HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/02/1971L
CITY COUNCIL
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
alter A.
Town OfLosLosWAltos Hillsntonordereatthe 7:45Regular
P.M. rMeeting of in the CouncileCCity Council hambers of thefthe
Town
, 379
Hall 26 Hi 5
Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, with the following members answering
roll call: Present: Councilmen Corbett, Grabowski, Helgesson, Davey, and Mayor
Benson. Absent: None.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE: Commissioner Pr;soilla Weishart.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 7, 1971. Councilman Helgesson moved, seconded by
Grabowski end carried by majority vote (Corbett absent, thus abstained) that the
4W Minutes of June 7, 1971 be approved as written.
APPROVAL GF MINUTES: June 21, 1971. Councilmen Helgesson moved, seconded by
Grabowskii and carried by majority vote (Corbett and Davey were absent, thus
abstained) that the Minutes of June 21, 1971 be approved as written.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES. July 6, 1971. Councilman Helgesson moved, seconded by
Grabowski, and carried by majority vote (Corbett absent, thus abstained) that the
Minutes of July 6, 1971 be approved with the following corrections on page 6.
UnderlVarants of July 61 1971" the amount should be $5103,689,47 instead of
$103,684.91. Under "Adjournment" after the words "....... adjourned the meeting at
1,2;!'J A. Y. to^ delete the colon (:) and add "a Litigation Session and reconvened
solely to adjourn at 1:30 A,M, to:"
COtMtUNICATIWS'_
1, League of California Cities advised of their meeting August 12, 1971 in San
Francisco.
2, Mr. Lawrence Dawson, 13835 Page Mill Road requested Council action authorizing
improvements at Page Mill Road and Arastradero be reconsidered. Council discussion
concurred.
MOTION, SECONDED AND CARRIED: Councilmen Grabowski moved, seconded by Davey and
carried unanimously that improvements authorized by the Council on Arastradero Road
at Page Mill Road be reconsidered.
it MOTION, SECONDED AND CARRIED: Councilmen Grabowski moved, seconded by Davey and
carried unanimously that the Page Mill/Arastradero proposed improvements be referred
to the Planning Commission for additional study,
August
2,
1971
REEL 40
- Side
2,
Track 1 -
Footage 350 -End
Side
1
Track 2
Footar,e 00 -End
Side
2
Track 2
Footage 00-20
NOTE: THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
ARE ON FILE AT THE
CF THIS
MEETING WERE
TAPE RECCRDED AND THE TAPES
TOWN HALL,
alter A.
Town OfLosLosWAltos Hillsntonordereatthe 7:45Regular
P.M. rMeeting of in the CouncileCCity Council hambers of thefthe
Town
, 379
Hall 26 Hi 5
Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, with the following members answering
roll call: Present: Councilmen Corbett, Grabowski, Helgesson, Davey, and Mayor
Benson. Absent: None.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE: Commissioner Pr;soilla Weishart.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 7, 1971. Councilman Helgesson moved, seconded by
Grabowski end carried by majority vote (Corbett absent, thus abstained) that the
4W Minutes of June 7, 1971 be approved as written.
APPROVAL GF MINUTES: June 21, 1971. Councilmen Helgesson moved, seconded by
Grabowskii and carried by majority vote (Corbett and Davey were absent, thus
abstained) that the Minutes of June 21, 1971 be approved as written.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES. July 6, 1971. Councilman Helgesson moved, seconded by
Grabowski, and carried by majority vote (Corbett absent, thus abstained) that the
Minutes of July 6, 1971 be approved with the following corrections on page 6.
UnderlVarants of July 61 1971" the amount should be $5103,689,47 instead of
$103,684.91. Under "Adjournment" after the words "....... adjourned the meeting at
1,2;!'J A. Y. to^ delete the colon (:) and add "a Litigation Session and reconvened
solely to adjourn at 1:30 A,M, to:"
COtMtUNICATIWS'_
1, League of California Cities advised of their meeting August 12, 1971 in San
Francisco.
2, Mr. Lawrence Dawson, 13835 Page Mill Road requested Council action authorizing
improvements at Page Mill Road and Arastradero be reconsidered. Council discussion
concurred.
MOTION, SECONDED AND CARRIED: Councilmen Grabowski moved, seconded by Davey and
carried unanimously that improvements authorized by the Council on Arastradero Road
at Page Mill Road be reconsidered.
it MOTION, SECONDED AND CARRIED: Councilmen Grabowski moved, seconded by Davey and
carried unanimously that the Page Mill/Arastradero proposed improvements be referred
to the Planning Commission for additional study,
t 3. Mrs. Millie Saviano, Chairman of the Pathway Committee, expressed concern over
�/ the distribution of an unofficial and incomplete map of the Town's paths and trails.
Staff was requested to withdraw the subject map and cease its distribution.
4. Mr. Morris M. Orupp advised that he had withdrawn from participation in the
Use Permit Application for the Melton Boarding Stable.
5, Mr, W. C. Hahn, 26491 Ascension Drive, called attention to damage caused
annually during the rainy season by the overflow from a plugged drainage ditch.
He noted this problem has been recently aggravated by a broken water line.
Council concurred to agenda this item for the next meeting, noting that although
the water company was involved in the recent overflow, resolution of the overall
problem was required by the Town.
SCHEDULED ITEM NO. 1:
PUBLIC. _HEARING ON. SEWER ASSESSI41VT DISTRICT
Mayor Benson opened the public hearing and reviewed that the Town, which is split
into two Drainage Basins, wherein half the natural outflow goes to Los Altos and
the other half to Palo Alto, was required to negotiate with both cities for sewage
treatment. He noted that the City of Los Altos permitted property owners in the
"Los Altos Drainage Basin" to purchase "capacity" on a voluntary basis, while
Palo Alto insisted that the Town contract for "capacity" for all lands in the Palo
Alto Drainage Basin". He indicated the cost of "capacity" in the Palo Alto sewage
system was $399,544.00, spread over five years with $80,000 to be paid annually,
except for the final July 1, 1973 payment which will be $79,544.
The Mayor stated that since the signing of the Palo Alto contract, a Tri -City
Secondary Treatment Plant had been built which adds to the financial obligations
of the "Palo Alto Drainage Basin" and consequently the Town must also pay Palo
Alto an additional $22,000 per year through 1982 for the "Palo Alto Basin" share
of this plant.
He observed that only 522 Units of Benefit have been purchased in the Palo Alto
Basin which leaves 1208 yet to be paid. Mayor Benson stated the payment of these
1208 Units of Benefit is the sole purpose of forming proposed Sewer Assessment
District No. 9. He stated that the formation of the proposed assessment district
was the only thing to be discussed this evening and announced that Notices had
been posted, published and mailed pursuant to law, and affidavits of posting,
publication and mailing were on file in the office of the City Clerk. He stated
the proceedings were undertaken pursuant to a health officer's letter recommending
as necessary, as a health measure, that proceedings be undertaken pursuant to
appropriate special assessment and assessment bond acts and that the hearing this
evening is a hearing on the engineer's report prepared pursuant to the provisions
of the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. This report prepared by the Town
Engineer consisted of a description of the acquisitions to be made, the engineer's
statement of the itemized and total estimated costs and expenses in connection
therewith, a diagram showing the assessment district and the boundaries and
dimensions of the respective subdivisions of land within the district and an
assessment in accordance with benefits. The Mayor stated that any one of these
items may be the subject of protests or endorsements, that all written protests
-e-
to be computed in the protest percentage should have been filed with the City Clerk
! on or before 8:00 o'clock P.M., and that protests or endorsements could be made
0r' by any person interested, but only written protests filed by the owners of the
property could be considered in determining the percentage of protests. He asked
that each person clearly identify himself and the property owned by him as clearly
as possible so that statements could be correctly recorded.
He then asked the City Clerk to report on the various affidavits and notices given
in connection with the hearing.
The City Manager read the following letter which had been received from the County
Health Officer of Santa Clara County:
"I am acquainted with the sanitary sewerage project which you propose
to undertake pursuant to special assessment and assessment bond
proceedings, or other appropriate proceedings, which project is more
particularly set forth in your Resolution Requesting Recommendation
of Health Officer.
I recommend, as necessary as a health measure, that you undertake pro-
ceedings pursuant to appropriate special assessment and assessment bond
acts of this State or other appropriate proceedings, as you shall de-
termine, for the acquisition and/or construction of said improvements
and for assessing or taxing the properties to be benefited thereby.
This recommendation extends to such changes and modifications therein
as you shall find to be proper or advisable, in the manner provided
40 by law.'
/s/ W. Elwyn Turner, M. D.
Ex -Officio Health Officer
of the Town of Los Altos Hills
The City Attorney introduced and read in its entirety, Resolution No. 636: A Re-
solution Determining to Undertake Proceedings Pursuant to Appropriate Special
Assessment and Assessment Bond Acts or Other Appropriate Proceedings for the
Acquisition and/or Construction of a Sanitary Sewerage System and Appurtenances
Without Proceedings Under Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code, Sanitary
Assessment District No. 9.
MOTION, SECONDED AND CARRIED: Councilman Helgesson moved, seconded by Grabowski
that Resolution No. 636 be adopted as read was carried by the following roll call
vote: Ayes: Councilmen Corbett, Grabowski, Helgesson, and Mayor Benson. Noes:
Councilman Davey; Absent: None.
The City Clerk stated that notices had been posted, published and mailed as required
by the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, and that affidavits of posting, publishing
and mailing were on file in his office. Also, a copy of the engineer's report pre-
pared by the Town Engineer was filed in his office on June 21, 1971, and had been
open to public inspection.
The Mayor then called upon the Town Engineer to make his report. The Engineer made
the following statement:
-3-
"I am a duly registered civil engineer in the State of California and I am the duly
appointed Town Engineer of Los Altos Hills. As the Town Engineer I was appointed
Engineer of Work for Sanitary Sewer Assessment District No. 9 and was directed to
make and file with the City Clerk a report, in writing consisting of a description
of the acquisitions to be made, the engineer's statement of the itemized and total
estimated costs and expenses of the acquisitions, including the incidental expenses
in connection therewith, a diagram showing the assessment district and the boundaries
and dimensions of the respective subdivisions of land within the district and an
assessment in accordance with benefits. This report was prepared and filed with
the Clerk on June 21, 1971 and is made a part of the record.
The District is comprised of that portion of the Town of Los Altos Hills which will
obtain sanitary sewage treatment from the City of Palo Alto and which will naturally
flow by gravity in the direction of the City of Palo Alto. The District includes
the area outlined on the map on display, a copy of which is on file in the office
of the Clerk and is generally outlined as follows:
On the west, north and east by the corporate limits of the Town of Los Altos Hills.
On the South by a line identical to the northerly boundary of Sewer Assessment
District No. 4 and in the vicinity of the following streets: Fremont Road, Campo
Vista Lane, Robleda Road, Wildcrest Drive, Alta Lane North, Alta Tierra Road, La
Paloma Road, Purissima Road, Junipero Serra Freeway, Taaffe Road and Altamont Road.
The District contains approximately 21304.6 acres, exclusive of public rights of
way.
far In my opinion, all property benefiting from the proposed acquisitions has been
included within the District and no property has been omitted.
The project consists of the acquisition of capacity and disposal rights and the right
of service and use in sanitary sewerage collection, transmission, treatment, outfall
and disposal facilities of the City of Palo Alto for and on behalf of the properties
within the proposed assessment district. The acquisition of these capacity rights
and rights of service and use constitutes the basis for the spread of assessments.
Capacity will be reserved for future connection by the properties within the pro-
posed assessment district not now connected or served.
The Town, in conjunction with the City of Palo Alto, has planned for, and construc-
tion is now under way, of facilities by the City of Palo Alto of sufficient capacity
to include and provide for the treatment of sewage from the area of the Town to be
included within the proposed assessment district.
One unit of benefit is assigned to the reservation or use of the capacity to provide
sewage treatment service to one single family dwelling site with an average dry
weather sewage discharge rate of 400 gallons per day. Existing lots or parcels
of record and containing a nominal area of one acre are considered to be one dwell-
ing site.
Existing lots or parcels containing substantially less than one acre are also con-
sidered to be one dwelling site provided that they are located in an area of pre-
` vailing similar lot sizes with existing dwelling structures.
-4-
Parcels containing two or more acres were estimated to be benefited by a multiple
unit of benefit equivalent to an estimated number of ultimate single family dwell-
ing sites upon the following criteria:
(a) One acre minimum for all dwelling sites, and
(b) Number of sites in accordance with latest approved tentative map
for any pending subdivision, or
(c) Maximum number of sites, computed in accordance with Town's Slope
Density Ordinance, or a reasonable approximation thereof.
Certain parcels have been included and assessed zero due to the fact that these
parcels have been included in previous assessment district proceedings for the
acquisition of capacity rights and rights of service and use, or such rights
have been purchased by cash payment. In addition, certain properties have connected
to the Gardner Bullis School line and have paid capacity right charges to the City
of Los Altos, or have connected to that line prior to the imposition of capacity
rights charges by the City of Los Altos.
The spread of the assessment, as outlined, was uniformly applied throughout the
entire District. In my opinion, the amount of the assessment on each assessed
parcel properly reflects the benefits to be derived by that parcel and is fair
and equitable. The method of assessment is in accordance with acceptable
practice and is reasonable, fair and just and the resulting assessments are sub-
stantially less than, but in proportion to, the special benefits which the assessed
` properties will receive.
All of the area of the District will, in my opinion, benefit from the acquisition
of capacity rights and rights of service and use even though immediate service
will not be received. Certain parts of this area are largely undeveloped and
may not have need for immediate service. However, the benefit to be derived
is the ensuring of the future right to a public sewer system when needed. There
are presently many homes built in the area which will need sanitary sewage service
some time in the future and the benefits to be derived by these properties will be
the ensuring of capacity and use rights to be used by them at the time a connection
is made to the sewers. Prospects for the growth of the area within the assessment
district necessitate planning now against the time when population density and
accumulating disposal problems require sanitary sewers for the area.
racilities are presently under construction by the City of Palo Alto and are being
built of a size and capacity to serve the area within the assessment district and
provide for their future needs. To fail to provide for this at this time would
result in either the unavailability of future service or, at the least, the dupli-
cation of facilities, excessive cost and constitute bad planning for the future
needs of the area. The topography of the assessment district is such that the en-
tire area will naturally drain in the direction of the City of Palo Alto.
In summary, it is my opinion, that the proper development of the lands within the
proposed assessment district and the public convenience and welfare necessitates
the acquisition of the capacity rights and rights of service and use contemplated
in the project. The value and desirability of these lands will depend, to a great
extent, on the acquisitions, as contemplated, for the future needs of the area.
-5-
L In my opinion, each parcel assessed will receive an enhancement in value in excess
of the proposed assessment against it. Each parcel of property will receive a
special benefit by the ensuring to it of such capacity rights and rights of service
and use in order that a modern, efficient and publicly owned and operated sewer
system will become available to the properties when required.
Dated: August 2, 1971.
Tom rngineer
The Mayor then stated it was time to read the written protests. Discussion followec
as to the necessity of reading all the protests. It was announced that all persons,
including Councilmen, wishing the written protests to be read could have them read.
If no one wished them read, they would be summarized and all protests considered
by the Council. No one wished the protests to be read in their entirety.
The City Clerk was asked to report on the protests and endorsements received. The
City Clerk reported that �,7 letters of protest, representing 143 assessment numbers
had been received. Of these it was noted that 41 of these parcels were owned by
Mr. F. W. Saul, Los Altos, and were zero assessments. In addition, 207 post
cards had been submitted, but they were addressed to:
Residential Property Owners
Los Altos Hills
Box 583
Los Altos, California 94022
These cards signed by Los Altos Hills citizens residing within the Sewer Assessment
District No. 9 referenced their name and address; their S.A.D. #9 assessment number
and the assessor's parcel number of their property. The card provided two blocks
for checking -- one protested the S.A.D. #9 assessment, and the other urged repeal
of Resolution No. 458 (Town Sewer Policy). The City Clerk stated that of the 209
cards received, 180 of them protested their S.A.D. ;=9 assessment, and urged repeal
of Resolution No. 458. The remaining 29 cards protested their S. A. D. #9 assess-
ment but did not indicate objection to the sewer policy Resolution No. 458.
Council discussion evolved around the legality of the 209 signed cards as to
whether they were valid protests since they were not actually addressed to the City
Council. The City Attorney and Mr. Phil D. Assaf, Attorney of Work, stated that
the cards should have been addressed to the City Council and should have stated
the basis upon which the protest was made, either to the extent of the district,
the method of spreading the assessment or the acouisitions to be made. Since the
cards did not so indicate, but protested only Sewer Assessment District No. 9
and/or the Town policy, the attorney indicated that the cards were not actually
technically legal protests. However the Council was advised that they could
consider them in their deliberation. Speaking from the floor, Mr. Michael
DiLeonardc, 400 Sunnyvale Office Center, Sunnyvale, stated that he was an attorney
representing a number of property owners opposing this assessment district, and
that his clients had advised him that Staff had led them to believe upon informing
them of their intent to solicit protests, that the cards would be a legally effect-
ive method of so doing. Staff discussion noted that they had advised persons
circulating the post cards which solicited protests, that it was common practice
to circulate petitions and as such permissible. However Staff stated that they bad
neither reviewed nor passed upon the form of any proposed protest nor upon the
method of presenting such to the Council. Following the discussion, the Council
concurred that the intent of protest was clear and that the Council would consider
these post cards in their deliberation. Motion by Councilman Davey to accept the
post cards as legal protests failed for lack of a second, since the remainder of
the Council had already concurred that they were not legal, but that they had
agreed to accept them as such.
Lengthy discussion with audience participation followed, as to whether the letters
of protest received should or should not be read. Council concurred that all the
letters should be read, so that the reasons for protest could be determined. Once
again the Mayor asked if anyone ;wished the protests to be read. After considerable
discussion by the Council and members of the audience, the Council ordered them
summarized in view of the fact that no one wished the uritten protests to be read.
The City Clerk summarized letters of protest on file with him, from the following:
All addresses Los Altos Hills, unless noted otherwise.
Ms. L. L. Dronkert, 27431 Black Mt. Rd. #980; Mr/Mrs. D. E. Robles, 14554 De Bell
Dr. #323; Mr/Mrs. W. C. Smith, 25905 Estacada Dr. #302, 303; Mr/Mrs. A. Calvin,
14160 Miranda Ave. #568; Mr. S. F. Svedeman, 12348 Melody Lane, #987; Mr. Wm.
Beaver, 27650 Edgerton Rd. #956; Ms. R.B. Spangenberg, 2100 Page Mill Rd. Palo
(AV
Alto, #l; Ms. L. Lewis, 27550 Edgerton Rd. #963; Mr/Mrs. A. Prentice, 27750 Edgerton
Rd. #957; Mr. D. S. Landon, 27633 Via Cerro Gordo, #811; Mr/Mrs. I. Haas, 27677
Briones Ct., #845; Drs. W. and M. Jochle, 27133 Adonna Ct., #883; Mr. J. Sweeney,
27121 Adonna Ct., #882; Prof. 0. Busman, 12655 La Cresta Dr., #638; Mr/Mrs. D.
Bugge, 26342 Ginny Lane, #450, #1146; Mr/Mrs. F. H. Be Wheeler, 27174 Elena Ave.
#1063; Mr. G. T. O'Mara, 25600 LaLanne Ct., #558; Mr. E. G. Snyder, 2220 Old Page
Mill Rd. Palo Alto, #15; Mr. J. P. Dammann, 26856 Almaden Ct., #1052, #1053;
Mr/Mrs. L. S. Cutler, 26944 Almaden Ct. #1041; Mr. N. S. Estrada, 12695 La Cresta
Dr. #636; Mr. R. Mukai, 586 Croyden Ct., Sunnyvale, #545; Mr. W. J. Ianahan,
12145 Foothill Lane, #1081; Mr. E. R. Terry, 25960 Estacada Dr. #320; Mr. L. L.
Libby, 14329 Miranda Way, #358; Mr. R. R. Buss, 2265 Page Mill Rd., #5; Mr/Mrs.
N. M. Fisk, 13367 La Cresta, #142; Ms. I. M. Hoff, 12130 Foothill La. #1079;
Mr. G. P. Smith, 25880 Elena Rd., #1069; Ms. M. and S. Westall, 27575 Black Mt. Rd.
#1008; Mr/Mrs. D. Be Grandstoff, Jr. 13880 Campo Vista, x/50; Ms. C. J. Hall,
12882 Viscaino Dr. #622; Mr. J. S. Ewing, 27811 Lupine Rd. #587; Mr. W. A. Ward,
14116 Seven Acres Ia. #561; Mr. R. E. Lee, 26430 Purissima Ave. #1154; Mr/Mrs.
E. W. Mehner, 26629 Purissima Rd., #1150, #1151; Ms. A. L. Boortz, 26642 Purissima
Rd. #1140; Mr. R. G. Schonberg, 12386 Melody La., #1014; Mr/Mrs. R. H. Stroud,
27625 Vogue Ct. #1021; Ms. I. C. Goldsmith, 27330 Elena Rd. #1062; Mr/Mra.
G. F. Stoneman, 13101 Ia Cresta Dr. #405; Mr. W. S. Best, 13111 La Cresta Dr.,
#404; Mr/14rs. L. Krebs, 5124 Iankershim Blvd., North Hollywood, Ca. #426;
Mr/Mrs R. L. Colligan, 13001 La Cresta Dr., #409; Mr/Mrs. J. J. Klein, 14520
DeBell Dr., #348; Mr. A. Kinkead, 28011 Elena Rd., #107; Palo Alto Unified
School District, c/o Tully C. Knoles, 25 Churchill Ave. Palo Alto, #99, 794, 876,
998; Mr. L. Dawson, 13835 Page Mill Rd., #100, 103; Ms, Be Roberts, 2250 Page
Mill Rd. #7; Mr. Be LeShelle, Arastra Ltd., 17201 Sunset Blvd, Pacific Palisades,
Calif., 0796, 979, 102, 104; Mr. R. E. Lee, 26430 Purissima Ave., #1036; Mr/Mrs.
A. R. Eagle, 12230 Windsor Ct., #1003; Mr. R. Hall, 12140 Foothill La. #1080;
-7-
` Mr/Mrs. B. Hrubesch, 27644 Natoma Rd., #1016; Mr. E. K. Dole, 27197 Black Mt. Rd.,
#958; Ms. Bettie Adams, 12375 Melody La., 41989; Mr./Mrs. F,, C. Cooley, 27261
Elena Ave., #978; Mr/Mrs. R. Butera, 27446 Black Mtn. Rd. #974; Mr/Mrs. G. E.
Austin, 27600 Edgerton Rd., #964; Ms. B. M. Dreesen, 27447 Edgerton Rd. #981;
Mr. J. S, MacKay, 13030 Cumbra Vista Ct., #898; Mr. T. P. O'Donnell, Attorney for
Monastery of Poor Clares, Natoma Rd., #858, 997, 996, 994; Ms. Kathleen K. Collins,
28135 Natoma Rd. #872; Ms. J. Stiles, 26012 West Fremont, #746; Mr. N. W. George,
Mgr., Fremont Hills Country Club, Viscaino Place, #654; Mr/Mra• Leland Lewis,
12723 Canario Way, #623, 626; Ms. M. Boardsnes, 26041 Fremont Rd. #517; Archie
Dellamaggiere, at al adress unknown, #595; Mr H. E. Brownback, 26656 Parissima Rd.
#1142; Mr. R. E. Lee, 26430 Purissima Ave. #1153; Ms. Jayne E. Tabor, 26640
Purissima Rd., #1148; Mr. G. 0, Argall, 14371 Manuplla Rd. #237; Mr/Mrs. John M.
Lenzen, 13810 Campo Vista Ia. #749; Mr/Mrs. H. Broekhoff, 14545 Manuella Ave.,
#235; Me. L. C. Bogle, 2000 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, #38; Mr/Mrs. J. B. Chown
13822 Page Mill Rd., 938; Mr. W. Brelo, 13820 Page Mill Rd., #573, 582;
Mr. C. A. Bittmann, 14350 Manuella Ave. #518; Ms. E. Andriano, 27580 Arastradero
Rd. #109, 376; Mr./Mrs. B. Upton, 26431 Elena Rd., #7120; Mr. H. C. Faber,
2254 Williams St. Palo Alto, //840; Mr. L. Tyler, 20710 Carmel Ave., Saratoga,
Ca. #808; Mr/Mrs. D. J. Avila, 27881 Elena Rd. #616; MrlMrs. R. Kane, 27700 Lupine
Road, #597; Mr/Mrs. K. Young, 14470 Manuella Rd., 11338; Mr. Frank W. Saul
P.O. Box 871, Los Altos, #60, 78, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 29, 68, 67, 836, 53,
83, 86, 90, 91, 95, 96, 824, 825, 826, 83o, 831, 832.
4W
The above letters objected to the S. A. D. #9 assessment for one or more of the
following reasons:
1. Their septic tank was adequate and they neither desired sewers nor the
capacity guarantee for which they were assessed.
2. They were receiving no benefit, in that the capacity assessment did not
guarantee sewer trunks to which they could connect and receive benefit.
3. They wished Resolution No. 458 to be rescinded and sewers also provided.
4. They did not intend to develop their acreage, but for economic reasons,
their assessment would require them to do so and thus retention of "open
space" was discouraged.
5. Find another solution to the financial dilemma.
6. They were assessed for more sites than would be allowed under current
zoning and subdivision ordinances.
7. No specific reason other than they protested the assessment.
8. No construction of sewers.
9. The property was already connected.
-8-
It was explained that certain properties included within the assessment district
were assessed zero because they were included in other assessment districts for
capacity chargee, and were found to benefit in those districts. They had been
included only for convenience. In addition, certain properties had connected to
the Gardner Bullis School line and had paid capacity charges to the City of Los
Altos, or had connected to that line prior to the imposition of capacity,rights
charges by the City of Los Altos.
Letters endorsing the formation of the District were read from Mr. William Ross
Aiken, 10410 Magdalena Ave., Mrs. Marie B. George, 12881 Viacaino Place and Mr./Mrs
Gary B. and Vicki Jones, 12600 Page Mill Road.
Certain protests were not identifi ble and the properties could not be located.
It was explained that the protests to be valid must contain some way of identifying
the property proposed to be assessed.
The Mayor then stated that those wishing to be heard orally would now be heard.
Mr. Jerome Long, Jr., 14146 Amherst Court asked that the boundaries of the proposed
district be defined. The Town Engineer then outlined the boundaries of the District
and referred to the boundary map posted on the wall, and on file in the office of
the Clerk and of record in the office of the County Recorder. He stated he was
opposed to the District on the ground the District was being formed to fulfill the
Contract with Palo Alto which was an obligation of the Town as a whole and the Town
as a whole should pay for it. It was pointed out that the Contract was a Town
Contract but that its purpose was to provide capacity for those properties within
the Palo Alto basin and not for the entire Town. Those properties in the Los Altos
Basin were covered by contract with the City of Los Altos and that both contracts
were limited to specific areas of the Town benefiting from each contract.
Mr. Michael DiLeonardo, attorney, representing several property owners, stated
that the contract with Palo Alto was a Tom contract; that the Municipal Improve-
ment Act of 1913 and the Improvement Boll Act of 1915 did not mention sewers; that
there are sewer acts in the Government Code authorizing sewers, that there has been
no study as to what sewers will cost, when property will be developed, what total
system will cost, etc., and the lack of such a study has created confusion. With no
such study, the Council is dealing with generalities. This project is an easy
way to fulfill the contract with Palo Alto. No one can tell when sewers will be
available. This is the wrong solution. It was stated by Counsel Assaf in reply
that the Contract with Palo Alto was not in issue. The only thing in issue at
this hearing and the only legal basis upon which an assessment can be levied is
on the basis of the benefit to be derived by the properties to be assessed. The
question is: Does the acquisition of the rights proposed in this project and the
guarantee of capacity to those properties to be assessed when and if they desire
sewers or need them benefit these properties? This is the only question at issue
before the Council. Counsel Assaf then stated that the Acts mentioned by Mr.
DiLeonardo did authorize the project, that, as previously reported by the
Engineer, the assessment vias spread on the basis of approved tentative maps and
slope density ordinances and other ordinances of the Town in determining the number
of building sites for each parcel under present ordinances of the Town.
( Mr. R. E. Morton, Jr., 12570 Roble ladera Road, asked to be heard. He referred
V to Resolution No. 458 and stated that if there is a majority protest the project
should be abandoned. The project is not for the construction of sewers.
44,
Mrs. I. Haas, 27676 Briones Court, asked if the sewer policy had been reconsidered.
The Mayor replied that this was not in issue but that the Town would welcome the
filing of any petition for sewers to be installed.
Mr. David Jansson, 27440 Sherlock Road, stated that he initiated a project for
sewers last year. Under the Town policy the cost was doubled. He would like
sewers but is against the policy.
Councilman Helgesson explained the difference between the contracts with Palo Alto
and Los Altos. Substantively, the Los Altos Drainage Basin has no guarantee of
capacity unless and until they pay a capacity charge and only if capacity is
available. Under the Palo Alto Contract, the properties in the Palo Alto Basin
are guaranteed capacity at the time they need it.
Mrs. Diana Miller, 13076 Vista Dell Valle Court stated that a proposed assessment
some time ago failed because the cost was excessive.
Mrs. Lois Hogle, 2000 Page Mill Road, stated that the policy should be rescinded.
R. C. Cheney, 10737 Magdalena, stated he did not live within the assessment district.
He stated that he had paid his capacity charges in the Los Altos Basin in assess-
ment District No. 4. If the whole Town has to pay on the Palo Alto Contract, he
would be paying a double charge for capacity.
Mr. E. W. Mehner, 26620 Purissima Road, stated that about 6 years ago he subdivided
a piece of property and that it had cost an exorbitant amount. He stated he was
against sewering his property and that notice he received said nothing about paying
Palo Alto. It was explained again that the contract was not in issue but only the
matter of benefit to the properties was in issue.
Mrs. Ruth Spangenberg, 2100 Old Page Mill Road stated that it was rumored that the
same amount could be charged again. It was explained that a charge for the same
thing would not be levied but that if the Water Quality Control Board increased
its requirements additional costs could be imposed to meet these requirements.
Mr. J. G.We ±osman, 12119 Foothill, asked why the different policy in the two basins.
The tri -city plant and its financing was explained. He stated he was opposed to
sewers and asked the percentage of protests.
Mrs. June McIlwraith, 13431 Wildcrest Drive, stated she will not benefit beoause
she will never get sewers under the Town's policy. The Mayor replied that she
cannot be certain that she will never have sewers.
Mr. J. S. MacKay, 13030 Cumbra Vista Court, stated he protested in writing because
he did not understand the situation. Are sewers going to be built? It was explained
that the project included only the acquisition of capacity rights and reference to
the itemized costs in the Engineer's Report was made and it was pointed out that the
report showed no lands were to be acquired and no sewers were to be built. He then
asked whether the project was to pay the Palo Alto Contract. It was explained by
Counsel Assaf that the project was to acquire capacity rights and to assess the
costs on the basis of benefits and only that. If the Council found, after consider-
ing the evidence presented this evening, that there was no benefit then the project
could not proceed.
-10-
Mr. R. C. Hall, 12140 Foothill Lane, stated that he was opposed to the project. If
there was no capacity available, no high density development could take place. Let
us refuse to pay Palo Alto and let them sue the Town.
Mrs. Irma Goldsmith, 27330 Elena Road, stated there is no benefit and that the only
reason for the project is to pay Palo Alto.
Those expressing endorsement of the assessment district included Mr. R. C. Cheney;
10737 Magdalena Avenue and Mr. D. K. Harryman, 26987 Elena Road.
Comments were also heard from Mrs. Kathy Woempner, 27690 Briones Court, who expressed
her willingness to pay her fair share of the debt to Palo Alto, but she objected to
being told that she was paying to receive benefit.
The Mayor asked if anyone further wished to be heard. No one further wished to be
heard. Counsel Assaf then informed the Mayor that if no one wished to be heard and
the Council was satisfied that it had all of the information upon which it could
reasonably base its decision, the hearing could be closed. If the Council wished
additional information it could keep the hearing open and go ahead with the Council's
discussion, continue the hearing or take whatever other action it desired. If the
hearing is closed, it would not be able to hear others or receive additional in-
formation. He recommended that the hearing be kept open and that the Council pro-
ceed with the discussion.
There being no further comments from the floor, Mayor Benson requested that the
Town Engineer report on the percentage of protests received. Mr. Crabtree noted
that there are 1631 acres in the proposed S.A.D. #9. Of these 486 acres or 29.806
protested by letter; the 209 cards represented 392 acres or 24.020; thus the percent
age of protest within the District (which excluded those already in S.A.D. #3 or i/5)
was 53.82,% (29.80 + 24.02) or a majority protest.
Councilman Grabowski remarked that of the written protests some 28 to 30 reasons
for protest were other than protesting against the District or repeal of the policy
resolution; 43 of the letters were not bonafide protests against the district
but protested on the ground they were satisfied with septic tanks, didn't want
sewers, intended to place their property under the Williamson Act, don't want to
spend the money or don't have it or want to pull out of the Tri-City Plant.
Counsel Assaf explained that the reported majority protest percentage did not go into
the reasons for the individual protests or their technical validity but were all
counted as protests as were the Dent cards nreviouslv discussed.
Councilman Davey explained that the Tri-City Plant was a Town obligation. Counsel
Faisant stated that this was true because the Town signed the contract but that this
was a generalization. The contracts with Palo Alto and Los Altos were different
in that the Palo Alto contract guaranteed capacity to the Palo Alto Basin properties,
whereas the Los Altos contract guaranteed capacity to the Los Altos Basin properties
and each contract covered a different part of the Tom.
4W
-11-
Council discussion followed with a review by Councilman Corbett as to the financial
dilemma that exists within the Palo Alto Drainage Basin. In summary, he stated
that he had filed a suit against the Town when. S.A.D. #3 was established and that
he still opposec oomyn,lsory sewering of the Town, but that after much study he had
concluded the only equitable solution for resolution of the debt to Palo Alto for
capacity rights was for everyone within the Palo Alto basin that has not yet pur-
chased capacity to be assessed in proportion to the benefits to be received, and
that these properties did receive a benefit. He reiterated-ooi „n„ .ti ,,,,nssinan
wherein it had been established that the contract with Palo Alto although objo.+i,,,,_
able, was legal and valid, that those in the Los Altos drainage basin had already
paid their share for capacity rights when S.A.D. #4 was established, thus making
a townwide tax to pay this obligation inequitable, since the problem was particu-
larly oriented toward those in the Palo Alto drainage basin and therefore he
supported formation of Sewer Assessment District No. 9. Councilman Grabowski,
Helgesson and Mayor Benson concurred with his remarks. Councilman Davey dissented,
stating the reason for the Town's financial difficulty is due to the Town sewer
Policy which impeded the originally projected 50 connections per year, which would
have enabled the Town to meet the contractual obligations to Palo Alto. The policy
she maintained directly caused a lack of connections to the Palo Alto system and
consequently resulted in less than 8 per year. As an alternate to S.A.D. #9 she
proposed the following as a solution.
I. Vote to rescind the Town Sewer Policy (Resolution No, 458)
2. Allow those districts to proceed under traditional assessment procedures
so that those areas of Town where there is a demonstrated health need could
have sewers and that would create the 50 new connections per year as projected.
The Council discussion and consideration being completed, Mayor Benson ordered the
hearing closed and requested the City Attorney to introduce Resolutions 637, 638,
and 639.
Resolution No. 6Z - Re: Overrule Protests
The City Attorney introduced and read in its entirety, Resolution No, 6379 A
Resolution of the Town of Los Altos Hills, overruling protests on Resolution of
Intention No. 632 -- Sanitary Assessment District No. 9.
MOTION, SECONDED AND CARRIED: Councilman Corbett moved, seconded by Helgesson,
that Resolution No. 637 be adopted as read carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilman Corbett, Grabowski, Helgesson and Mayor Benson; Noes: Councilman
Davey; Absent: None.
Resolution No. 638 - Re: Adoption of Engineer's Report and Confirm Assessments.
The City Attorney introduced and read in entirety Resolution No, 638, A Resolution
of the Town of Los Altos Hills and order adopting Engineer's Report Confirming the
Assessment and Ordering the Acquisitions and/or Improvements -- Sanitary Assessment
District No. 9.
`. MOTION, SECONDED AND CARRIED: Councilman Helgesson moved, seconded by Corbett that
Resolution No. 638 be adopted as read, carried by the following roll call vote;
Ayes: Councilmen Corbett, Grabowski, Helgesson and Mayor Benson; Noes: Councilman
Davey; Absent: None.
-12-
Resolution No. 639 Re: Designation of Collection Officer
The City Attorney introduced and read in entirety Resolution No. 639, a Resolution
of the Town of Los Altos Hills, designating collection officer -- Sanitary Assessment
District No. 9.
MOTION, SECONDED AND CARRIED: Councilman Helgesson moved, seconded by Corbett, that
Resolution No. 639 be adopted as read carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Corbett, Grabowski, Relgeason and Mayor Benson; Noes: Council-
man Davey; Absent: None.
Council discussion noted that those parcels wherein the owners claimed they were
being assessed for units of benefit in excess of allowable lots under current zoning,'
necessitated further study by the Town Engineer and thus a proposed Resolution No.
640 for modification of assessments was deferred to the August 16, 1971 meeting.
SCHEDULED ITEM NO. 2:
FREMONT HILLS COUNTRYV CLUB USE PERMIT ii353 - 71 - Amending V-20-57 by requesting
two additional tennis courts.
Staff stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this Use
Permit to add two tennis courts and the list of conditions was reviewed. Council
discussion concurred with the recommendation.
MOTION, SECONDED AND CARRIED: Councilman Helgesson moved, seconded by Grabowski,
and carried unanimously that a Use Permit for Fremont Hills Country Club (UP353-71)
be granted to add two tennis courts in accordance with the Conditions of Approval
dated July 26, 1971.
SCHEDULED ITEM NOS3:
ACTION ON PENDING LEGISLATION - Councilman Grabowski.
Council c acurred to defer this discussion of pending State legislation until the
August 16, 1971 meeting.
UNSCHEDULED ITEM NO. 1:
DISCUSSION OF AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING ALL COMMERCIAL AND TRADE VEHICLES DOING BUSINESS
IN LOS ALTOS HILLS TO BE PROPERLY IDENTIFIED.
Staff noted that it had been suggested that all commercial vehicles that work in
Town be identified as such to facilitate business license checking and security.
Council discussion ensued with floor participation from Mrs. Diane Strobele,
26450 Ascension Drive; and Messrs: A. M. Laws, 11210 Hooper Lane, D. Jansson,
27440 Sherlock Road; and R. E. Morton, 12570 Roble Ladera Road.
Discussion noted inherent problems and the majority of the Council concurred that
the subject be tabled. Councilman Grabowski dissented, noting it would be a valuable
deterrent to potential burglars.
STAFF REPORTS:
1. The City Manager requested and was granted vacation leave from August 5 through
August 11, 1971.
-13-
RESOLUTIGNIS: All resolutions at this meeting came under Scheduled Item No. 1 since
they were connwted with S.A.D. #9.
4
ORDINANCES:
1. VOrdinance #188 (Second Reading: Amending Ord. #179 -Horse Ord. Re: Delaying
application and enforcement of Use Permit requirement for legally existing
stables.
The City Attorney introduced and read in entirety Ordinance No. 188, An Ordinance
of the Town of Los Altos Hills amending Ordinance No. 179, by temporarily delaying
application and enforcement of the requirement for Use Permits for legally existing
stables.
Staff explained this Ordinance could not be effective for 30 days and would not
effect pending applications already filed. It would result in a 45 day moratorium
since no Use Permits for commercial stables would be accepted after September 1, 1971
through October 18, 1971.
Communications objecting to this proposed Ordinance were read from Mr. Marie Graver,
26351 Esperanza Drive (Director of Los Altos Junior Horsemen's Association and
the California State Horsemen's Association); Mr. S. G. Whittelsey, Jr., President
of Los Altos Hills Horsemen's Association.
A letter from M. J. Brown, 12670 Dianne Drive proposed specific amendments to
Ordinance No. 78 and Ordinance No. 179.
Floor participants included Messrs: S. G. Whittelsey; M. McGilvray, 12823 Normandy
Lane; M. J. Brown; A. M. laws; and George Seidman, 12690 Diane Drive; Mmes.
J. Carico, 25311 O'Keefe Lane; M. Graver; J. McIlwraith; M. Saviano and G.
Clement. Those representing horse interests felt no change to the ordinance was
necessary, that it had not been given an opportunity to work and that if changes
were found necessary an amendment could be drafted without a moratorium. Those
speaking in support of an amendment noted the number of allowable horses necessitated
a clearer definition to provide adequate guidelines to the Planning Commission
and the Council when considering the Use Permit applications.
Council discussion evelved around the need for the moratorium vs. referral to the
Planning Commission for further studypand proposed recommendations on possible
changes to Ordinance No. 179.
Initial motion to adopt Ordinance No. 188 by Councilman Helgesson was withdrawn and
the Council concurred that the matter be referred to the Planning Commission to
review possible changes to Ordinance No. 179> t;" --,t deliber=tions consider both
points of vieer expressed and that they rei;ly by Octcber 18, 1971.
WARRANTS:
MOTlON," SEC@IDED AND CARRIED: Councilmen Helgesson moved, seconded by Grabowski,
and carried by unanimous roll call vote, that the warrants as presented in the
amount of EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY TWO DOLLARS and Forty eight Cents
($8472.48) be approved and the City Clerk authorized to draw the appropriate warrants.
Lo ADJOURNMENT: Due to the late hour, Mayor Benson adjourned the meeting at 1:30 A.M.
NEXT REGULAR MEETING: Monday, August 16, 1971 at 7.45 P. t Town 1.
v/nay t 'teed
City Cferk
T,TK/dq -14- Town of Los Altos Hills