another 10 months and 15 days. It is for the purpose of giving the City the opportunity to review the current ordinances and determine if they are complying with the requirements of the General Plan. Major Langer, 10 Buggy Whip Road, stated his objections to the adoption of the proposed urgency ordinance. Mr. Langer feels.there is a fundamental change in the existing land use in the City. He - 3 - 0 G does not feel that there was adequate notice given for the purpose, and believes that the discrepancy between the agenda and the ordinance invalidates the -notice -requirement. Mr. Langer feels that this would have a drastic impact on the City and that extra notice should be given separately, not simply included in the agenda. The community should be given the opportunity to give their input. Mr. Langer does not feel that one application requesting encroachment into the front yard warrants adopting an urgency ordinance. Councilman Pernell asked about the notice requirements and the adequacy of the notice given. After some discussion between the City Attorney and the City Manager, the Council was informed that, pursuant to Government Code, Section 65858, to initially adopt an urgency ordinance does not require noticing. If the urgency ordinance were to be extended, it would then require a notice and a public hearing. Sherry Ikezawa, 10 West Packsaddle, spoke against the adoption of the ordinance. Ms. Ikezawa felt that the citizens should be given more information and that more study should be done regarding this 00 matter. She felt that this would affect property values and should be studied in more depth. There should be more of a necessity for adopting this urgency ordinance than just because of one application. 7 Mr. Kunda, 1 Blackwater Canyon Road, objected to the principle of m the ordinance. Instead of making it more difficult for the residents Q of the community, he feels that the City staff should work on accomplishing the task of making the necessary amendments and changes to the zoning code without inconveniencing the residents. The City Manager commented on the purpose of the ordinance related to the front yards. At the present time, the City is not in a position to make any decision on encroachment into an established front yard, under the current code. By allowing for a Conditional Use Permit process to consider these particular encroachments, it would allow the City to continue to consider encroachments into the front yard. The urgency ordinance would allow this to be done quickly. Without the urgency ordinance, the normal process of reviewing and amending the code would have to be followed and, in the mean time, the one application that is before the Planning Commission could not be considered. This ordinance would create a process that would allow these applications to be processed, and would provide time to cleanup the zoning ordinance. It would not affect anyone's ability to encroach into the front yard. Mr. Marty Rosenzweig, 27 Portuguese Bend Road, felt that the ordinance could be more clearly drafted, stating its purpose in simpler English. He also felt that it is not appropriate to utilize an urgency ordinance to accommodate one applicant. Dr. Minkes expressed his disbelief that it is difficult to make the necessary findings and to grant a variance. In his opinion, most cities, if they care to, can find ways to comply with the state law. For example, the term "hardship" has a broad.definition and can be interpreted many ways. Dr. Minkes suggested that the ordinance be rewritten to express the specific reasons as stated by the City Manager, that is, to not require that residents must apply for this type of encroachment through the variance process because it is too difficult to get approval. He also feels that the "moratorium on construction" language should be deleted from the ordinance. Roy Campbell, 1 Bowie Road, requested clarification of exactly what requires a variance into the front yard. He was unaware that there was a distinction made between the front yard setback and an established front yard. Mr. Campbell concluded that this creates inequities in property rights and should be changed. Mayor Murdock explained to Mr. Campbell that that is precisely the reason for this urgency ordinance; they are trying to correct the inequity. - 4 - 172 Mr. Campbell asked why the word "moratorium" was included in the ordinance, and why not just state that the variance procedure for this type of encroachment will be replaced with the Conditional Use Permit procedure. The City Manager explained that in order to adopt an interim ordinance there is certain language that must be included and that the findings stated in the urgency ordinance are almost boilerplate findings. The City Manager further explained that in order to allow an individual to utilize the Conditional Use Permit process to encroach into the established front yard, the zoning ordinance must be amended which would take anywhere from 60 to 90 days. The interim ordinance that is being proposed allows that to occur immediately, thereby allowing these kinds of requested encroachments to be processed while, at the same time, allowing the Planning Commission and the City Council to spend the time necessary to review and amend the zoning ordinance. Mr. Roy Campbell suggested eliminating that section in the code that requires a variance to encroach into an established front yard, without adopting the urgency ordinance. Mayor Murdock stated that that may indeed be the recommendation that the Planning Commission finally forwards to the City Council, but that is unknown at this time. This urgency ordinance would allow applications to continue to be processed while, at the same time, allowing the Planning Commission to review the zoning ordinance and make its recommendations. Mr. Bob Barth addressed the Council on this issue, and stated that, generally speaking, when a variance is granted that is the end of the matter but that a Conditional Use Permit is usually granted with many conditions attached to it. He feels that this is just another opportunity to impose regulations. Mr. Barth suggested letting the process remain as it is while the Planning Commission studies and reviews the zoning ordinance. Dr. Minkes stated that he believes that everyone in the audience is in agreement with the philosophy of making the task easier for residents to add on to their residences within the legal limits of their front yards. However, he does not feel that the proposed urgency ordinance states such a purpose. He suggested that the ordinance be rewritten simply and succinctly, stating the purpose as presented by the City Manager. Major Langer did not agree with the finding in the urgency ordinance that there was an immediate threat to the public safety and welfare. The City Manager explained that the language in the findings of the urgency ordinance are a term of art to enable the ordinance to be adopted. Major Langer commented further that the City Clerk must attest to the accuracy of the statements in the ordinance and that, term of art or not, they must be true and accurate, which he does not believe is the case. The City Attorney, Kevin Ennis, commented that with regard to the "health, safety, and welfare" requirement for an urgency ordinance, welfare of the community is a general concept. If there are developments occurring that are going to change the character of the community forever, these do have many effects and do affect the welfare of the community. Further discussion ensued, afterwhich, Councilwoman Swanson proposed that the Council direct staff to return at the next meeting with an ordinance addressing the issues of confusion and clarifying portions of the ordinance in such a way that the ordinance could be adopted with the approval of the residents. - 5 - 173 Councilwoman Swanson also spoke to the issue of notification, and informed the audience that there is no other city, that she is aware of, that 'sends an agenda;-.toA' OVe;y homeowner. She remarked that the fact that there was a large attendance at the meeting indicates that people did receive the agenda. Following further discussion, Councilman Pernell commented that he also feels that staff should be directed to return with the ordinance rewritten to address some of the issues and concerns that have been raised by the residents. It was his opinion that, judging from the large turnout of residents, this is an important issue to the residents and that the Council should consider their concerns. Councilman Pernell commented that everyone is concerned with maintaining the character of the City, i.e., a rural community not an urban or suburban community. It takes some time and attention to keep that objective in clear view. It was the consensus of the Council that staff should return with the ordinance rewritten, addressing and clarifying some of the (DO concerns expressed by the residents. The City Manager stated that staff would try to draft an ordinance that will address this particular issue and at the same time try to assuage the concerns of the community, as expressed this evening. CO MEETING RECESSED Mayor Murdock recessed the meeting at 9:25 p.m. MEETING RECONVENED Mayor Murdock reconvened the meeting at 9:38 p.m. URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 53 This is an urgency ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT ON CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES IN EXCESS OF 4,500 SQUARE FEET IN THE RAS -1 ZONE AND 6,500 SQUARE FEET IN THE RAS -2 ZONE, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF". Mayor Murdock announced that, although there is no notice required, the Council would prefer not to take action on this ordinance this evening, pending review of notice and making sure that the community is aware that this issue is being considered. However, anyone wishing to comment on this matter this evening is welcome to do so. The City Manager presented the staff report regarding this matter. He explained that under California law, the ordinances and other legislation that the City uses to implement its General Plan must be compatible with the Plan. The variable nature in size, shape and topography of the properties in the City is creating, in conjunction with a development and redevelopment pattern that has taken place recently, an incompatibility between the lot coverage provisions of the zoning ordinance, vis-a-vis the stated goals of the General Plan of the City. The goals of the General Plan mostly affected are: the preservation of the rural character of the City; the preservation of vistas provided by the City's location; and, the strict enforcement of the City's limitation on grading. During the last year and a half, plans have been submitted for redevelopment of properties that are clearly beginning to place the existing zoning ordinance into an incompatible posture, vis-a-vis the General Plan. The purpose of proposing an interim ordinance is to establish a moratorium, with an exception, to residential structures in excess of 4,500 square feet in the RAS -1 zone and 6,500 square feet in the RAS -2 zone. This interim ordinance would provide time for the Planning Commission and the City Council to review, not only ordinances that govern developmental activity within the community but also to review and evaluate the goals and objectives of the - 6 - 174 General Plan. Currently, there appears to be an increasing incompatibility between the two. There are exceptions, under Section 3 of the proposed urgency ordinance, to the moratorium. The exceptions are as follows: 1. If the size of the structure does not exceed the maximum stated in the urgency ordinance. 2. If building permits have already been obtained for the structure. 3. If a Conditional Use Permit has been approved for a structure in excess of 4,500 square feet in the RAS -1 zone and 6,500 square feet in the RAS -2 zone. The Conditional Use Permit process permits a review of individual properties that, may in fact, exceed these maximums. This allows for plans currently in the system to continue to be processed. These maximums apply to main residential structures. If the garage were attached to the main residential structure its square footage would be included in the maximum square footage allowed. As Mayor Murdock indicated, this matter will be continued to the July 25th meeting. Mr. Kunda felt that if a limitation were imposed it should not be according to zones; it should be determined by the property size. The following residents spoke to this matter: Mrs. Ikezawa, Dr. Minkes, Mr. Barth, Major Langer, Doug McHattie, Mr. Kunda, and Mr. Roy Campbell. The issues of concern were as follows: 1. Why does the current 20% lot coverage regulation need to be changed, and how is that amount of lot coverage detracting from the rural atmosphere of the community. 2. Could have a very detrimental and adverse effect on the property values. 3. It is arbitrary and does not take into consideration the various physical characteristics of individual properties. 4..- The need for an urgency ordinance has not been established, and it seems to be a drastic measure. 5. The maximum sizes as proposed in the ordinance are too low and, at the very least, should be doubled or even possibly quadrupled. 6. Input from the residents should be solicited. Most residents did agree that the 20% lot coverage calculation might need to be reworked, but did not feel that setting an absolute maximum by zone is appropriate. Staff was directed to return with another recommendation, incorporating the concerns that were expressed by the residents. Councilwoman Swanson also requested that the City Manager present various options available to the Council besides an urgency ordinance. Dr. Minkes commended the Council for allowing the residents to comment on the proposed urgency ordinances even though, technically, it was not necessary for them to do so. BFI AGREEMENT The City Manager reported that the City Attorney, Mike Jenkins, proposed some changes to the BFI agreement. City Manager Belanger - 7 - 175 stated that he would make the necessary changes and bring the revised agreement back with BFI's signature for approval at the next City Council meeting. Mayor Murdock asked if the changes were significant. The City Manager stated that they were mostly language changes, but would not have a substantive impact on the agreement. The City Attorney will review the revised agreement before it is brought back to the Council for approval. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE NO. 220 This ordinance is entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, TITLE 26, BUILDING CODE, TITLE 28, PLUMBING CODE, AND TITLE 29, MECHANICAL CODE, MAKING AMENDMENTS TO SAID CODES AND AMENDING THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE". 00This ordinance would adopt, by reference, the Los Angeles County Building, Plumbing, and Mechanical Codes as the City of Rolling Hills Codes. The matter has been duly noticed as required under California State law. Staff recommended approval of the ordinance. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh moved that Ordinance No. 220, entitled m "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE Q LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, TITLE 26, BUILDING CODE, TITLE 28, PLUMBING CODE, AND TITLE 29, MECHANICAL CODE, MAKING AMENDMENTS TO SAID CODES AND AMENDING THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE" be adopted and that reading in full be waived. Councilwoman Swanson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. OPEN AGENDA No one spoke on any item not on the agenda. MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Landscapina at the Fire Station Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh reported that the fire station crew cleaned up the Fire Station on Crest Road but has not landscaped, as of yet. Weed Abatement Councilman Pernell asked about the status of the weed abatement. The City Manager reported that it is progressing, however, there are always a few residents that lag behind. The residents that are still in violation have been notified by certified mail, and staff will continue to monitor the progress of the weed abatement. Councilwoman Swanson reported that the trails have begun to be cleared. MATTERS FROM STAFF Sanitary Sewer Svstem Advisory Election The City Manager presented the following two options to the Council: 1. Mold an advisory elections strictly for the purpose of determining whether or not the residents of the community wish to have sewers. 2. Put a measure on the ballot authorizing the City to spend approximately $2 million to proceed with the engineering phase of the sewer system, and assessing each property owner $500 per year for ten years. - 8 - 176 There was a difference of opinion as to which option would be the best way to proceed. After lengthy discussion, Councilman Pernell moved that staff be directed to formulate the language for both propositions and return with a draft of the propositions at the next meeting. Councilwoman Swanson seconded the motion. It passed unanimously. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION Mayor Murdock recessed the meeting at 11:12 p.m. to closed session for the purpose of discussing personnel matters. MEETING RECONVENED The meeting was reconvened at 11:40 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Murdock adjourned the meeting at 11:41 p.m. to Monday, July 25, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. APPROVED: Mayor v City Clerk F�