Loading...
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