Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/16/1991 �► Minutes of a Regular Meeting October 16, 1991 Town of Los Altos Hills City Council Meeting Wednesday,October 16 , 1991, 7:15 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road 1. CALL TO ORDER,ROLL CALL, AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Hubbard called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Mayor Hubbard and Councilmembers Casey, Johnson and Tryon Absent: Councilmember Siegel Staff: City Manager Les M. Jones, II; City Attorney Sandy Sloan; Director of Public Works Bill Ekern; Planning Consultant Margaret Netto; Engineering Consultant Jeff Peterson; and City Clerk Pat Dowd Press: None 2. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 3. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT Planning Commissioner Comiso reported that all five public hearings at the 10/9/91 Commission Meeting were approved (as listed on the Consent Calendar). Tryon asked if there had been any concerns raised by the neighbors of Lands of Kolyn Enterprises on Cicerone Lane and Comiso responded there had not. Concerning Lands of Battle, Comiso believed this was a good example of how different the lots are in Town and why it was better to go with the topography of the land and issue a policy statement rather than an ordinance change. The granting of the variance for Lands of Battle did not increase the nonconformity. The eaves on the house were now in the setback and required a variance but the rest of the house was not nonconforming. Regarding Lands of Ben-Artzi, Comiso noted that it originally had been denied without prejudice and there had been concerns raised by the neighbors. Saw October 16, 1991 1 It was a ridgeline but the Commissioners felt that the house could be mitigated by lowering the roof line, use of eaves, windows, etc. It was also agreed that there would be a legal agreement with the Ben-Artzis for five years regarding the installation of their landscaping. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Items Removed: 4.1 - 10/2/91 Regular Meeting (Casey);4.3 (Casey;4.6 (Hubbard) and 4.9e) (Johnson) MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Tryon, seconded by Johnson and passed unanimously by all members present with Johnson abstaining on Item 4.9b) to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar, specifically: 4.1 Approved Minutes: October 2, 1991 (Adjourned Regular) October 5, 1991 (Adjourned Regular) 4.2 Approved Warrants: $53,635.31 (9/30/91) $38,216.66 (10/1/91) 4.4 Appointed Karen Jost as Acting City Clerk -- October 18, 1991 through November 3, 1991 IIkw 4.5 Accepted Improvements - Lands of Machale, Parcel Map 609M31, 12350 Stonebrook Drive -- Reso #51-91 4.7 Approved Final Subdivision Map for Phase Three - Lands of McCulloch -- Reso #52-91 4.8 Approved Request from Jean Struthers - Member, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, to attend the Conference on Riparian Systems at U.C. Davis and to receive reimbursement from the Town for expenses 4.9 Consideration of Whether To Review the following Planning Commission Actions at Its Meeting on October 9 , 1991: 4.9a Lands of Birnbaum, 27760 Edgerton Road, approved request for a site development permit for an addition 4.9b Lands of Clausen, 12809 Clausen Court (Lot#5), approved request for a site development permit for a new residence, second unit and pool October 16, 1991 2 4.9c Lands of Kolyn Enterprises, 13861 Cicerone Lane, approved request for a site development permit for a new residence and swimming pool 4.9d Lands of Battle, 27472 Altamont Road, approved request for variances to the setback requirements of the Zoning Code and a site development permit for a major addition Items Removed: 4.1 Approval of Minutes: October 2, 1991 Regular Meeting PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the minutes of the October 2, 1991 Regular City Council Meeting with the following amendment: page 4, Item 4.6, fifth paragraph, third sentence should read: "She also agreed with Mrs. Movassate and her comments about the gate which reflected the heritage of the Zappettinis and the private road which allowed the name Mojan Court to reflect the Movassate heritage." 4.3 Denial of Claim: Gary Lancaster Casey asked if Mr. Lancaster was present and was advised that he was not. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To deny the claim made by Mr. Gary Lancaster. 4.6 Award of Contract for Construction of Taaffe Road Improvements -- 1991 -- Reso # Hubbard noted that this was to award a contract to a new company and asked if they were sufficiently bonded. The Director of Public Works stated that they were. Tryon also recommended that Council closely supervise these plans as this was quite a complex project. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Hubbard, seconded by Johnson and passed unanimously by all members present to adopt Resolution #53-91 awarding contract for construction of Taaffe Road Improvements. 4.9e Lands of Ben-Artzi, 27800 Via Feliz, approved request for a site development permit for a new residence, tennis court and swimming pool haw October 16, 1991 3 Bob Owen, applicant's representative, stated that they had redesigned the house 4110, several times and it was a hardship on his clients if this project was delayed. He asked Council for consideration of their request to proceed with this project. Council requested review of the Planning Commission's approval of a request for a site development permit for a new residence, tennis court and swimming pool for Lands of Ben-Artzi, 27800 Via Feliz at a public hearing on November 6, 1991. 5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Ruth Buneman, 12655 LaCresta, addressed the Council on behalf of the Palo Alto Chapter of the Red Cross and presented a pin to Mayor Hubbard in recognition of his long-standing contributions to the Red Cross. Mayor Hubbard, on behalf of the community, thanked the Red Cross for all of their help. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1 Request for Certification of a Mitigated Negative Environmental Declaration, Approval of a Conditional Exception and Approval of a Tentative Map for a Two-Lot Subdivision, Lands of Merrill, 25355 La Lorna Drive The Director of Public Works referred to his staff report dated 10/16/91 which W' included the recommendations from the Planning Commission that Council certify the mitigated negative declaration, approve the conditional exception and approve a two-lot subdivision for Lands of Merrill. Staff recommended a conditional development permit for regulating development on Lot A which staff believed was a substantially constrained lot. The Director of Public Works also distributed revised wording for condition #6 and a new condition #7 which addressed specific findings the Planning Commission needed to make before approving any permit for the lot and which related to what conditions may be imposed on the lot in order to protect the public health, safety, general welfare and to secure the objectives set forth in the findings. Kieth Merrill, applicant, requested that Council approve his subdivision without the restrictive language of the amended conditions #6 and #7 as provided by the Director of Public Works. Mr. Merrill did not think it was necessary to make the buyer of the lot aware of what could be done on the lot in this manner. There were other methods such as the site development process. In addition California Law required full disclosure on the sale of the land and he lived next door and would be easy to find if there was a problem. He thought the value of the land and the opportunity to develop were curtailed by the revised condition #6. Mr. October 16, 1991 4 Merrill stated that the revised condition #6 prejudiced the lot by its language; the lot would not be objectively reviewed by a future Planning Commission. He did not believe Lot A was a substandard lot; therefore, it should not require a conditional development permit. Mr. Merrill was not opposed to some language that addressed the Council's concerns about this lot but he did not agree with the language of a conditional development permit. He further stated that Lot A could be developed with limited tree removal and there were enough trees to mitigate the development of the lot. Jerry Clements, applicant's civil engineer, commented on the slope density ordinance and the development of the lot. He distributed a new plan which showed the trees in relationship to the house. He believed the house fit the topography of the land. Richard Huntington, Mayne Tree Company, stated that he had walked the property and he believed that the trees could be preserved without a lot of loss. Some of the trees were subdominate trees which would have to be removed anyway. Mr. Huntington also noted that the drawing presented to Council was a rendering; it was not the actual house that would be built. He understood the house would fit in when it was finalized. IOW Hubbard noted that a standard for Los Altos Hills lots was a 160' building circle but in this case the driveway went through the circle. He also commented that they had seen people work on plans who had not received full information about a lot. Tryon discussed the stipulations that could be placed on the lot at this time and asked the applicant if he would rather they reduced the amount of the allowed development on the lot now rather than placing a conditional development permit on it. Tryon also noted that this land was presently in the County (within the Town's Urban Services Area) and she asked what development would be allowed under County regulations. The Director of Public Works responded that this lot was not subdividable under County regulations. Johnson referred to the restrictions placed on a subdivision such as Lands of McCulloch. Casey commented that the only buildable site on the lot because of the steepness on the other side of the driveway was where Mr. Merrill was planning to build. Jean Struthers, 13690 Robleda Road, commented that Lot A was a substandard lot in the sense that access of one lot crosses the other lot. She also noted that saving the trees was an issue and the total amount of hardscape was important. She asked if the existing driveway had been counted in the development area of the lot and suggested that the types of foundations and footings be stipulated. October 16, 1991 5 Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill, stated that she had never seen a subdivision where a private driveway split the land. She believed access was limited and as presented this was not a logical solution to the subdivision. Mrs. Gottlieb urged the Town to be careful of the standards regarding subdivisions. Harry Cooke, 25362 La Loma Drive, noted that this was a small lot and the applicant would still financially prosper if a smaller house was built. Mr. Cooke also inquired if a sewer connection was a condition of the project and he was advised it was. Theresa McDaniel, Chairman - Environmental Design and Protection Committee, stated that the trees were quite close to the house and in the committee's opinion a lot of trees would be lost or severely damaged as a result of construction. In addition with the setback regulations, it would be difficult to design a house and save the trees. Alette Mahler, 25825 La Loma, spoke of the trees that had already died on the Merrill property and was concerned about how the trees were being handled. Alan Wattle, 25274 La Loma, stated he was concerned about the total erosion of the rural character of the Town and also about the safety issue. There was too much traffic on La Loma and he did not agree with the proposed subdivision. Dot Schreiner, Chairman - Pathways, Recreation and Parks Committee, commented that the present easement impacted the development of this property and it was unclear whether or not the alternate easement would work. Mrs. Schreiner noted that their committee would like the option of either path and would like this to go into the conditions. Charles Pack, 25303 La Loma, stated his concerns about the path on the Merrill property. It was important because it was an access to the top of the ridge; it was a place to walk horses and there were a lot of children. It was also important to have the path connecting with the fire trail on the other side. Nancy Hoffman, 25124 La Loma, commented that she was an equestrian and had lost comfortable access to the riding trails. She did not believe it was fair to those who have been in the community not to have access to the trail system. VOW October 16, 1991 6 Jim Hoffman, 25124 La Loma, referred to the pathway easement but noted that `, one could not ride on it. He recommended that the pathway easement be improved if the subdivision was approved. Kieth Merrill, applicant, addressed the pathway issue and stated that he planned to construct the path when one was decided upon. He also noted in response to the neighbor's concern about trees dying that he had lost some trees on the property due to the drought. Johnson stated that he had visited the property and he did not see how a 6,100 square foot house could fit on this lot. He also had an aversion to the house being built too close to the trees. Johnson noted that land use matters needed to be decided on land use issues and specifically the size of the house on the lot. Hubbard was concerned about the driveway going through the property. He noted that the driveway was being excluded from the total development area on the lot and yet it would have a significant impact on the development of the lot if it were counted. Tryon stated that the Council needed to be careful when considering this subdivision and attention needed to be given to conformance with the General Plan and ordinances, the intensity of the proposed development and the rural character of the Town. Tryon further commented that the purpose of the subdivision ordinance was to provide lots of adequate design and size for what they were to be used. Casey stated that she believed this was a subdividable piece of land with the applicant asking for a two-lot subdivision rather than a three-lot. This land would not be further subdivided unless Mr. Merrill tore his house down. Casey also believed the path would be even better and the problem of trees had been mitigated. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Johnson and passed unanimously by all members present to certify the mitigated negative declaration for Lands of Merrill, 25355 La Loma Drive. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND: Moved by Casey to approve the conditional exception for Lands of Merrill, 25355 La Loma. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Johnson, seconded by Casey and passed by the following roll call vote to continue the request for approval of a conditional exception and approval of a tentative map for a two-lot subdivision for Lands of Merrill, 25355 La Loma to the November 6, 1991 Council Meeting and to direct applicant to address the concerns raised by Council. October 16, 1991 7 AYES: Mayor Pro Tem Tryon and Councilmembers Casey and Johnson NOES: Mayor Hubbard ABSENT: Councilmember Siegel 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7.1 Report on Altamont Road Guard Rail The Director of Public Works referred to his staff report dated 10/16/91 in which he recommended not installing guard rails on Altamont at this time. A guard rail was a visual barrier and the accidents were driver errors. In response to an inquiry from Tryon regarding alternatives, the Director of Public Works noted that paddle delineators could be installed. When asked by Casey if wooden posts could be installed, he commented that Altamont was quite narrow and it would be a major project to extend the shoulder. Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill, stated that she was speaking for Barrie Freeman who supported the installation of a guard rail on Altamont. She also asked if Altamont could be widened and moved and the Director of Public Works stated that this project could cost $50,000. Edwina Comiso, 27933 Briones Way, believed this was a dangerous curve on Altamont and supported the installation of a guard rail. Mary Compton, 27855 Via Ventana, noted that she drove this road quite a bit and believed it was a combination of factors including driving too fast, wet roads and slippery eucalyptus leaves which caused the problems. She also believed people would impale themselves on posts. The Engineering Consultant noted that there were narrow lanes as it was a tight corner. Guard rails would make people move toward the center of the road. Jean Struthers, 13690 Robleda Road, commented that a good job had been done on the delineators on Arastradero Road. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND: Moved by Hubbard to not install a guard rail on Altamont. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To direct staff to improve the delineators on Altamont. October 16, 1991 8 7.2 Adoption of Council Site Development Policy Statement MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Tryon, seconded by Hubbard and passed by the following roll call vote to adopt the following Site Development Policy Statement: AYES: Mayor Hubbard and Councilmembers Johnson and Tryon NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmembers Casey and Siegel (Councilmember Casey was absent from the Council Chambers at the time of this vote.) "The standards set forth in the ordinances are minimum standards. The Council and the Planning Commission have the duty and the obligation to set stricter standards in individual cases so that the purposes of the ordinances are complied with. The Town will make sure -- by means of landscape requirements, siting, grading, limitation of exterior materials and colors, limitation of size, and the possible requirement for one-story homes or homes of low-profile or horizontal design — that buildings are unobtrusive when viewed from off the site. `ir The Town will make every effort to see that buildings do not dominate the natural landscape. The Town considers that all prominent or highly visible sites are hilltops and ridgelines from some angles, and that hilltop and ridgeline restrictions might be applicable to any such site. Inconsistencies in permitted site development of the past are not to be considered as reasons or precedents for allowing exceptions to the purposes of the ordinances in the future. The Council hereby directs staff and advisory bodies to take appropriate actions to comply with this policy." Attached to this policy statement are relevant portions of the Town's Ordinances and Council concurred that the following section of the General Plan should be added to this attachment: (Attachment on file at Town Hall.) "The Town's scenic roads are essentially interior Town roads, all of which are deemed to have special qualities. In general, adjacent lands are residentially developed, however, scenic views of the natural landscape exist in certain locations and help to define the rural and open character of hir October 16, 1991 9 the community. The major routes of this category serve as collectors and provide direct access in and out of residential areas of the community. The preservation and enhancement of their scenic qualities is necessary to ensure residents and their guests the opportunity to 'experience' the rural and open character of the Town while they move to and from homes within Los Altos Hills." 7.3 Consideration of Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Allow for Encroachment of Eaves and Similar Structures into the Setback Edwina Comiso, Planning Commissioner, commented that they believed the ordinance should not be changed regarding front yard setbacks but that a policy statement could be made. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue discussion of this item and discussion of the front yard setback issue to the next Council Meeting. 8. NEW BUSINESS 8.1 Request for Approval of the Formation of a County Services Area for Animal Control Services Council had before them the City Manager's report which included an explanation of what additional services would be provided by the County regarding animal control. The City Manager also presented a breakdown of what cities in the County had agreed to participate in this program. Council discussed the cost of this service and Johnson stated that he thought $14 per household was too costly. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Hubbard, seconded by Tryon and passed unanimously by all members present to adopt Resolution #54- 91 establishing a county service area for animal control services and to direct the City Manager to send a letter to the County stating the Council's concerns about the cost and also stating the Council's expectations for a much higher level of service regarding animal control. 9. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES 9.1 Environmental Design and Protection Committee 9.1a Recommendation on Design Approval for Fencing of Byrne Preserve kier October 16, 1991 10 Theresa McDaniel, Chairman - Environmental Design and Protection Committee, presented the following recommendation from their committee: The fence should be a single top wood rail fence (2" by 6"), 5 feet high, with the top rail installed in a vertical position; use of non-climb field fence wire nailed to the top rail and side posts; and the replacement of damaged posts to be consisent with the size, shape and quality of the posts betweenNatoma and Westwind Barn. McDaniel also recommended that the equestrian gates be self-closing. Liz Dana, 25700 Bassett Lane, commented on the color of the top rail and also noted that pressure treated rails were more expensive. Hidden Villa had used barbed wire for a long time. Mary Compton, 27855 Via Ventana, noted that she had talked to about fourteen people at Byrne Preserve and they did not feel there had been enough notice regarding the issue of the fence. There was a lot of concern about the fence and they believed there should be more input from residents. Mrs. Compton suggested that pictures of proposed fences be included with the notices of future discussions on this issue. Bob Hall, 12140 Foothill Lane, commented that he had a degree in animal husbandry and was opposed to the fence at Byrne Preserve. In addition to the cost he believed woven wire fences were dangerous and he supported thr the use of barb wire. Mr. Hall believed that the Town had more important issues to address such as the star thistle problem. Edwina Comiso, 27933 Briones Way, stated that she walked this area every day and it was a beautiful walk. However, she was 5'3" and if a 5'6" fence was installed it would ruin the view for those walking. She believed a fence would make Byrne Preserve look much more inaccessible. Virginia Hall, 12140 Foothill Lane, concurred with the comments made by Mrs. Comiso and noted that she was speaking on behalf of several other neighbors. Dot Schreiner, Chairman - Pathways, Recreation and Parks Committee, did not believe that barb wire was suitable. She also believed that the objective of providing more walkthroughs and gates should be met. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Johnson and failed by the following roll call vote to fix the fence at Byrne Preserve as it is with barb wire, adding walkthroughs and gates and replacing posts. AYES: Councilmembers Casey and Johnson ` NOES: Mayor Hubbard and Mayor Pro Tem Tryon ABSENT: Councilmember Siegel October 16, 1991 11 c PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue the design approval for the fencing of ir Byrne Preserve to the November 6th Council Meeting and to direct staff to post notices on Byrne Preserve regarding this meeting. 10. STAFF REPORTS 10.1 City Manager 10.1a Proposed Council Policy on Appeal Costs Council had before them the City Manager's draft administrative policy statement regarding assessment of Town charges for appeals. In the draft policy, the City Manager noted that reference was made to an appeal fee set by resolution of the Council. Whatever amount was agreed upon as the appeal fee by Council, the appropriate place for this fee to be stated was in the fee schedule as adopted by resolution. It was also recommended that the fee adopted be uniform and not multi-tiered. Casey disagreed with the proposed fee of$500. She believed it was against State Law to charge more for an appeal than the actual costs incurred by the Town and she did not believe it cost the Town $500 to process an appeal. She also disagreed with the 5% �. administrative charge added to the consultants' bills for appeals. Casey questioned the charges incurred in an appeal and believed there was no substantiation of what the Town charged. The City Attorney stated that the cost of the appeal should not be greater than the cost of the Town to process the appeal. She also stated, in response to a concern raised by Tryon regarding the terminology of 'appeal' and 'review', that she did not see a problem with 'appeal' being used in the ordinance and 'review' in the policy statement. It was not necessary to change the ordinance. Tryon noted that it was not necessary at this time to determine an appeal fee but that the policy could be adopted to give staff some direction. Hubbard suggested changing the following statement "After costs of processing and reviewing appeals have been paid, funds remaining in the account will be refunded to the appellant." to "Unspent funds remaining in the deposit account will be refunded to the appellant." Council also discussed October 16, 1991 12 general administative staff time and the difference between, for example, the Director of Public Works review of a Wilsey and Ham report and his preparation of a staff report on the same subject. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Tryon, seconded by Johnson and passed by the following roll call vote to adopt the following administrative procedure on the payment of costs related to appeals. AYES: Mayor Hubbard and Councilmembers Johnson and Tryon NOES: Councilmember Casey ABSENT: Councilmember Siegel TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE NUMBER 202 DATE: OCT. 1991 SUBJECT: PAYMENT OF COSTS RELATED TO APPEALS Policy Land use decisions rendered by Town Staff or Town Appointed Bodies are subject to appeal by applicants, citizens, or 2 planning commissioners. During the processing of these appeals, the Town may incur expenses for use of in- house and consultant staff. Based upon the direction given by the City Council, this administrative procedure will guide staff in the processing of charges and expenses related to these appeals. For purposes of this procedure, the term "applicant" shall be used to identify the person or organization who acts as the proponent of record for a land use project. The term "appellant" shall be used to identify the person or organization filing an official appeal to a land use decision made by the Town. NOTE: This procedure relates to the assessment of costs for appeals. Specific applications regarding actual appeals and reviews are outlined in the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. Procedure There are three distinct types of appeals. They are explained herein: October 16, 1991 13 1. Appeal by applicant. The City Council has determined that it is necessary to pass town-incurred costs along to applicants for costs related to Town involvement in that application. Upon the rendering of a decision at any level, the appeal will be to the next level of authority. For instance, when the Planning Commission renders a formal decision regarding a land use application, the applicant may file a formal appeal to the City Council to overrule that decision. The appellant must pay a non-refundable appeal fee which is set by resolution of the City Council. In addition, all costs for technical staff time and Town consultant's charges are subject to payment by the applicant. To this end, staff will inform the applicant of the estimated cost for the appeal and require that a deposit account be established in an amount equal to that estimate. Staff will inform the applicant that this is only an estimate. Staff will require an additional deposit be made at the point where the previous deposit is 80% exhausted. At no time will the Town allow the account to become a negative balance. If the applicant fails to restore the account in accordance with this procedure, staff will cease all processing of the appeal. If the matter is still not resolved, the hearing body will be requested to deny the appeal for reason of non-payment of fees. Unspent funds remaining in the deposit account will be refunded. 2. Appeal by Citizen. The City Council has determined that cost of appeals of approved projects made by individual citizens will be limited to a non-refundable fee set by resolution of the City Council. This fee will pay for basic administrative and overhead expenses of the town to process the appeal. Expenses incurred by the Town during this type of appeal will be borne by the applicant from the applicant's deposit account. . 3. Appeal by Planning Commissioners. Some appeals may be made by request of two(2) planning commissioners. The City Council has determined that the appeal fee will be waived and that all costs will be borne by the applicant. Town expenses related to this type of appeal will be charged to the applicants deposit account. A City Councilmember may choose to have a decision regarding land use reviewed by the next level body. In the case of a review, all costs are borne by the applicant. The following represent, but are not limited to, expenses appropriate for charging to a deposit account: 1. Town Technical Consultants as needed for review of plans or acting as agents on behalf of the Town regarding the appeal. ttar October 16, 1991 14 2. Technical staff time expended for meetings or researching and writing staff reports relating to the appeal.. 3. Legal staff time . The following represent, but are not limited to ,expenses which, under normal circumstances, are covered by the basic appeal fee.(not charged against applicant's deposit account): 1. General administrative staff time, utilities, materials, and record keeping, . 2. Charges for the time or expenses of the hearing body, whether elected or appointed, to hold the formal hearing. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Johnson, seconded by Tryon and passed unanimously by all members present to go past the 11:30 p.m. hour of adjournment. 10.2 City Attorney 10.3 City Clerk 10.3a Report on Council Correspondence dated October 10, 1991 Casey inquired about the letter concerning a recent meeting of the Environmental Design and Protection Committee being a private meeting. The City Manager responded that there had been some confusion but it should be made clear that all committee meetings were open to the public. Tryon commented on Pahl's letter regarding the cable tv issue and she believed that discussions with Sun Country Cable should take place with staff and Council. She suggested that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Council regarding their cable tv concerns. Tryon also referred to Pahl's letter regarding the setback ordinance and noted that the purpose of the rebuilding/building out sub- committee had not been solely to look at design issues. Although this sub-committee had been formed in February of 1990, she believed many of the important issues had not been addressed. She asked that a discussion of the rebuilding/building out sub-committee be agendized for the next Council Meeting. She also noted that Mary van Tamelen, a October 16, 1991 15 former member of this committee, would be submitting a report on this subject for Council's review. Hubbard, also a member of this subcommittee, stated that they had addressed rebuilding and the fee schedule and suggested that a new sub-committee be formed. 11. COUNCIL-INITIATED ITEMS 11.1 Robleda Road Lane Delineators Council pointed out that the lane delineators on Robleda Road had been painted over and staff stated that this would be corrected. 11.2 Speed Limit on Robleda and Concepcion Tryon referred to the number of accidents and the road conditions on Robleda and Concepcion and she asked that a change of speed limits for these roads from 30 to 25 mph be agendized for the next Council meeting. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further new or old business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Patricia Dowd City Clerk The minutes of the October 16, 1991 Regular City Council Meeting were approved at the November 20, 1991 City Council Meeting. hit October 16, 1991 16