9/11/1989MINUTES OF AN
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
September 11, 1989
An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling
Hills was called to order at 6:30 p.m., in the field at 5 Outrider
Road, Rolling Hills, California, by Mayor Leeuwenburgh on Monday,
September 11, 1989.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilman Heinsheimer, Councilwoman Murdock,
Councilman Pernell, Councilwoman Swanson,
Mayor Leeuwenburgh
ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
PUBLIC HEARING
None
Terrence L. Belanger
Grant Kirkpatrick
Walter Mott
James Post
Mr. Stribley
City Manager
Kirkpatrick Associates
Resident
Resident
Resident
ZONING CASE NO. 396. MARION RUTH. 5 OUTRIDER ROAD
This matter was continued from the August 28 meeting. The
Council conducted an on-site investigation of the site, and considered
input from the neighboring residents who were present.
MEETING RECESSED
The meeting was recessed at 7:12 p.m.
MEETING RECONVENED
Mayor Leeuwenburgh reconvened the meeting at 7:34 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Administration Building/City Hall, 2 Portuguese
Bend Road, Rolling Hills, and asked that the roll be called again to
reflect the additional attendees, who joined the meeting at City Hall.
ROLL CALL
ALSO PRESENT:
CONSENT CALENDAR
Michael Jenkins
L. D. Courtright
Betty Volkert
Asst. Chief Corbett
Capt. Dennis Gillard
Ann Johnson
Anne La Jeunesse
James Brogdon
Ann Carley
Bill Cross
Larry Delpit
Dorothy Delpit
Frank Hill
Mr. J. Washburn
City Attorney
City Treasurer
Deputy City Clerk
L. A. Co. Fire Dept.
Sheriff's Lomita Stn.
Los Angeles Times
Peninsula News
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Councilman Pernell moved that the items on the Consent Calendar
be approved and accepted as presented. Councilwoman Murdock seconded
the motion, and it carried by a majority vote. Mayor Leeuwenburgh
abstained due to the fact that she did not attend the previous
meeting.
339
[l
J
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council, held on
August 28, 1989, were approved as written.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
Demands Nos. 3957 through 3991, in the amount of $112,464.68,
were approved for payment from the General Fund.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED
ZONING CASE NO. 396. MARION RUTH. 5 OUTRIDER ROAD
This is a request for a front yard setback variance for a
proposed stable site, and a request for a site plan review to
determine the compatibility of the proposed residential reconstruction
with the site at 5 Outrider Road, Lot 80 -EF.
Mayor Leeuwenburgh announced that the Council met at this site at
6:30 p.m. to review the project, and that this is a continued public
hearing.
Mayor Leeuwenburgh opened the public hearing, and invited
comments from the audience.
Mr. Grant Kirkpatrick, architect on the project, addressed the
Council and commented on the concerns expressed by the neighbors
regarding the stable location. He explained that the location of the
stable had been determined by the configuration of the site, and
proceeded to give a brief overview on the background of the placement
of the stable. He indicated that there are other possible locations
for the stable, which the owner is agreeable to as long as it is
compatible with the remaining proposed site plan.
Councilman Pernell commented that, during the on-site
investigation, it seemed there were some alternative locations for the
stable other than the front yard. He also verified with the architect
that the property owners would prefer to avoid obtaining a variance
and to comply with the zoning code, if at all possible. Councilman
Pernell also confirmed with Mr. Kirkpatrick that it would be possible
to revise the plan, proposing reasonable alternatives to a front yard
location for the stable, to accommodate comments and suggestions by
the neighbors and the Council during the field inspection. Thus,
Councilman Pernell suggested that the plans be revised accordingly.
Councilwoman Swanson clarified some procedural questions with the
City Attorney, who indicated that this should be dealt with as an
entire package and not piecemeal.
Mayor Leeuwenburgh noted that, as suggested at the field
investigation, an alternative stable location was near the garage,
which might incur an encroachment into an Association easement, in
which case approval from the Community Association would be necessary
before the Council could take action.
Councilwoman Murdock commented that the Association has a license
agreement to deal with encroachments into their easements.
Mayor Leeuwenburgh asked the architect if he would be able to get
approval from the Association in time to resubmit a revised plan at
the next Council meeting. Mr. Kirkpatrick seemed to feel that the
issue of the easement could be resolved with the Association prior to
the Council's next meeting.
Councilwoman Swanson suggested that the concerned residents in
attendance be encouraged to give their comments and opinions regarding
the proposed modification.
- 2 -
340
Mr. Walter Mott, 12 Outrider Road, addressed the Council and
indicated that he was speaking for himself as well as for Mr. Post and
Mr. Stribley. They are all three in agreement with the proposed
relocation of the stable, as suggested at the field trip.
There being no further comments, Mayor Leeuwenburgh continued the
public hearing to September 25, 1989, at 7:30 p.m.
RETURN TO AGENDA OUTLINE
The Council returned to the agenda, as outlined.
OLD BUSINESS
AGREEMENT WITH EBERTING INCORPORATED FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
The City Manager gave a staff report, and reviewed the history of
this matter. He explained that when remodeling the City
Hall/Administration Building was originally considered, the initial
thought was to retain the architect who originally designed the
Administration Building, Corwin Eberting, as he would already be
familiar with the building. Thus, Mr. Eberting was contacted, and,
ultimately, submitted an agreement which was not acceptable to the
Council. Subsequently, this agreement was revised into a standard
municipal form. This revised agreement has yet to be finalized. The
architect, Eberting Incorporated, has expressed the following concerns
regarding three major provisions in the City's revised agreement:
1. The "not to exceed" contract price of $5,000 was not
satisfactory. Eberting would prefer a $5,000 retainer
(minimum fee) against which hourly charges would be billed,
as well as, the billing of charges after the retainer amount
has been surpassed. Eberting estimates the total fee for
services will be in the low $20,000.
2. Eberting does not carry professional liability insurance.
This is an important issue as the professional services
being provided are related to a public building.
3. The architect felt that the ±5% construction price
guarantee was too severe.
The City Manager indicated that the proposed remodeling project
is estimated to be approximately 1,700 square feet, and will cost
approximately.$250,000 to $350,000.
Councilman Heinsheimer suggested that this matter be re -visited
and restudied, as it would appear that the initial premise has
changed, as well as, possibly, the scope of the project.
Mayor Leeuwenburgh asked the City Attorney for an opinion
regarding the matter of lack of professional liability insurance.
Mr. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney, responded that it is common for
small private businesses not to carry errors and omissions, or
malpractice insurance. In his opinion, it is a judgement call; there
is some measure of risk, although, minimal. It is likely that any
defects would be construction defects and, therefore, would be the
responsibility of the construction contractor.
Councilman Pernell remarked that he agreed with Councilman
Heinsheimer, and felt that other alternatives should be investigated.
Councilwoman Swanson asked for clarification on the charge of the
Sub -committee, as one of the two committee members.
Mayor Leeuwenburgh indicated that the Council Sub -committee and
staff should explore and evaluate other options, e.g., soliciting
other architects, having a contractor draw up plans for the minor
addition, requesting bids from contractors, etc., and report back with
recommendations to the Council at a later date.
- 3 -
341,
OPEN AGENDA
Mr. Jack Washburn, 5 Caballeros Road, asked for an explanation on
the proposed additions to the City Hall/Administration Building.
The City Manager explained that the Fiscal Year 1989 budget had
an allocation for the expansion of City Hall, due to the increase in
staff. Thus, the architect who designed City Hall originally,'was
contacted and asked to submit a proposal for the preparation of plans
and specifications for the remodeling.
There were no additional comments, and the Council continued with
the agenda outline.
AGREEMENT WITH COTTON/BELAND/ASSOCIATES FOR GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
ORDINANCE REVISIONS
The City Manager reported that the Council has, for their review,
a revised agreement between Cotton/Beland/Associates and the City of
00 Rolling Hills for General Plan and Zoning Ordinance revisions. The
revised agreement has been approved as to form by the City Attorney.
Mr. Donald Cotton has executed the agreement, on behalf of
Cotton/Beland/Associates. There has been a modification of the
schedule, pursuant to the request of the City Council. There have
m also been some moderate changes in the work program, as well as the
Q program budget.
Councilman Heinsheimer moved that the revised agreement be
approved. Councilwoman Murdock seconded the motion. There being no
objections, the motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
REJECTION OF CLAIM BY CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY
The City Manager reported that the City has received a claim
filed by the California Water Service Company, in connection with a
cross-complaint filed by Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Thomas. It is
recommended that the claim be rejected, and that the California Water
Service Company be so notified.
Councilwoman Swanson so moved. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Pernell, and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
Mayor Leeuwenburgh opened the public hearing on the proposed
amendment to the Animal Control Ordinance.
The City Manager gave a brief staff report. He explained that
the proposed amendments specifically relate to animal nuisances, i.e.,
barking, howling, and general noise nuisances. Recently, there has
been an increase in complaints related to barking and noisy dogs.
Currently, the enforcement powers provided for in the Municipal Code
with respect to these types of complaints, is lacking. Therefore, it
is staff's recommendation that a provision, similar to that found in
Section 6.24.010, which would provide for the City Manager to direct a
dog owner to remove the offending dog from the City upon a second
complaint, be adopted in the case of a dog nuisance.
Councilwoman Swanson felt that the administrative procedures for
processing a complaint are quite lengthy, and inquired how this
process might be expedited.
The City Attorney commented that the time frame for processing
these complaints might be able to be reduced by.a couple of days. In
the interest of due process, there must be adequate time allotted for
the preparation of a hearing.
- 4 -
Councilman Heinsheimer commented that the original purpose of the
proposed amendment was to structure the enforcement of animal
nuisances similar to that of animal attacks. He also pointed out that
the original problem was barking dogs, and questioned whether the
ordinance should be amended to include other unspecified animals.
Councilman Heinsheimer also had difficulty with the second phrase of
the first sentence at the top of page 2, "..., or interferes with any
one person of ordinary sensitivity in the reasonable and comfortable
enjoyment of life or property." In his opinion, this is
inappropriate; the issue should be to address the problem of
disturbance to surrounding neighbors.
The City Manager explained that, with respect to nuisances caused
by other animals, there have been complaints regarding other animals,
e.g., exotic birds.
Councilwoman Murdock and Councilwoman Swanson verified the
statement by the City Manager, and indicated that they were
comfortable with including other animals in .the ordinance.
Following some additional discussion, it was suggested that the
first sentence of the first paragraph at the top of page 2, be
reworded, as follows: "...disturb the peace and quiet of surrounding
neighbors or neighbor in the vicinity of such premises..." The City
Attorney stated that he would give some thought to appropriately
rewording this sentence, according to the Council's comments.
Mayor Leeuwenburgh invited comments from the audience.
Mr. Larry Delpit, 45 Saddleback Road, addressed the Council and
explained the problems that he has experienced with dogs encroaching
onto his property and destroying property. He was disappointed that
this type of problem was not being addressed by the proposed amended
ordinance.
Councilman Heinsheimer and Councilman Pernell inquired as to
whether this problem involves dog packs (3 or more). Mr. Delpit
confirmed that that was the case. Subsequently, the Council advised
Mr. Delpit that the existing Animal Control Ordinance does have a
provision for dealing with this type of problem. Councilman
Heinsheimer suggested that the appropriate section of the Animal
Control Ordinance be made available to Mr. Delpit for reference,
review and comments.
Mr. James Brogdon, 5 Maverick Lane, remarked that, in his
opinion, destructive dogs should be treated the same, whether in a
pack or alone. Sometimes, one dog can cause as much damage as three.
Mrs. Ann Carley, 2900 Palos Verdes Drive North, agreed with
Councilman Heinsheimer's remarks regarding disturbance to surrounding
neighbors and neighborhood. She pointed out that it might be possible
for a neighborhood to be disturbed without disturbance to an adjacent
neighbor.
Councilman Pernell expressed concerns regarding the manner of
verification of circumstances. He verified with the City Manager that
a complainant would have to file a notarized affidavit.
Councilman Heinsheimer had concerns regarding Section 6.46.040
(F), and questioned how a determination would be made on the
trainability of the dog and who would make that determination. He
felt this paragraph would be more appropriate in Section 6.46.050,
Disposition of Barking Dog.
The City Attorney indicated that, pursuant to comments from the
Council, he would revise the ordinance to provide for a range of
remedies in Section 6.46.050.
There being no objections, Mayor Leeuwenburgh ordered that this
matter be held on the agenda, and directed staff to revise the
=vc
proposed ordinance accordingly.
September 25, 1989, at 7:30 p.m.
343
The public hearing was continued to
MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
MOSOUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT
Councilwoman Swanson requested information regarding the
responsibility of the Mosquito Abatement District, and the procedure
for contacting them to report problems.
The City Manager explained that when a problem is discovered, the
resident can call the Mosquito Abatement District directly or the
resident can inform the City staff, who will then contact the Mosquito
Abatement District and report the problem. However, it is necessary
to know the location of the source of the problem. The Mosquito
Abatement personnel then comes out and treats the source.
MATTERS FROM STAFF
00 FIRESAFE ROOFING INFORMATION
LO Assistant Fire Chief Corbett distributed packets on firesafe
roofing information, and copies of a letter regarding the same
Co subject.
Staff recommended that a presentation regarding this matter be
scheduled for a future Council meeting. The presentation would
include a video• tape and several official representatives. Hence, a
presentation was scheduled for November 13, 1989. Assistant Fire
Chief Corbett indicated that a County Building Official would also be
present at this meeting to answer questions.
Councilman Pernell suggested that a copy of the Association's
Building Regulations be made available to the Assistant Fire Chief, to
enable him to make a determination as to what would be relevant to the
City of Rolling Hills.
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE
The City Manager reminded the Council that the League of
California Cities Annual Conference will be held in San Francisco,
October 22 through 25. Any Councilmember wishing to attend should
inform staff so that the necessary reservations can be made.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
The meeting was recessed at 8:55 p.m., to a Closed Session for
the purpose of discussing pending litigation, at the request of the
City Attorney.
MEETING RECONVENED
The meeting was reconvened at 9:25 p.m., following the Closed
Session.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Leeuwenburgh adjourned the meeting at 9:26 p.m.
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Clerk