Loading...
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