Rolling Hills Invalidates Anti-Slow-Growth Petition

A petition seeking to overturn a development control ordinance in Rolling Hills is invalid and void, the city attorney has decided.

The determination means that the ordinance, which allows the city to reject construction and remodeling plans that conflict with the city’s General Plan, is effective immediately.

The petition containing 185 signatures was presented to the city last month and the ordinance was suspended, pending verification of the petition.

City Atty. Michael Jenkins told the City Council Monday that he found the petition flawed because it did not include the text of the ordinance, which had been unanimously approved by the City Council in November.

The city attorney was required to determine whether the petition’s text complied with the California Election Code. If the text had been acceptable, the Los Angeles County registrar of voters would have been asked to verify that the petition contained 148 valid signatures--10% of the city’s 1,478 registered voters.

Jenkins cited two cases dealing with referendum petitions in which the lack of a text of the ordinance resulted in the petitions being declared invalid.

Jenkins said he found two other flaws in the Rolling Hills petition. He said the petition did not include a line for the signature of the petitioner, nor a line for the petitioner’s city of residence.

He said all the signatures were legible, however, and the petition did state the name of the city, Rolling Hills, so the absence of those two lines would not have invalidated the petitions.

During public hearings on the slow-growth measure, proponents said the ordinance supported the goals of the city’s General Plan, which includes the preservation of a rural atmosphere, open space, natural vegetation and hilly topography.

Opponents said they feared the measure would limit the size of homes that could be built on large lots, and thus reduce property values.

City Manager Terrence Belanger said the petition will be returned to the resident who submitted it. Belanger said that the petitioners could ask a Superior Court judge to overturn Jenkins’ decision.