Loading...
7/12/1999MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA JULY 12,1999 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Heinsheimer at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Hill, Murdock, Mayor Pro Tem Pernell and Mayor Heinsheimer. Councilmembers Absent: Lay (excused). Others Present: Craig R. Nealis, City Manager. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Larry Courtright, City Treasurer. Lola Ungar, Planning Director. Marilyn L. Kern, Deputy City Clerk. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. a. Minutes - Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 29, 1999. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. b. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Southern California Gas Company notice to customers of proposed $7.7 million rate increase (Application No. 99-06-027 filed with the Public Utilities Commission). RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Councilmember Hill moved that the City Council approve the recommendations in the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Murdock seconded the motion which carried unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None. TRAFFIC COMMISSION ITEMS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. OLD BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO PERS CONTRACT. City Manager Nealis presented the staff report, Resolution No. 867 and Ordinance No. 278 relating to the amendment to the existing PERS contract to include a Post Retirement Survivor Benefit Allowance. Hearing no discussion, Mayor Heinsheimer called for a motion. Minutes City Council Meeting 07/12/99 -1- RESOLUTION NO. 867: A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE A N AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS. Councilmember Murdock moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 867. Councilmember Hill seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 278: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. Councilmember Murdock moved that the City Council waive further reading and introduce Ordinance No. 278. Councilmember Hill seconded the motion which carried unanimously. This item was continued to Monday, August 9, 1999 for consideration of second reading and adoption. NEW BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF FINAL MAP FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21400 AND SUBDIVISION NO. 82 IN ZONING CASE NOS. 512, 555, AND 566, MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM HASSOLDT, 10 PINE TREE LANE (LOT 85-RH). CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 866: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 21400, SUBDIVISION NO. 82, A SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING 7.826 ACRE LOT INTO THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS FRONTING THE WESTERN SIDE OF PINE TREE LANE IN ZONING CASE NOS. 512, 555, AND 566. City Manager Nealis presented the staff report providing background regarding the final map and the requirements that the applicant must meet in order for the City Council to approve the final map. He explained that the applicants have not yet complied with Condition No. 29 of the tentative map relating to construction easements, not provided the Quimby Fees or the Construction Agreement and Certificate of Deposit for the cul-de- sac. City Manger Nealis explained that staff and the City Attorney's office has attempted to work with the applicants and their representatives to resolve the outstanding issues. He stated that since the conditions have not been met that staff suggests that this item be continued to allow time for staff to meet with the applicants in an effort to resolve the outstanding issues. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Pernell, City Manager Nealis stated that this item was placed on the agenda in hopes that these requirements would be completed by this evening's meeting. Discussion ensued regarding the status of the remaining conditions that must be met by the applicant. In response to Mayor Heinsheimer, City Attorney Jenkins explained that the Map Act provides a time frame in which the City Council must act on a final map. He explained that if all conditions of the tentative map are satisfied that the City Council is obligated to approve the final map and that if the conditions are not met that the City Council cannot approve the final map. He said that there has been some misunderstanding by the applicant as to whether all of the conditions of the map have been satisfied. He provided a brief history regarding the roadway and cul-de-sac requirements for the Hassoldt and Cukingnan subdivisions. He indicated that the outstanding question is whether the easements that have already been recorded provide the necessary legal authority for the road and cul-de-sac to be constructed by the Cukingnans as required by their tentative map. He indicated that Condition No. 29 provides for an additional construction easement. Minutes City Council Meeting 07/12/99 -2- In response to Mayor Heinsheimer, City Attorney Jenkins stated that in order to satisfy Condition No. 29, that the applicant..would need to record 'the 'addifional easement. In response to Councilmember Hill, City Attorney Jenkins explained that a construction easement is typically temporary.. Mr. Gary Wynn, Wynn Engineering, representing Mr. and Mrs. Hassoldt, expressed that he feels that the applicants are in substantial conformance with all conditions of the map. He stated that he has been working with the RHCA legal counsel regarding the easement issues. Mr. Wynn pointed out on the plan the 3 lots in the subdivision and the perimeter easements around each lot. He reported on the rebuilding of Pine Tree Lane by the Hassoldts as well as their completion of other conditions of approval. Mr. Wynn commented on the condition for a construction easement of an additional 10 feet along the northerly boundary of the Hassoldt property. He stated that it is the understanding of his clients that the perimeter easements that have already been dedicated are adequate and contain sufficient land to construct a roadway. He further commented on his meeting with the RHCA legal counsel. He said that he feels that the RHCA has a comfort level with easements that have been dedicated. In response to Mayor Heinsheimer, Mr. Wynn stated that he feels that there is no reason why the existing easements cannot be used for the construction of a roadway extension and cul-de-sac required in the Cukingnan subdivision. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Pernell, City Attorney Jenkins explained the differences between the dedicated easements and the request for an additional 10 foot construction easement. He indicated that in order to resolve this matter perhaps without the additional specific construction easement, that the applicants need to agree that the easements that have been recorded are broadly defined enough to include construction, maintenance and operation of a road. In response to Mayor Heinsheimer, Mrs. Judith Hassoldt, applicant, stated that it is their position that the RHCA CC&Rs call out the size and use of easements. She said that she feels that -the easements that have already been dedicated in conjunction with their subdivision provide sufficient land for the construction of a roadway. Mr. William Hassoldt, applicant, stated that their concern from the beginning has been the protection of the trees that are in the area of the proposed roadway and cul-de-sac in conjunction with the Cukingnan subdivision. He said that their concern is not that a roadway will be constructed in the area but how it would be constructed. He commented on the RHCA CC&R's regulation of easements. In response to City Attorney Jenkins as to whether there would be a problem when the Cukingnans actually begin construction of the roadway or will everyone agree that the easement that has been recorded allows for them to build the road as per the approved subdivision and plans, Mr. Hassoldt said yes, however, he said that the RHCA CC&Rs provide what easements are provided for. In response to Mayor Heinsheimer, City Manager Nealis explained that Condition No. 29 of the City's Resolution establishes that an easement for cul-de-sac construction purposes will be dedicated by the applicant and that it needs to be completed and dedicated to the satisfaction of the Community Association and the City. He said that the City has not heard from the Community Association that this has been satisfied. The City Council discussed Condition No. 29. Mr. Hassoldt provided correspondence from the City Attorney's office regarding the perimeter easements of the subdivisions. He pointed out on a plan where the construction easement enters into his private property and the location of the trees that he feels may be harmed during roadway and cul-de-sac construction. He indicated that they would like to have recourse if the trees are harmed. He expressed that he will not allow the Cukingnans to go onto his property beyond the already dedicated easements for construction of the roadway and cul-de-sac. Mr. Stan Lamport, representing the Cukingnans, commented on Condition No. 21 relating to the extension of Pine Tree Lane and Condition No. 29 relating to a construction Minutes City Council Meeting 07/12/99 -3- easement for the cul-de-sac. He stated that the goal of his client is to construct the extension of Pine Tree Lane and eliminate the potential for future disputes. He explained that a fence that has been constructed by the Hassoldts along their property line which he feel highlights the sensitivity to this issue and the cause of potential problems and disputes when the Cukingnans are ready to complete the roadway improvements in conjunction with their subdivision. Mr. Lamport stated that he would like to assure that any easement language makes it clear that all necessary work to complete the roadway construction including building, grading and earth moving and removal of vegetation is in the construction zone may take place without dispute. He stated that he feels that the 10 foot construction easement will eliminate any problems in the future. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Pernell, Mr. Lamport expressed that his client would accept Mr. Hassoldt's affirmative answer regarding construction of the roadway extension and cul-de-sac if it were in writing and recorded. He explained that a draft easement agreement was prepared. Mrs. Hassoldt stated that this document is not acceptable to them. In response to Mayor Heinsheimer, Mr. Lamport indicated that he feels that any grading for the roadway extension and cul-de-sac can be completed within the Community Association easements that have been recorded by the Hassoldts, however, he is concerned about incidental construction activities that the Hassoldt's may construe as a trespassing issue. Councilmembers and those in attendance discussed the construction easement issue. In response to Mayor Heinsheimer, Mr. Hassoldt expressed concern regarding damage that may occur to his property caused by persons hired to construct the roadway extension and cul-de-sac. He further stated his understanding that the already dedicated easements and RHCA CC&Rs state that roadway construction may occur within those easements. He expressed concern regarding a delay in this process to allow time for the drafting of an agreement relative to construction in the easement that would be acceptable to both parties. He indicated that he and Mrs. Hassoldt would be unavailable during the following weeks due to Mrs. Hassoldt's surgery. Mrs. Hassoldt questioned whether anyone in the City would be willing to dedicated ten extra feet of their private property for roadway construction when the RHCA easements around their property are for this purpose. She stated that they would like to have some sort of recourse if the lateral stability of their hillside or other personal property is compromised by roadway construction. She said she objects to any rewriting to the definition of and easement beyond the easements that they have dedicated in conjunction with their subdivision. Mr. Hassoldt indicated that he is prepared to provide a check to the City for the Quimby and other fees which he feels would complete the requirements. In response to Mayor Heinsheimer, City Manager Nealis stated that the City Attorney could draft clarifying language relative to the easements that is satisfactory to the RHCA which would allow the Cukingnans to complete the roadway construction requirements of their subdivision. He stated that Mr. and Mrs. Hassoldt reconstructed Pine Tree Lane within the easements of other property owners as part of their subdivision requirements. Mr. Sidney F. Croft, RHCA Legal Counsel, stated that once the Association has the clarifying language that it will be acceptable. He stated that the Hassoldts engineer has offered to attend the RHCA meeting this Thursday to review the easement issue with them. He would like to see an agreement prepared so that there will not be any future misunderstandings between the parties. Mrs. Hassoldt stated that this is not acceptable to them. Councilmembers and those in attendance discussed the initiation of an agreement to ensure that there are no future misunderstandings. Mrs. and Mrs. Hassoldt expressed concern for the drafting of an additional easement agreement. Mayor Pro Tem Pernell stated that the City Council would like to see this conflict settled. City Attorney Jenkins commented on the drafting of language in an agreement to clarify any ambiguity relative to the easement issue. He explained that the Association has the right to construct roadways within easements and they can authorize anyone as their agent to do so. Mr. Croft indicated that he would like for the Association Board of Directors to discuss this issue. Mr. and Mrs. Hassoldt indicated that they are unable to attend the Association meeting on Thursday and that they are uncomfortable with their project being discussed Minutes City Council Meeting 07/12/99 -4- 1 without their presence. Mr. Croft said that all of the RHCA conditions have been met and that the only outstanding issue is the construction easement. He stated that his client would like to review the con"structiori -easement,,issue. - -Mf Lamporf"`stated that he and his client would support a written agreement. Councilmembers further discussed the easement issue and concurred that this item be continued to the next regular City Council meeting to be held on July 26, 1999 and that the City Attorney prepare language clarifying "roadway construction" in the easements that have been recorded on the Final Map. OPEN AGENDA - APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME None. MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL None. MATTERS FROM STAFF None. MATTERS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY None. ADTOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Heinsheimer adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m., to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council to be held on Monday, July 26, 1999, beginning at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, k-eo-1x,-,1 J, Marilyn !Kern Deputy City Clerk Approved, r Thdmas . Heinsheimer Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 07/12/99 -5-