Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/15/2001 Minutes of a Regular Meeting March 15, 2000 Town of Los Altos Hills City Council Regular Meeting Thursday, March 15, 2000, 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road 1. CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL Mayor Finn called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Mayor Finn and Councilmembers Casey, Cheng, Fenwick and O'Malley Absent: None Staff: City Manager Maureen Cassingham, City Attorney Sandy Sloan, Planning Director Carl Cahill, Public Works Manager Jim Rasp and City Clerk Pat Dowd • Press: Liz Cloutman, Los Altos Town Crier Mayor Finn noted that this meeting would be adjourned in the memory of former Acting City Manager Bob Quinlan. Bob had served the Town as Acting City Manager from June of 2000 through January of 2001. Mayor Finn commented that Bob had been of great assistance to the Town during this period and the Council extended its condolences to the members of the Quinlan family. 2. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 2.1 Appointment to Pathways Committee Council had received five applications for the one vacancy on the Pathways Committee. One of the applicants, Les Earnest, had been interviewed at an earlier Council Meeting. Nicholas Dunkel, 12971 Cortez Lane, commented on his interest in serving on this committee. He also noted that he enjoyed using the Town's pathway system and had the time to serve on the committee. • March 15, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 1 Bruce Epis, 26948 Beatrice Lane, noted that he too used the Town's pathway system and the paths were important to him. In his opinion it was more important to maintain the current paths rather than concentrating on getting new paths. Jorge Fernandez, 11871 Hilltop Drive, noted that he used the Town's paths quite a bit and was interested in working on the Pathways Committee. He wanted to contribute to the Town by working to improve the path system and by improving communication with the residents on path issues. Susan Maniscalco, 27880 Saddle Court, noted that she was interested in getting involved on the Pathways Committee. She was quite interested in the paths in Town and believed there should be better communication to both residents and newcomers about the pathway system. Council thanked all of the applicants for their interest in serving on the Pathways Committee. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by O'Malley and passed unanimously to appoint Jorge Fernandez to the Pathways Committee for a four year term. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT • The Planning Director reported that the Planning Commission had cancelled both of their March meetings. The second meeting in March conflicted with a Planning Institute being held in Monterey. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Items Removed: 4.1 (Fenwick and O'Malley), 4.7 (Casey) and 4.10 (Elayne Dauber) MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Cheng and passed unanimously to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar, specifically: 4.2 Approved Warrants: $503,892.73 (2/7/01 —3/2/01) 4.3 Issued Certificate of Appreciation: James Patmore, Finance Committee 4.4 Approved Investment Report for the Quarter ended December 31, 2000 March 15, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 2 • 4.5 Concurred with the Actions of the Planning Commission at their meeting on February 28, 2001: 4.5.1 Request for a site development permit for a new residence, pool and spa, Lands of Srivastava and Sinha, 14565 Manuella Road—approved 4.5.2 Request for a site development permit for a new residence, pool and secondary dwelling unit and a variance to exceed the. maximum height, Lands of Dorrian,25400 La Loma Drive —approved 4.6 Approved agreement with Cartwright Aerial, Inc. for the aerial base maps project —Reso#9-01 4.8 Accepted dedication of right of way, grant of pathway easement and agreement for conservation easement, Lands of Corrigan, 13445 Robleda Road— Resolutions#10-01, #11-01 and#12-01 4.9 Approved 2000-01 Mid-Year Financial Summary and Recommendation for Budget Amendment—Reso #13-01 • 4.11 Approved second amendment to agreement between the Town of Los Altos Hills, the Los Altos Hills County Fire District and the Los Altos Garbage Company for yard trimmings and brush collection—Reso#14-01 4.12 Adopted resolution amending the fiscal year 2000-01 budget for committee expenses—Reso #15-01 4.13 Approved an agreement between the Town of Los Altos Hills and McGuirewoods, LLP for legal and regulatory analysis concerning undergrounding the Town's electrical and telecommunications services— Reso#16-01 4.14 Approved an agreement between the Town of Los Altos Hills and R.W. Beck, Inc. for analysis and advice concerning undergrounding electrical and telecommunications services — Reso #17-01 Items Removed: 4.1 Approval of Minutes: February 15, 2001 (Regular Meeting) March 15, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 3 PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To correct page 6, Item 7.2.1 changing the figure $100,000,000 to $100,000 and on page 7, Item 9.2 correcting the motion to reflect unanimous approval. It was further agreed that these minutes would be continued for clarification of the discussion concerning constrained lots. 4.7 Approval of agreement with Wilsey Ham for engineering services for the Pavement Management Program FY2000-01 -- Reso# Casey inquired if the Town had gone out to bid for this project. When advised by the Public Works Manager that the Town had a consulting contract with Wilsey Ham, Casey stated that she would like to have a discussion at the Council level of all contracts the Town held. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by O'Malley and passed unanimously to adopt Resolution #18-01 authorizing Wilsey Ham to provide engineering consulting services for the Pavement Management Project,FY00-01 CIP. 4.10 Approval of amendment to the agreement between.the Town of Los Altos Hills and the Los Altos Garbage Company for solid • waste, recyclables and yard trimmings collection franchise agreement—Reso# Elayne Dauber, 27930 Roble Alto, stated that the Town was not contractually obligated to raise the rates paid by residents for garbage service when adjusting the contract with the Los Altos Garbage Company for the annual consumer price index increases paid by the Town to the Los Altos Garbage Company. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue this item to the next meeting for clarification of the documents to not reflect a rate increase to the residents. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5.1 Adoption of Ordinance amending Sections 10-1.5020 and 10- 1.5030 of the Zoning Code with regard to allowable development area and floor area(SECOND READING) The City Attorney noted that this is the first reading of the ordinance, not the second. Since the last meeting it had been determined that additional changes were under discussion which necessitated another first reading. March 15 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 4 Fenwick stated that the current code needed to be clarified and the Planning Commission and City Council could later reduce maximum floor area and maximum development area based upon special circumstances. Casey concurred with Fenwick stating that this new ordinance was a good first step. The Council could later incorporate recommendations made by the LUF committee. Art Lachenbruch, 11820 Buena Vista, referred to his letter dated 3/7/01 (on file at Town Hall) which detailed his concerns about this proposed ordinance. He noted that no one knew how many constrained lots there were in Town nor where they were. He believed there should be a thorough planning study done by a planning consultant not staff on this entire issue. Jim Abraham, 12831 Viscaino Road, gave the Council an update on the activities of the LUF committee of which he was chairman. He stated that the committee was studying slopes in particular connection with engineering and hydrology issues. Consultants Jeff Peterson, Wilsey Ham, and Ted Sayre, Cotton Shires & Associates, would be giving their input to the committee on these issues. From a personal point of view, Mr. Abraham stated that he supported the new ordinance. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain, recommended that this entire issue • be tabled until the recommendation was made by the LUF Committee and the results of the survey were available. Sandra Humphries, 26238 Fremont Road, asked if this ordinance addressed only constrained lots. She referred to the negative declaration that had been done and asked if it would apply if this ordinance addressed more than just constrained lots. The Planning Director referred to the negative declaration and noted that mitigations could be addressed if the other sections of the Town's Code were followed. Elayne Dauber, 27930 Roble Alto, asked the Planning Director to clarify what he had just said. She understood him to say that although this ordinance would allow much more development it would not happen if the other ordinances were enforced. Fenwick stated that there were adequate safeguards if the other ordinances were enforced and he believed this new ordinance would be of great benefit to many. Casey concurred with Fenwick. This ordinance simplified the process and was a step in the right direction. Finn too believed the current ordinance was onerous and there were enough safeguards in the rest of the March 15, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 5 Town Code. Cheng while believing that the current code was flawed stated that she could not support this new ordinance. She noted that the Planning Commission and staff had studied the issue and made a recommendation but Council had made changes to that recommendation. Cheng did not support giving residents false hope by giving them a set of development and floor area figures that could not be achieved. She supported doing additional studies on this issue before taking a vote. O'Malley concurred with Cheng. He noted that even if the current system was flawed it had worked for some time. He supported continuing this matter until the recommendation was forthcoming from the LUF committee. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Finn and passed by the following roll call vote to waive further reading and introduce an ordinance as stated below amending Sections 10-1.502(a)(2), 10-1.502(c), 10-1.503(a)(2), 10-1.503(c) and deleting Sections 10- 1.502(a)(3) and 10-1.503(a)(3) of the Zoning Code with regard to allowable development area and floor area. 1. AMENDMENT OF CODE. Section 10-1.502(a)(2) (Maximum development area formula) of Article 5 (Area, Coverage, Height and Setback Limitations) of Chapter 1 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Zoning and Site Development) of the • Los Altos Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) For all other parcels with a LUF greater than .5: MDA= 3,750+(Gross Acreage)(7,500) +7,500(LUF - .5) 2. AMENDMENT OF CODE. Section 10-1.502(c)(Minimum MDA) of Article 5 (Area, Coverage, Height and Setback Limitations) of Chapter 1 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Zoning and Site Development) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Notwithstanding the formula set out in Section 10- 1.502(a)(2) above, lots which have a Lot Unit Factor of.50 or less require a Conditional Development Permit and development area may be restricted below seven thousand- five hundred (7,500) square feet as a condition of the permit. Maximum development area for lots which require a Conditional Development Permit shall be established as the maximum floor area allowed by Section 10-1.503(c) below, plus two thousand one hundred(2,100) square feet. The Site March 15, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 6 Development Authority may approve development area of up to a total of four thousand-five hundred (4,500) square feet for any lot without requiring a variance, so long as the findings for a Conditional Development Permit are approved." 3. AMENDMENT OF CODE. Section 10-1.503(a)(2) of Article 5 (Area Coverage, Height and Setback Limitations) of Chapter 1 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Zoning and Site Development) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) For all other parcels with a LUF greater than .5: MFA=3,000+(Gross Acreage)(2000) + (2000)(LUF - .5) 4. AMENDMENT OF CODE. Section 10-1.503(c) (Minimum MFA) of Article 5 (Area, Coveage, Height and Setback Limitations) of Chapter I(Zoning) of Title 10 (Zoning and Site Development) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Notwithstanding the formula set out in Section 10.1.503(a)(2) above, lots which have a Lot Unit Factor of .50 or less require a Conditional Development Permit and floor area may be restricted below four thousand (4,000) square feet as a condition of the permit. Maximum floor area for lots which require a Conditional Development Permit shall be established as the ratio of the Lot Unit Factor (LUF) for the lot divided by 0.50 times four thousand(4,000) square feet. The Site Development Authority may approve floor area of up to two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet without requiring a variance, so long as the findings for a Conditional Development Permit are made." 5. DELETION OF CODE. Section 10-1.502(a)(3) of Article 5(Area, Coverage, Height and Setback Limitations) of Chapter 1 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Zoning and Site Development) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code is hereby deleted from the Code. 6. DELETION OF CODE. Section 10-1.503(a)(3) of Article 5 (Area, Coverage, Height and Setback Limitations) of Chapter 1 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Zoning and Site Development) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code is hereby deleted from the Code. March 15, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 7 ,• 7. CE A. This ordinance will have no significant effects on the environment as set forth in the negative declaration approved pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. AYES: Mayor Finn and Councilmembers Casey and Fenwick NOES: Councilmembers Cheng and O'Malley 5.2 Request from the Mora Drive Sewer Project for a letter of intent for Council to prezone the Mora Drive area to R-1 Council had received a request from Enrique Klein asking that Council send a letter to LAFCO stating its intent to pre-zone the Mora Drive area. Mr. Klein explained that this step was necessary in their attempt to get approval from LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) for the sewer project. Casey stated that she had spoken with Sue Jackson, a member of the LAFCO Board, and was advised by Ms. Jackson that this letter of intent to prezone the Mora Drive area was simply a technicality. Fenwick commented that Mora Drive was not contiguous to the Town and therefore could not be annexed unless there was some future vigorous annexation program. The City Attorney commented that prezoning was not annexation. • MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Fenwick and passed unanimously to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to LAFCO stating the Town's intent to prezone the Mora Drive area. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Request from Mr. and Mrs. Logan, Berry Hill Lane, to remove a dedicated pathway on their property The Planning Director noted that rather than removing the pathway another option was to reconstruct a significant portion of the pathway in the Page Mill Road right-of-way. The Pathway Committee had indicated that they agreed with moving the path providing the path remained at the top of the slope adjacent to Page Mill Road. Charlene Geers, member of the Pathways Committee, recommended retaining the path easement even if it was moved. Ron Haley, 25390 La Rena, believed it was extortion and unethical the way the Town got paths when development was done. He believed the dedicating of paths should be done on a voluntary basis and there should be some financial incentive. • March 15, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 8 Resident, 28190 Radcliffe Lane, commented that he lived nearby and Ssupported keeping the path in place. He noted that the path was already there when the Logans purchased the lot and it was a condition of approval for their project that the path be kept in place. Ed Hayes, 26656 Purissima Road, stated his opposition to moving the path. He believed such an action would be one more step toward getting rid of the paths in Town. John Dukes, 27783 Lupine, commented that paths were wonderful and part of the community. He thought it was short sighted to get rid of this path. Ken Olcott, 12950 Brendel Drive, expressed his concern about the safety issue of this pathway. He supported moving the path and leaving the location of path to staff. Scott Vanderlip, Co-Chairman of the Pathways Committee, stated the committee's concerns about the location of the new path. He wanted to be sure it was not moved right next to Page Mill Road. Jim Abraham, 12831 Viscaino Road, concurred in general with the earlier comments made by Ron Haley but not in this case. The path was there when the Logans bought the property and he did not believe any relief should be given unless it worked out to everyone's satisfaction to address safety issues. Mark Hoops, 26765 St. Francis, asked what the building permit had to do with paths. Nancy Ewald, member of the Pathways Committee, expressed her concern about the length of time it might take to get approval for the relocation if Caltrans was involved. She supported leaving the current path in place until the approvals for the new location were obtained. Mrs. Logan, applicant, stated that they wanted to keep the path but just wanted to move it for safety reasons. They had to give the Town the path easement to build their project and had built the path and kept it open during construction. At this time for a variety of safety issues including their small children and several robberies in the neighborhood they wanted to move the path. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To authorize staff to work with the Pathways Committee on an agreeable relocation of the path on Lands of Logan. The costs of this relocation shall be paid by the property owners and the relocation shall include approval of a solid wood fence. March 15, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 9 On another path issue, Casey asked that the Arastradero to Fremont Road path be agendized for future discussion. 6.2 Request for authorization to proceed with application for conditional use permit with Sprint for tentative lease of Town- owned land at Elena and Purissima for an antenna site MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Cheng and passed unanimously to authorize staff to proceed with an application for a conditional use permit to allow for the lease of Town property for a Sprint PCS wireless antenna facility at Elena and Purissima. 6.3 Request from Little League for budget approval for a proposed drainage project at the Little League Fields Jim Geers, Little League, explained their need for improved drainage at the Little League Fields. He further noted that to be beneficial these improvements were needed by next fall. The Public Works Manager noted that these suggested drainage improvements were part of the work already budgeted for at the corporation yard and could be accomplished by the fall. • It was agreed that the City Manager would report back to the Council at the April 19'h meeting on the scope of this work and the timeframe for completing it. 6.4 Request from Little League to use a low-level portable public address system for a maximum of five days per year Milt McColl, President — Little League, explained their request to use an outside low level public address system for about five events a year. These events were scheduled for daytime hours and would each be for about two hours. In addition the games were held at the fields right next to 280 which would deflect most of the noise. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was agreed that the City Manager would send a letter to the Little League and to the Sheriffs Department stating the Town's authorization to use a public address system at five little league events during the year. 7. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES • March 15, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 10 7.1 Northwest Flood Control Advisory Committee — Santa Clara Valley Water District Fenwick reported that he had attended a recent meeting of the Northwest Flood Control Advisory Committee and the Reach V Project would be coming before the Council for review and comment. 8. STAFF REPORTS 8.1 City Manager The City Manager took this opportunity to express her appreciation for the opportunity to work with the Council and staff. 8.1.1 Council/Staff Retreat The City Manager noted that the initial planning stage was underway for the Council/staff retreat. She would like some direction from Council,however, as to the format they wanted for this event. Council agreed it would include Friday evening, all day Saturday and Saturday evening, May 18th and May 191. • 8.1.2 Survey The City Manager reported that a data base program was being formulated for tabulating the results of the survey. Bob Johnson had offered to help in this effort and it was estimated the results would be brought to Council at their April 19th meeting. 8.2 City Attorney 8.2.1 E-mail The City Attorney reiterated her comments on e-mail and the Brown Act. She noted that email to Councilmembers that did not address substantive issues and requested no responses were permissible. 8.3 City Clerk 8.3.1 Report on Council Correspondence 9. COUNCIL-INITIATED ITEMS 9.1 Preliminary discussion for a process to review setbacks and height limits for large homes (Mayor Pro Tem Casey) March 15 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 11 Council asked Planning Commission for a recommendation (not an ordinance change) on the possibility of increasing the height and setback limits for large homes. 9.2 Preliminary discussion on the process to review the issue of counting carports as floor area(Mayor Pro Tem Casey) Council asked Planning Commission for a recommendation on whether or not carports should be counted as floor area. 10. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Susan Epstein, 23828 Ravensbury, requested a city sponsored annexation of the houses on the other side of Ravensbury which were in the Town's urban service area. It was agreed the City Attorney and Planning Director would discuss this request and report back to the Epsteins and the Council. 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11.1 Discussion of revising the Zoning and Site Development • Ordinance Section 10-1.208 on basements which defines what constitutes a basement The Planning Director's report included the following information on the current basement ordinance, previous basement ordinance and Planning Commission's recommendations for a new basement definition: 1. Current basement definition: (Effective April 15, 1994, Ord. 369) Section 10-1.208. "Basement" shall mean a space wholly underground and having its entire height measured from its floor to its ceiling below the adjoining grade, except for required exits. Exits shall only be allowed from basements as required by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and must be windows or doors that are not visible from off-site. 2. Previous basement definition: Effective 1986-1994 Ord. 305 Section 10-1.208. "Basement" shall mean a space partly or wholly underground and having more than one-half (1/2) its height, measured from its floor to its ceiling, below the average adjoining grade. March 15, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 12 3. Planning Commission recommendations for a new basement definition: "Basement" is a floor level directly under a building which meets the following criteria: A. The underside of the floor joists of the floor area above are not more than eighteen inches above the adjoining natural or finished grade at any point whichever is lower. B. Provisions for light, ventilation and access shall meet the minimum requirements of the building code (UBC) and are required to be counted as development area. Additional provisions for light, ventilation and access may be permitted up to 10-feet in width as measured from the exterior of the basement wall. C. The total exempt floor area for all basements on the property shall not exceed the floor area of the first floor of all approved buildings. D. Where a room(s) partially meet the provisions of subsection A of this section, that is, a portion is not more than eighteen inches above adjoining natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, and a portion is more than 18 inches above such grade, a portion of such room(s) shall be considered as basement and a portion shall be considered as floor area. The rule for such determination is as follows: 1. The outside perimeter of the room(s) shall be measured and designated"A". 2. The outside perimeter of the room(s) where the underside of the floor joists of the floor above are not more than eighteen inches above adjoining natural or finished grade, which ever is lower, shall be measured and designated`B". 3. The amount of floor area of the subject room(s) that will be counted as basement is then equal to the entire floor area of the room(s) multiplied by the fraction of B/A. The balance of the floor area shall be counted as floor area. E. Underground room(s) including cellars, bunkers or basements which are not located within the footprint of the building above, 40 March 15, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 13 • may be permitted b the Planning Commission when it finds that Y p Y g such structures are counted as development area, do not encroach in setbacks, are a minimum 18 inches below natural grade, are wholly underground except for required exiting, lighting and ventilation and will not be visible from adjoining or nearby properties as such properties currently exist. Mike Scott, 27860 Black Mountain, suggested going back to the pre-1994 basement ordinance to see why it was changed in the first place. He also thought another option was the formation of an architectural review board to review house plans. If a project met most of the rules than perhaps allowances could be made for basement space. Alex Vayntraub, 27067 Horseshoe Lane, supported the proposed changes to the basement ordinance and thought they were long overdue. He noted that when they did their project they ended up with dead space which he did not think made any sense. He questioned restricting use of space that one could not see. He also recommended grandfathering in lots such as his when the ordinance was changed. Jim Abraham, 12831 Viscaino Road, suggested deleting sections D and E. • Valori Stitt, 25703 Lomita Linda Court, supported a reasonable and consistant ordinance on basements which they had not experienced when they did their project. She too questioned why the Town would worry about what was going on underground and thought the Town should be encouraging basements. Mrs. Stitt also supporting grandfathering in lots such as hers with any new ordinance. Victor Webber, 14486 Liddicoat Circle, proposed the following change to the basement ordinance: "Where the proposed basement structure exists exclusively under the footprint of the house, and the proposed basement structure provides significant support for the existing house structure above it, the proposed basement structure shall be classified as a basement. Also such proposed basement structures will allow for an exemption from the limitation that the floor joists of the floor area above are not more than eighteen inches above any grade. This definition will apply to both constrained and non-constrained lots." Bill Masten, William Masten & Associates, commented that historically from the mid to late 80s the effort was made to avoid the appearance of three story elements when putting in basements by stepping the houses back. He also noted that he supported submerged patios. Mr. Masten suggested counting some part of the basement area as development area as there would be some runoff and saturation concerns. March 15, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 14 Bob Owen, Owen Homes, Inc., supported 14 to 16', not 10' in Section B. He also supported the ability to put in larger basements and garages and being able to put the garages downstairs in the basement area. Mark Hoops, 26765 St. Francis Drive, noted that he had been adversely affected by the current basement ordinance and it has been in his opinion an unnecessary experience. Ron Bruneman, architect, suggested allowing an access area to the basement area for three car garages which would take the garage away from the front of the house and could be mitigated with increased landscaping. Allan Epstein, 23828 Ravensbury, asked if patios could go into the setback areas. Bob Stutz, 25310 Elena, supported the `potato cell' design for basements used in the Midwest and designed by Frank Lloyd Wright Luis Yanez, believed this ordinance change was a step in the right direction and the earlier basement ordinance change had been done without much benefit of input from residents. He recommended reviewing #A further as he believed it was too restrictive and clarifying #G as to where it was • measured from. Dave Hall, 26070 Newbridge, referred to getting extra basement floor space which could be used for storage but not for habitable space. Ron Haley, 25390 La Rena, asked if basement area counted toward development area whether the basement was under the house or not. Harry Emerzian, 11670 Dawson, cautioned Council to be careful about allowing increased basement development. He believed there were concerns about drainage issues and earthquakes. Nancy Ewald, 26131 Altadena, concurred with Mr. Emerzian's comments. She suggested reviewing basements and constrained lots at the same time. Mike Kamangard, 24300 Summerhill, supported this ordinance change. He recommended asking staff to check #A and also believed 24" to be more reasonable. Ken Olcott, 12950 Brendel Drive, commented that drainage issues could be addressed by other Town ordinances as in the constrained lot issue. March 15, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 15 i It was agreed that the local developers present would get a list to Council of projects in Town which would show the various uses of basements over the years. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue this discussion to the April 19ffi Council Meeting to allow time for further review and also to allow time for Councilmembers to look at basement projects in the Town. 11.2 Request for a site development permit modification for a basement redesign, Lands of Yanez, 26171 Moody Road Council had before them the request from Mr. Yanez for a proposed permit modification which would put the south wall of his basement above ground. The current basement ordinance required a basement to be wholly underground. Mr. Yanez, applicant, stated that he did not agree that basements needed to be totally underground. He proposed basement was not visible from the street, the neighbors concurred with his project and it was a good design. In addition it would be allowed under the proposed basement ordinance Council had discussed earlier in this meeting. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by O'Malley and passed by the following roll call vote to approve the request for a site development permit modification for a basement redesign, Lands of Yanez, 26171 Moody Road, based on the finding that the proposed basement meets the Town's definition of basement. AYES: Mayor Finn and Councilmembers Casey, Cheng and O'Malley NOES: Councilmember Fenwick 12: APROVAL OF COMPENSATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS—Reso# The Finance Director presented an overview of her report on the compensation study results, methodology and recommendations. She noted that such a study was last done in 1998 and was being brought to Council at this time to ensure that the Town remained a competitive employer. A detailed description of the methodology used followed including a brief explanation and analysis of the recommended salary increases. Comments were also made on the current organizational chart and proposed changes to this chart. The Finance Director noted that staff believed the recommended changes to the Compensation Plan were essential to remaining competitive in the regional job market and to attracting and retaining a highly professional staff. 10 March 15, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 16 Council discussed the methodology used and the local business climate as related to hiring and keeping qualified staff. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by O'Malley, seconded by Fenwick and passed unanimously to adopt Resolution#19-01 amending the Town's classification plan and compensation schedule for Fiscal Year 2000-01 13. CLOSED SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION: PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.90 Gheyri v. Wells 13A REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION The City Council adjourned to a Closed Session regarding existing litigation at 9:50 p.m. and reconvened at 10:00 p.m. Council returned to open session to report, if necessary, any actions taken.No actions were taken. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further new or old business to discuss, the City Council Meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. in memory of Bob Quinlan. Respectfully submitted, Patricia Dowd City Clerk The minutes of the March 15, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting were approved at the April 5, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting. March 15, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 17