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�