11/14/1988222
MINUTES OF A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
November 14, 1988
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling
Hills, was called to order at the Rolling Fills Covenant Church, 2222
Palos Verdes Drive North, Room 293,E Rolling Hills Estates,
California, by Mayor Murdock at 7:32 p.m., on Monday, November 14,
1988.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh,
Pernell, Swanson, Mayor
Murdock
ABSENT: None
ALSO PRESENT: Terrence L. Belanger
City Manager
Michael Jenkins
City Attorney
Betty Volkert
Deputy City Clerk
Ann Johnson
Los Angeles Times
Anne La Jeunesse
Palos Verdes News
Carol Ryan
Daily Breeze
Flavio Bisignano
Resident
Allan Bullard
Resident
Fred Calhoun
Resident
Steve Calhoun
Resident
Judi Carroll
Resident
Terry Carroll
Resident
Len Coates
Resident
Mary Jo Hall
Resident
Carol Hoffman
Resident
Richard Hoffman
Resident
Florence Horn
Resident
William Horn
Resident
Sherry Ikezawa
Resident
Chester Jenkins
Resident
Susan Jenkins
Resident
Jeanne Keegan
Resident
Carol Uhd Marrone
Resident
Mark Minkes
Resident
Catherine Partridge
Resident
George Partridge
Resident
John Pollock
Resident
Kim Sawyer
Resident
V'Etta Virtue
Resident
John Welbourn
Resident
Chieko Yamamoto
Resident
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilwoman Swanson moved that the items on the Consent Calendar
be approved and accepted as presented. Councilman Heinsheimer
seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council held on
Monday, October 24, 1988, were approved and accepted as written.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
Demands Nos. 3246 through 3287, in the amount of $96,650.62, were
approved for payment from the General Fund.
227,3�
OLD BUSINESS
RESOLUTION NO. 580: A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
IN ZONING CASE NO. 364
This resolution memorializes and ratifies the City Council's
decision, made at their last meeting on October 24, 1988, regarding
Zoning Case No. 364, a request by Dr. Hooshang Pak for Conditional
Use Permits for a recreation room and tennis court'at 9 Crest Road
West.
Councilwoman Swanson moved approval of Resolution No. 580,
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN ZONING CASE NO. 36411, and
that reading in full be waived. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh seconded
the motion, and it carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 581: A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE IN ZONING CASE
NO. 361
00 This is a resolution approving a Variance re
r„� pp g quest by Mr. Hitoshi
Yamamoto to encroach into the established'front yard to construct
LO
,O residential additions at 14 Southfield Drive.
co Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh moved approval of Resolution No. 581,
< entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 36111, and that reading
in full be waived. Councilwoman Swanson seconded the motion, and it
carried unanimously.
WAIVER OF CONDITION OF FINAL MAP FOR NOS. 4 & 6 EUCALYPTUS LANE
The City Manager explained that this matter is continuing to be
discussed with the respective property owners and the utility
companies. Staff requested that this matter be continued to the next
meeting, at which time a report can be presented to the Council with
all the appropriate information.
NEW BUSINESS
In the interest of time, it was decided to deviate from the
agenda and to postpone discussion, until later in the meeting, of the
matter regarding instruction of the voting delegate to the upcoming
City Selection Committee meetings.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION REPORTS. - OCTOBER 18, 1988
ZONING CASE NO. 369. BETH KING. 9 WIDELOOP ROAD
This is a request for a Variance to the lot coverage regulations
to allow for the construction of residential additions at 9 Wideloop
Road.
The City Manager explained that this matter is being reported as
a denial by the Planning Commission and that the applicant has filed
an appeal and submitted the appropriate fee. Staff recommended that
the matter be set for a public hearing at the next City Council
meeting.
There being no objections, this matter was set for a public
hearing at the next City Council meeting, on November 28, 1988.
ZONING CASE NO. 370. ALFRED VISCO. 15 CINCHRING ROAD
This is a request for a Variance to the front yard setback
requirement for the purpose of constructing an addition to the
existing nonconforming garage at 15 Cinchring Road.
- 2 -
224
The City Manager reported that the Planning Commission approved
this request. The City Manager
an encroachment of 18 feet - the
12 feet.
explained that there already exists
encroachment being requested is for
The report of approval was received by the Council.
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SITE REVIEW PROCESS AND AMENDING,
THE ZONING CODE
The City Manager briefed the Council on the chronology and
history of the proposed ordinance. He explained that several months
ago the Council was considering two ordinances which would have
placed certain kinds of residential building construction under a
moratorium for the purpose of providing the Council with time to
develop ordinances that would deal -with conflicts between ordinances
that have been adopted to implement the City's General Plan and the
General Plan itself. At that time, these two proposed ordinances
were referred to the Planning Commission with instructions to review
the ordinances and to take public testimony regarding this matter,
and to, thereafter, make a recommendation to the City Council. To
assist the Planning Commission in this endeavor, the City Council
retained the services of The Keith Companies, Inc., whose
responsibility it was to provide a development trends analysis. Over
the past several months public hearings have been conducted. The
ordinances that were originally sent to the Planning Commission have
been changed considerably, to the point where the proposed ordinance
currently before the City Council is, for all intents and purposes, a
new ordinance - a site development review ordinance. It provides a
mechanism for the review of development or redevelopment projects
that would result in a change in the existing square footage of more
than 25 percent. Currently, the City Council has before them for
their review the draft ordinance that the Planning Commission has
spent the last several months developing. The Planning Commission
recommends the establishment of a site plan review process and that
the site plan review process be adopted and approved, and that it be
incorporated into the City's Municipal Code.
Councilwoman Swanson asked if the residents in attendance had a
copy of the new ordinance since it had been changed significantly
from the two original proposed urgency ordinances. The Mayor
indicated that there were copies available in the -rear of the room.
Mayor Murdock opened the public hearing. The City Manager noted
that the Council had in their packets copies of all the written
comments that had been made by interested individuals over the course
of the deliberations regarding this matter. Also, a letter was
received today, November 14, from Mr. and Mrs. Lohn indicating that
they were opposed to the ordinance. Furthermore, Mr. and Mrs.
Stribley telephoned today to say that they were in support of the
proposed ordinance.
Councilman Heinsheimer noted that many of the comments that had
been received expressed concern regarding a limitation being placed
on the size of home that could be built. Councilman Heinsheimer
confirmed that this proposed ordinance would not change the lot
coverage regulations which exist in the current zoning ordinance nor
would it establish a specific limitation on the house size. Another
concern that had been expressed was the urgency aspect, which is no
longer relevant since the proposed ordinance is no longer being
considered as an urgency ordinance. Councilman Heinsheimer noted
that a third concern was whether or not existing development would be
reviewed once the site review process is triggered. Councilman
Heinsheimer verified with the City Manager that only new development
would be reviewed and not existing development.
- 3 -
225
Councilwoman Swanson commented that there had been concern
expressed that neighboring residents would have to agree to any site
development plan. She clarified that the proposed ordinance does not
stipulate such a requirement. The only requirement is that any
proposed development which would fall under the jurisdiction of the
site review process would have to be properly noticed.
Mary Jo Hall, 7 Portuguese Bend Road, stated her opposition to
the proposed ordinance. She informed the Council that she has
attended almost all of the public hearings. Mrs. Hall expressed her
disbelief that this ordinance is continuing to be considered even
though, it appears to her, that the majority of the people that have
attended the meetings are opposed to it. It is her feeling that this
ordinance would be a duplication of effort. She feels that the 25
percent triggering mechanism is too restrictive. Mrs. Hall also
commented that she feels that this should be put to a public vote.
Furthermore, Mrs. Hall suggested that the City Manager should be a
resident of the City if he/she were to be involved in the site review
process.
00 Carol Uhd Marrone, 17 Southfield Drive, expressed her opposition
rq to the proposed ordinance. At the time that she purchased this lot,
LO with the anticipation of building a home, she was aware of the rules
and regulations governing development and accepted those rules and
regulations. She feels that this ordinance is unnecessary, and that
m the existing lot coverage regulations are quite stringent and
Q sufficient. Mrs. Marrone also believes that this ordinance would
decrease property values. She agreed with Mrs. Hall that this should
be put to a vote of the people.
Councilman Pernell asked Mrs. Marrone how this ordinance would
prevent her from developing her property in the way that she hopes to
do some day. Mrs. Marrone commented that she has not studied the
ordinance enough to know if it would be detrimental to her plans for
development in the future, and that, on the surface, it would appear
to not have a negative impact on her future plans. Her concern is
that this would be another step in the development process, thereby
making it even more drawn out and more expensive than it already is.
In addition, Mrs. Marrone expressed confusion and concern about who
would be conducting the site review. Basically, she feels that this
would create additional red tape and governmental bureaucracy.
Mayor Murdock explained that the Planning Commission would handle
the site review in the same way that they handle requests for
Variances and Conditional Use Permits.
Mr. Fred Calhoun, 2860 Palos Verdes Drive North, commented that
he does not have an immediate problem with the ordinance, however, he
agreed with the previous two speakers and feels that this ordinance
would add additional bureaucracy. He feels that this ordinance would
make the development process more difficult, and asked for an
explanation of the rationale behind the drafting of this proposed
ordinance.
Councilman Pernell referenced Table 3, Site Relationships of
Development Since 1985, in the report that was prepared by The Keith
Companies, which provides statistics on thirteen recent buildings.
Councilman Pernell pointed out that, because of the topography of the
City, the overall size of properties can be deceiving and, in many
instances, the percentage of coverage of the actual buildable area
far exceeds the current lot coverage regulations and often covers
more than 100% of the building pad area.
Mr. Calhoun felt that the number of problem homes relative to the
total number of buildable lots in the City did not justify the
adoption of this ordinance. He also commented that once a law is in
place, it is very difficult to get it removed.
Councilman Heinsheimer presented his position and reasons for
considering this ordinance. Councilman Heinsheimer explained that
- 4 -
226
the regulations in the existing zoning ordinance were established as
a means of implementing the goals and objectives of the General Plan,
based on the premise that people would be building on undeveloped
lots. However, now the City is experiencing a new phenomenon, i.e.,
existing houses are being razed and new ones are being built.
Currently, unless the proposed site development requires a Variance
or Conditional Use Permit, there is no means by which to have the
site development plan reviewed by the City and for the City to be
able to give any input regarding the proposed development. There
seems to be an evolution of the City, such that the rural character
is being threatened. Some people feel that property values are
increased because of the rural nature of the community, which is a
unique characteristic. The long-term interest of the community is
that it be kept unique and that the fundamentally different type of
environment be maintained. If development trends are tending to
change and are fundamentally different than the goals of the City's
General Plan, then there needs to be a way of providing input and
feedback to insure that the development will be compatible with the
General Plan. This proposed ordinance is an attempt to create a
review and feedback process in the least restrictive way.
Mr. Calhoun commented that the restrictions that were in effect
when he remodeled his home, seventeen years ago, seemed quite
adequate and sufficient to accomplish the goals that this proposed
ordinance is aimed toward.
It was pointed out that, perhaps, the restrictions and review
process that Mr. Calhoun referred to were under the jurisdiction of
the Architectural Committee and not the Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Swanson explained that the Architectural Committee is an
agency of the Rolling Hills Community Association, which is a private
corporation and totally disconnected from the City. The City of
Rolling Hills is an incorporated city governed by the rules of the
State of California. Property owners' Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) specify that plans have to be approved by the
Architectural Committee. The City does not have and has never had an
ordinance requiring a site plan review process, and that is the
purpose for this ordinance; to provide the City with a means of
reviewing proposed site development.
Mayor Murdock commented that virtually every other city has some
kind of a site review process. This proposed ordinance is not unique
to the City of Rolling Hills.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh clarified another difference between
the City and the Community Association, i.e., enforcement
procedures. The Association has the power to put a lien on someone's
property if they fail to comply with the rules and regulations of the
CC&Rs. The City's enforcement powers are handled through the
District Attorney. Thus, that is the advantage of an ordinance;
there is a more definitive means of enforcement.
Mr. John Pollock, 6 Eucalyptus Lane, stated that he is confused
by the ordinance and he feels that most of the residents are confused
as well. He asked if this ordinance would create another step in the
process or whether the step requiring review by the Architectural
Committee would be removed from the process. Mr. Pollock stated
that, currently, the County will not issue permits unless the plans
have been stamped by both the Association and the City. Therefore,
he feels that if this ordinance is adopted, the Architectural
Committee is no longer needed.
Councilman Pernell explained that the City does not have an
Architectural Committee. If the residents so desire they can, at the
annual meeting of the Community Association, suggest that the
Architectural Committee be abandoned.
Mr. Pollock continued to be confused by the ordinance, and
clarified with the Council when a site review process would be
- 5 -
227
required and when it would not. He feels that there are many
instances where the 25 percent triggering mechanism would be too
restrictive and prohibitive.
Councilman Heinsheimer remarked that it is the intent of the City
Council that the ordinance be used rather than not used. The purpose
of the 25 percent figure is to promote some continuity of site
developments and to restrict development in a piecemeal fashion.
Hopefully, the distribution of responsibilities between the
Architectural Committee and the City would be divided such that there
would not be an overlap. For instance, whereas the Architectural
Committee is concerned with the architectural design of a particular
house, the City's site review process would not deal with this aspect
of the development.
Mr. Len Coates, 3 Southfield Drive, feels that if this ordinance
were to be enacted another property right would be taken away. He
feels that an individual's property rights have to be balanced
against the objectives of the community. However, Mr. Coates does
believe that adopting this ordinance is too drastic a step to take to
solve an occasional problem. He feels that the objectives of the
City can be achieved through a cooperative effort with the Community
Association. Also, Mr. Coates fears that if this ordinance were
adopted there would be a decrease in revenues to the Association,
which are necessary for the maintenance of the roads and trails in
the City. - He believes that there might also be legal challenges to
the ordinance and that the City might have to face potential
litigation proceedings. Mr. Coates also suggested that this matter
be put to a vote of the people.
Sherry Ikezawa, 10 Packsaddle Road West, expressed concern and
confusion regarding which agency would have the final word on the
development of a site. She feels that there is a conflict between
the Architectural Committee and the City. Mrs. Ikezawa had questions
about the logistics of the various required review procedures and
approvals, and wondered how it would all work. She feels that the
City and the Association should solve the question of distribution of
authority. Mrs. Ikezawa also finds the ordinance confusing and is
opposed to.it.
Mr. Terry Carroll, 36 Eastfield Drive, informed the Council that
he has also attended most of the meetings at which this matter was
discussed. He feels that this ordinance would impose more
restrictions and controls, and that the regulations of the
Architectural Committee are extremely tough and sufficient. The
current process is very lengthy and time consuming, and this would
simply increase the length of time that it takes for a homeowner to
build. Mr. Carroll feels that this ordinance would halt or greatly
reduce construction in the City. He suggested that the Architectural
Committee be charged with the responsibility of conducting a site
review.
Councilman Heinsheimer commented that perhaps there is some
overlapping of responsibilities between the City and the Association,
Dr. Mark
Minkes, 44 Chuckwagon Road, informed the Council that he
has attended
many of the meetings where this proposed ordinance was
being considered, both at the City Council and Planning -Commission
levels. At
one of the Planning Commission meetings, Dr. Minkes
CO
learned that
it was Commissioner Lay who, by his own admission,. was
the impetus
behind the development of this ordinance. Dr. Minkes
V�
asked at what
point a City Council decides to cease and desist
consideration
of an ordinance that is opposed by a majority of the
residents of
the city. Further, Dr. Minkes commented that if'the
CO
Council were
to decide to proceed with the adoption of this
ordinance, that it would be possible to repeal the ordinance by
referendum.
He has not heard a majority response in favor of the
ordinance, and
he, personally, continues to be vehemently opposed to
the ordinance.
Mr. Len Coates, 3 Southfield Drive, feels that if this ordinance
were to be enacted another property right would be taken away. He
feels that an individual's property rights have to be balanced
against the objectives of the community. However, Mr. Coates does
believe that adopting this ordinance is too drastic a step to take to
solve an occasional problem. He feels that the objectives of the
City can be achieved through a cooperative effort with the Community
Association. Also, Mr. Coates fears that if this ordinance were
adopted there would be a decrease in revenues to the Association,
which are necessary for the maintenance of the roads and trails in
the City. - He believes that there might also be legal challenges to
the ordinance and that the City might have to face potential
litigation proceedings. Mr. Coates also suggested that this matter
be put to a vote of the people.
Sherry Ikezawa, 10 Packsaddle Road West, expressed concern and
confusion regarding which agency would have the final word on the
development of a site. She feels that there is a conflict between
the Architectural Committee and the City. Mrs. Ikezawa had questions
about the logistics of the various required review procedures and
approvals, and wondered how it would all work. She feels that the
City and the Association should solve the question of distribution of
authority. Mrs. Ikezawa also finds the ordinance confusing and is
opposed to.it.
Mr. Terry Carroll, 36 Eastfield Drive, informed the Council that
he has also attended most of the meetings at which this matter was
discussed. He feels that this ordinance would impose more
restrictions and controls, and that the regulations of the
Architectural Committee are extremely tough and sufficient. The
current process is very lengthy and time consuming, and this would
simply increase the length of time that it takes for a homeowner to
build. Mr. Carroll feels that this ordinance would halt or greatly
reduce construction in the City. He suggested that the Architectural
Committee be charged with the responsibility of conducting a site
review.
Councilman Heinsheimer commented that perhaps there is some
overlapping of responsibilities between the City and the Association,
'rLZ
and suggested that, should this ordinance be adopted, the City
Manager and Association Manager meet to work out and clarify exactly
what responsibilities each agency will assume, so that residents are
not ping-ponged back and forth between the two agencies. Councilman
Heinsheimer requested that the Planning, Building, and Subdivision
flow charts that were prepared by the City Manager in conjunction
with the City Attorney and the Association Manager, be modified to
reflect the changes that would result from the adoption of this
ordinance, and that the City Manager report back to the Council in
about a month with a report on the status of the revised flow
charts. Thus, the City Council would then be able to answer specific
questions on how the two agencies would work together in a harmonious
way.
Mr. Bill Horn, 16 Southfield Drive, stated that he feels that the
25 percent figure is discriminatory and restrictive.
Councilman Heinsheimer clarified that the 25 percent is only the
triggering device for the ordinance, and in no way limits the size of
home.
Councilman Heinsheimer stated that the ordinance is not intended
to be used as a mechanism for denying projects, it is simply to
provide a mechanism by which the Planning Commission can take a look
at a proposed site development and offer input.
Mr. Horn stated that he understands the intent of the ordinance,
however, it is entirely possible that a new Council and new Planning
Commission could have a different interpretation.
Mayor Murdock commented that the ordinance specifically states
that the Planning Commission shall approve a site review application
upon making the necessary findings, as outlined in the ordinance. In
her opinion, the ordinance is quite specific.
Councilman Pernell pointed out that Mr. Horn is a long-time
resident and former Mayor of the City, and was involved in the
government of the City before it was a city and participated in the
incorporation of the City.
Councilwoman Swanson invited Mr. Horn to point out any
ambiguities that he sees in the ordinance. Mr. Horn commented that
he finds the 25 percent too restrictive.
Mr. George Partridge, 69 Portuguese Bend Road, questioned the
necessity of this ordinance being adopted immediately. He
recommended that the Council proceed slowly.
Councilman Pernell recognized Mr. Partridge, and noted that he,
too, was an integral part of the development of the City and was
formerly President of the Community Association.
Mr. Chester Jenkins, 10 Southfield Drive, does not feel that this
new ordinance would provide any additional protection of the
community integrity that is not already provided for by the existing
regulations. He feels that the existing restrictions are sufficient,
and that this ordinance is unnecessary. In Mr. Jenkins' opinion,
this ordinance would only be adding to the bureaucracy, and would be
a duplication of effort. He also feels that the ordinance would be
restrictive.
Mr. Fred Calhoun commented that there seems to be a great deal of
duplication, and asked if the Council would recommend abolishing the
Architectural Committee. Councilman Pernell responded that he would
not favor such an action because their function contributes to the
character of the community.
Mrs. V'Etta Virtue, 4 Maverick Lane, stated that it is her
understanding that the Rolling Hills Community Association has no
powers of enforcement other than attaching a lien to the property,
- 7 -
LJI
M
which must be satisfied at the time the property is sold. She views
this ordinance as providing a review process that would have a means
of enforcement. Mrs. Virtue feels that this ordinance would, in a
roundabout way, give the Association support and control over their
regulations. She understands that, due to the geology and topography
of the land, it may be necessary to have more restrictions than
normal, for safety reasons and to preserve the character of the
community. Mrs. Virtue was in favor of the ordinance.
Dr. Mark Minkes, 44 Chuckwagon Road, commented that, regardless
of the enforcement powers of the various agencies, ultimately, anyone
can still violate the law whether it is something that falls under
the City's jurisdiction or the Association's jurisdiction.
Mrs. Sherry Ikezawa, stated that any development not requiring a
Variance or Conditional Use Permit probably meets all the
requirements outlined in the zoning ordinance and, therefore, need
not be reviewed. However, she feels that there are very few site
developments that do not require a Variance or ConditionalUse
Permit; thus, the City has the opportunity to review the majority of
developments. Mrs. Ikezawa believes that there are very few
developments that the City does not have the opportunity to review
and, therefore, she feels that the ordinance is not necessary.
Mayor Murdock responded that there appear to be many buildings
that are questionable as to their compatibility with the objectives
of the General Plan for the City of Rolling Hills, and which were not
required to be reviewed by the City because a Variance or Conditional
Use Permit was not necessary. The purpose of this ordinance is
simply to provide the City with an opportunity to look at proposed
site developments.
Mrs. Ikezawa stated that the architectural design and site
development plan cannot be separated. She feels that the two are
interrelated.
Councilman Heinsheimer commented that the proposed ordinance
would allow for discussion of a proposed site development with the
applicant, and provide for some give and take on the part of both
parties.
Councilwoman Swanson pointed out that, although the Planning
Commission may review applications for Variances or Conditional Use
Permits, the Commission is restricted to consider only that portion
of the plan that would require a Variance or Conditional Use Permit
and does not have the opportunity to consider the entire site
development.
Mrs. Mary Jo Hall feels that the City is seeking more power and
control over the residents. She suggested that the site review_
process be under the jurisdiction of.the Architectural Committee.
Mr. Len Coates stated that the word review should be replaced by
the word approval.
Mayor Murdock pointed out that the ordinance specifies that the
Planning Commission shall approve a site review application. .
Dr. Flavio Bisignano, 18 Crest Road East, expressed his opinion
that property rights have to weighed against what would be most
beneficial to the community, i.e., the objectives of the General Plan
of the City. He realizes that no one wants to be restricted in terms
of property rights, but that sometimes restrictions are necessary.
Dr. Bisignano believes that individuals' rights should be maintained
as long as they do not interfere with the goals of the General Pian.
He feels that the City should do whatever is necessary to maintain
the rural atmosphere of the community and, therefore, is not opposed
to the ordinance.
230
Dr. Minkes rhetorically commented that this type of ordinance
does not belong in city government. Further, he feels that the
findings necessary for approval will be a problem because they are
subject to interpretation and not well defined. Dr. Minkes feels
that this type of concern should be under the jurisdiction of the
Architectural Committee.
Mr. George Partridge agreed with Dr. Minkes. He feels that it
would be a grave mistake for the City to adopt this ordinance, and
something that everyone would regret. Mr. Partridge, too, feels that
this matter should be dealt with by the Architectural Committee.
Mr. Allan Bullard, 3 Eucalyptus Lane, questioned the legal
ramifications of the proposed ordinance, and asked for an opinion
from the City Attorney and if the City Attorney had approved the
proposed ordinance.
Mr. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney, stated that he had approved the
proposed ordinance. There are a great many aspects of planning and
zoning regulations that are subjective in character; this is no
exception. The zoning and planning process is, by its very nature,
to a certain degree subjective and not susceptible to
quantification. However, in all cases all decisions of a city body
must be supported by evidence, upon which factual findings are
based. This ordinance provides that any decision would have to be
supported by particularized findings, which are in turn supported by
the evidence. It is that obligation that, ultimately, makes the
Planning Commission accountable. Initially, the City Council
proposed an ordinance that was strictly based on quantification.
However, it was roundly criticized as being too arbitrary because it
was wedded to purely numerical standards. This ordinance provides
for a more subjective review and does away with the strict
quantification concept. It is consistent with the type of review
that is given to land development.
Mr. John Welbourn, 25 Portuguese Bend Road, stated that it seems
to him that the fundamental problem that everyone is expressing is
the fear of overlapping jurisdictions. He feels that there has to be
a coordination of jurisdictions.
Councilwoman Swanson asked the City Attorney if the City's law
and regulations supersede those of the Association.
Mr. Mike Jenkins responded that, generally, the more restrictive
regulations apply.
Mr. Chester Jenkins questioned the need for subparagraph (e)
under Section 17.34.040 (A) of the proposed ordinance, and felt that
this was a duplication of the existing lot coverage regulation. It
seems to him that the intent of this paragraph is to minimize
building coverage, which was not the intent of the ordinance as he
understands it.
Mr. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney, explained that this paragraph
relates to buildable area as opposed to total net lot area.
Mr. Coates commented that he feels that this ordinance would be
divisive and would, in the end, be self defeating.
Dr. Minkes asked the Mayor if it is her perception or opinion
that the majority of the community supports this ordinance.
Mayor Murdock stated that it is her perception that a majority of
the community is very concerned with maintaining the character of
Rolling Hills and the objectives of the General Plan. It is the
City's goal to find a means of enabling the City to carry out that
goal.
- 9 -
1
23�1
Dr. Minkes concurred with the Mayor that everyone is interested
in maintaining the character of the community and the objectives of
the General Plan, however, he does not feel that this ordinance is
necessary to accomplish that goal. He stated further that he has not
heard a majority response in support of the ordinance. Dr. Minkes
believes that a majority of the residents feel that the governing
bodies are already doing a good job, using the regulations that
currently exist.
Councilman Heinsheimer explained that the government of the
Country and the City is founded upon representative democracy, which
means that it is not incumbent upon everybody in the City to read
every ordinance and to attend every public hearing. Basically, the
obligation of the Council is to represent the City in a way that they
feel would be in the best interests of the City. He also feels that
it is not appropriate to have a public vote on individual matters,
e.g., ordinances, because the City is not organized in that way. The
Council is obliged to take input and then to make a decision. If,
after a period of time, for example a year, it appears that the
ordinance is not working or that there is a flaw in the ordinance,
00 then the ordinance should be changed. Councilman Heinsheimer is
�..� confident that he is aware of how the community feels about the
future of the City and how they would like to see it maintained.
Furthermore, the residents have entrusted him, as well as the other
Members of the City Council, to represent them and to make the
m appropriate decisions.
Q
Mr. Terry Carroll questioned whether or not the Council is
actually listening to the input that they have solicited.
Councilman Pernell attempted to clarify some of the concerns that
had been expressed by referring to the report prepared by The Keith
Companies, entitled "Residential Trend Analysis". In their report,
the following findings were made:
1. There has been a definite change in the development nature
and patterns in Rolling Hills since 1985 and is expected to
continue;
2. This change is causing alterations in the Rolling Hills
character and landscape;
3. These changes are inconsistent with the General Plan Goals
and Objectives;
4. Individually, the changes are allowed by the current Zoning
Ordinance and Building Regulations, collectively they are
violating the intent of the General Plan;
5. There are currently no procedures contained in either the
Zoning Ordinance or Building Regulations for the City to
check or manage the changes in the City of Rolling Hills;
and,
6. There are currently no specific guidelines to follow in the
character design of any new structures, alterations or their
accessory design elements.
The City Council could not stand idly by, while being advised
that the General Plan Goals and Objectives were being violated,
without taking some action.
In response to the concern that once an ordinance is adopted it
is next to impossible to get it removed or changed, Councilman
Pernell proposed that there be a mandatory review of any such
ordinance after a specified period of time, e.g., one year or
eighteen months.
- 10 -
Mr. Fred Calhoun feels that the report prepared by The Keith
Companies is misleading, and that the Council is overreacting to a
relatively minor problem.
Dr. Minkes also took exception to the report prepared by The
Keith Companies.
Mrs. Ikezawa remarked that at one of the Planning Commission
meetings the report was criticized as being inaccurate.
Councilman Pernell and Mayor Murdock verified that the report had
been revised and corrected since that time.
Mayor Murdock closed the public hearing, and invited discussion
from the Councilmembers.
Councilman Heinsheimer moved that the proposed ordinance be
introduced and that reading in full be waived, with the following
sentence being added at the end of Section 17.34.010, Applicability:
The site plan review Drocess is intended to assist in the orderlv
development of property in conformance with the objectives of the
General Plan.
Although not included as part of the motion, Councilman
Heinsheimer also requested that, if this ordinance is subsequently
adopted, after a twelve month period the Council review the status of
the ordinance by directing staff to report back to the City Council
on the effectiveness of the ordinance and by conducting another
hearing on the site plan review procedure.
Councilman Pernell seconded the motion made by Councilman
Heinsheimer.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh requested that Section 17.34.050,
Notice of Decision, of the proposed ordinance be changed to read
"...shall be given by registered mail or by personal delivery to the
applicant...". However, after some discussion amongst the
Councilmembers, it was decided to leave this section unchanged.
Thus, Section 17.34.050 would read as follows: "...shall be given by
first class mail to the applicant..."
Councilwoman Swanson commented that the final proposed ordinance
is a reflection of the many comments that were received over the past
several months.
The motion to introduce the proposed ordinance, as amended, and
to waive reading in full carried unanimously.
MEETING RECESSED
The meeting was recessed at 9:53 p.m., by Mayor Murdock.
MEETING RECONVENED
Mayor Murdock reconvened the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
MOTION TO INSTRUCT THE VOTING DELEGATE FOR CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE
REGARDING VARIOUS POSITIONS
It was noted that the City Selection Committee would be meeting
on December 1, 1988, to elect 2 members to the Los Angeles County
Transportation Commission (LACTC), and that they would be meeting on
January 5, 1989, to elect a member to the South Coast Air Quality
Management District.
Councilman Pernell suggested that the Voting Delegate be
instructed to support Hal Croyts and Bob White for the LACTC
positions, and Thomas Heinsheimer for the AQMD position.
�1
�J
233
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh and Councilman Heinsheimer questioned
the rationale for supporting Bob White instead of Jacki Bacharach.
Councilman Heinsheimer felt that we should support our neighboring
representatives.
Mayor Murdock noted that the California Contract Cities
Association has endorsed the candidacy of Hal Croyts and no one else.
Councilman Pernell moved that the Voting Delegate be instructed
to support Hal Croyts for the LACTC. Councilman Heinsheimer seconded
the motion, and it carried unanimously.
Councilman Pernell moved that the Voting Delegate also be
instructed to support Bob White for the LACTC. Councilwoman Swanson
seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 3 to 2.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh and Councilman Heinsheimer cast the
dissenting votes.
Councilman Pernell moved that the Voting Delegate be instructed
to support Tom Heinsheimer for the AQMD position. Councilwoman
Swanson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
�The City Manager pointed out that it is
possible that the
candidates that the Voting Delegate has been instructed to support
m may, ultimately, not be the final candidates, and that it might be
Q prudent to instruct the Voting Delegate who to support in the event
that neither candidate is in the final running. The Council agreed
that in this circumstance, the Voting Delegate should be released
from their obligation and should use their own judgement.
OPEN AGENDA
There were no comments under Open Agenda,
MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
VIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Councilman Pernell reported that the Council subcommittee met
several times, reviewed eight or nine applications, and interviewed
six individuals. The subcommittee recommends that the following
individuals be appointed to the View Preservation Committee: Joe
Hummel, Shirley Horn, and Don Crocker.
Councilwoman Swanson moved to accept the subcommittee's
recommendations. Councilman Heinsheimer seconded the motion, and it
carried unanimously.
Mayor Murdock indicated that she and the City Manager would be
meeting with the appointees to discuss their responsibilities.
Councilman Heinsheimer moved that Donald Crocker be appointed
Chairman of the View Preservation Committee. Councilman Pernell
seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
Councilman Pernell suggested further that the staggered terms be
assigned as follows: Mr. Crocker be appointed for the maximum term
of three years, Mr. Hummel be appointed to a term of two years, and
Mrs. Horn be appointed for a term of one year.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
STATUS OF CATV SURVEY
The City Manager reported that the status of the CATV survey has
not changed significantly, since he last reported on its status.
There was about a 40% response to the survey, and of those responses
approximately 90% were in favor of cable television. Subsequently,
- 12 -
234
the manager of Dimension Cable submitted a request to their
headquarters for an engineering report. That engineering report has
not been completed as of yet.
FIRE PROTECTION INFORMATION
Pursuant to the Council's request for information regarding fire
protection regulations for large residential structures, Chief
Brunstrom has provided the City Manager with a packet of information
that was prepared for the City of Palos Verdes Estates. The City
Manager indicated that he would compile the information into a
report, and present it at the next City Council meeting on November
28.
ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
The City Manager indicated that he would be presenting, at the
next meeting, some suggested revisions to the City's animal control
ordinance, specifically, to give the City Manager greater prerogative
in the removal of barking dogs. The City's current ordinance does
not have a provision for the removal of animals that are noise
nuisances.
Councilman Pernell had concerns about how the determination would
made that a dog was barking to the extent of becoming a nuisance; all
dogs bark.
Councilman Heinsheimer felt that perhaps this type of complaint
could be handled as a disturbing the peace complaint.
Rather than present changes to the ordinance, the Council felt
that it would be better to discuss this matter and asked that staff
present a report at the next meeting on problems that have arisen due
to barking dogs.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
The Mayor indicated that the personnel committee needs to
schedule a time to meet with the City Manager to review and discuss
his job performance and the renewal of his contract.
The City Attorney requested a brief executive session to discuss
pending litigation.
The meeting was recessed to Closed Session at 10:12 p.m. by Mayor
Murdock.
MEETING RECONVENED
Mayor Murdock reconvened the meeting at 10:32 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:33 p.m., to the Council Chamber
at City Hall on Monday, November 28, 1988, at 6:30 p.m.
APPROVED:
City Clerk
Mayor o
- 13 -
1