Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/2002 Minutes of a Regular Meeting December 19, 2002 Town of Los Altos Hills City Council Regular Meeting Thursday, December 19, 2003, 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road 1. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Fenwick called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 6:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Mayor Fenwick, Mayor Pro Tem Cheng and Councilmembers Kerr, O'Malley and Warshawsky Absent: None Staff: City Manager Maureen Cassingham, City Attorney Steve Mattas, Planning Director Carl Cahill, City Engineer/Director of Public Works Mintze Cheng, Administrative Services Director Sarah Joiner and City Clerk Karen Jost Press: Sharon Noguchi, San Jose Mercury News; Christina Bellantoni, Palo Alto Daily; and Scott Wong, Los Altos Town Crier MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by O'Malley, seconded by Cheng and passed unanimously to limit the length of time for public comments to three minutes. The Mayor announced that the Lands of Swan had been rescheduled for the Regular City Council Meeting of January 16, 2003. Mayor Fenwick noted that the applications for membership on the "New Town Hall Committee" could be submitted at tonight's Council meeting. Agreed by Consensus that the deadline for submittal was 6:10 p.m. to allow time for an accurate ballot. 2. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 2.1 Presentation by Mgg Davey—Silicon Valley 2-1-1 Mary Davey, Town resident and Chair of the 2-1-1 Information and Referral Phone Number for Silicon Valley Committee gave a brief overview to the Council on the services that would be provided by 2-1-1. She noted that 2-1-1 had been reserved nationwide for non-emergency information numbers adding that seventeen states have adopted the plan and 38 counties including Los Angeles have introduced 2-1-1. Davey has been visiting communities in Santa Clara County to advise them of the value of this service as a tool to reduce the misuse of 1 December 19,2002 Regular City Council Meeting emergency hot lines. Davey hoped the Council would agendize a resolution of support in concept for a future meeting. Councilmember Warshawsky commented that the program had an admirable goal. He questioned Davey on the financing of the project. She informed Council it was still in the exploration stage. 2.2 Council Appointments to Committees and Outside Agencies Committee Liaison Community Relations Mayor Emergency Communications Mayor Environmental Design and Protection Kerr Finance/Investment O'Malley Pathways Warshawsky Parks and Recreation Cheng Youth Commissioner Mayor Exhibit Curator Mayor Town Historian Mayor Volunteer Awards Cheng Appointments to Outside Agencies ABAG Warshawsky O'Malley(alternate) Community Health Awareness Council Rory Kaplan City Selection (LAFCO) O'Malley Emergency Preparedness Councilmember Mayor League of California Cities- Mayor Peninsula Division Cheng(Alternate) Los Altos Senior Center Board of Directors Martha Hunton Win Murray(alternate) North County Library Authority Cheng Joint Powers Authority Library Board Cheng Valley Transportation Authority Cheng Policy Advisory Board Los Altos Library Commission Barbara Lamparter Maura Winckler Purissima Hills Water District Kerr Santa Clara Valley Water Commission O'Malley Santa Clara Valley Water District O'Malley Northwest Flood Control Advisor Comm. Mintze Cheng (alternate) Santa Clara County Cities Association Kerr O'Malley(alternate) SCCCA Association Legislative Task Force Warshawsky Bicycle Advisory Committee, Mike Kamangar Santa Clara County Transportation Authority 2 December 19,2002 Regular City Council Meeting Council Sub-Committees isGeneral Plan Committee To be determined/not currently active Newsletter Mayor Solid Waste O'Malley Website Warshawsky(Kerr/Alternate) Undergrounding Utilities Mayor/O'Malley Chamber of Commerce City Manager New Town Hall Sub-Committee Kerr, O'Malley and Warshawsky PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To accept the Council Appointments as noted. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT Planning Director Cahill reported that at the December 12, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting, Lands of Weale, 27181 Sherlock Road (93-02-ZP-SD-GD-VAR), a request for a new residence and swimming pool and variance to encroach into the 40 foot front setback had been approved by the Planning Commission with a 3-2 vote subject to conditions. The other items on the agenda were requests for a site development permit for a landscape screening plan and an addition. Cahill added for Council information, the Ravensbury Annexation would be finalized in early 2003 adding approximately 50 additional residential parcels to the Town. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by O'Malley, seconded by Cheng and passed unanimously to approve the Consent Calendar, specifically: 4.1 Approval of Minutes: December 5, 2002 Regular Meeting December 5, 2002 Special Meeting 4.2 Approval of Warrants: (413,240.38) 11/26/2002— 12/09/2002 4.3 Approval of Request for Amendment of Maximum Contribution to Employee Health Coverage Premiums -Reso#115-02 4.4 Acceptance of Pacific Municipal Consultants Agreement—Reso#116 - 02 4.5 A Request to Vacate and Relocate a Sanitary Sewer Easement at 14172 Amherst Court, Land of McNutt, Los Altos Hills—Reso #117-02 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5.1 Update on Mayor's Goals (1) Break ground for the new Town Hall, partially funded by donations Mayor Fenwick noted that the Council would be appointing a committee at tonight's meeting to • address this issue. 3 December 19,2002 Regular City Council Meeting (2) Undergrounding of utility wires in Los Altos Hills This item will be considered under 5.1.1 on tonight's agenda. (3) Complete the update process for an accurate 2002 master pathway map Project was completed and accepted by Council at their Regular Meeting, November 7, 2002. (4) Consider the possibility of adopting a view ordinance for the Town The Mayor noted that a report from the Planning Director is scheduled for the January 16, 2003 meeting. 5.1.1 Concept of a Plan for Beginning the Undergrounding of Existing Utility Wires in the Town of Los Altos Hills The Mayor referred to the Town's 1975 General Plan which states that a systematic plan for undergrounding of existing overhead utilities should be developed and implemented, and, as of this date, the Town has no plan The Town Utilities and Information Systems Committee studied this problem. Their charter was to develop a plan that could accomplish the goal in relatively few years. . The Committee focused on a Town-wide project costing around $50 million. It appears that this concept was overly ambitious and that a scaled-down project would be more acceptable to residents especially those who reside on streets where utilities are already undergrounded.. In July 2001, the Mayor submitted a plan that proposed assessment districts similar to sewers. As an incentive, the Town would participate financially with providing up to 50% of the funds, with a limit of$500,000. With the proposed procedure, undergrounding could commence within a few years—if any neighborhoods become sufficiently motivated and there would be no need for the Town to prioritize projects. Priorities would be established by the neighborhoods themselves on a first- come, first served basis. Mayor Fenwick stated that there were several actions he would like to see from Council tonight to initiate the program. (1) Direct staff and the City Attorney to develop specific procedures whereby neighborhoods can apply for and implement undergrounding programs which qualify for Town financial, and probably engineering, assistance. (2) Create a small Committee to work with staff and the City Attorney on developing this procedure. The Mayor has suggested to Councilmember Warshawsky that he chair the Committee and hoped Jim Abraham and Steve Jurvetson would serve as members. Councilmember Warshawsky said he would be pleased to serve as chair and has asked Tony Jurvetson to join him. Jim Abraham, who was present at the Council meeting, agreed to be on the committee. • 4 December 19,2002 Regular City Council Meeting (3) After (1) and (2) are complete, create a budget item for undergrounding utility wires, approximately $500,000 per year, and accumulating year to year, for this purpose. Councilmember O'Malley said he would prefer to see the project start with major streets in Town but is willing to concede to the Mayor on neighborhoods. He would like to see money from the budget secured for this project in a protected fund and if no neighborhoods apply, funds could be used for major streets. Councilmember Kerr concurred with O'Malley and would also like to see major streets as the main focus of the undergrounding project, but feels it is important to start the project. Mayor Pro Tem Cheng supports the project and feels the neighborhoods should be served first, because residents have been requesting this for a long time and many have already paid utility assessment fees for future undergrounding. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by O'Malley, seconded by Kerr and passed unanimously to form a committee of Councilmember Dean Warshawsky, residents Jim Abraham and Tony Jurvetson to work with staff and the City Attorney on developing this procedure. Mayor Pro Tem Cheng hoped they would be attentive to Town finances. Warshawsky said that would be one of the committee's first action items. 5.2 Mora Heights Way Sewer Connection Request The City Engineer explained to Council that LAFCO has requested a more precise process for the sewer extension request and would appreciate the item being placed on the next Council agenda. Lawrence Hall, agent for the applicant,thanked Mintze Cheng for her work on this project. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by O'Malley, seconded by Kerr and passed unanimously to authorize staff to proceed with the LAFCO documentation to permit the sewer connection for Mora Heights Way. 5.3 Report on Status of Agreement with Goldman Architects and Related Expenses MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by O'Malley, seconded by Kerr to acknowledge receipt of the report on the status of agreement with Goldman Architects and related expenses and to file it for reference. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Interviews of Prospective Candidates for the"New Town Hall Committee" • 5 December 19,2002 Regular City Council Meeting Mayor Fenwick noted that attendance at tonight's City Council meeting was not mandatory for a position on the committee, however applicants could speak to the Council if they desired to do SO. Council had before them for consideration applications from 22 candidates. Following a brief selection process, the following residents were selected to serve on the committee: Carl Cottrell, Jim Downey, Bill Kerns, Jean Mordo, Victoria Oldberg, John Radford and Al Whaley. Councilmembers Kerr, O'Malley and Warshawsky will be Council Representatives to the New Town Hall Committee. Mayor Fenwick thanked all of the candidates for their participation. 6.2 Update on the Sewer Master Plan for the Town City Engineer Mintze Cheng explained that the report before Council will serve as a planning guide for upgrading and expanding the Town's sewer infrastructure. She will return to Council next year with the flow monitoring report. Councilmember O'Malley said that he was very impressed with the report and felt it would be a good planning resource. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Fenwick, seconded by O'Malley and passed unanimously to acknowledge receipt of the Sewer Master Plan update and file it for reference. 7. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES 8. STAFF REPORTS 8.1 City Manager 8.2 City Attorney 8.3 City Clerk 8.3.1 Report on Council Correspondence 8.3.2 Consideration of Signature Verification for "the "Los Altos Hills Open Space and Public Recreation Initiative" and Consideration of Adoption of the Initiative Measure, Request for Report or Submission of the Initiative Measure to Voters of Los Altos Hills City Attorney Steve Mattas informed Council that Councilmember Warshawsky would be • stepping down from consideration of this item due to a conflict of interest created by the proximity of his property to Westwind Barn. 6 December 19,2002 Regular City Council Meeting Councilmember O'Malley was concerned that the Town was being too conservative with the conflict of interest ruling regarding Councilmember Warshawsky. Mattas explained that consideration of this item was different than voting on a subdivision with a bi-furcated vote when there is a conflict of interest. Council, by law, has two choices when they are voting on an Initiative—they can adopt the measure in it's entirety with one vote or chose to refer it to the voters. This Initiative is a General Plan amendment and changes the land use designation of certain properties in Town and reaffirms others. Westwind Barn, which is within 500 feet of Councilmember Warshawsky's property, is changed from private to public recreation. The measure also sets limitations on the redesignation of the land use of the subject properties without the approval of the voters or the sale of the properties without the approval of the voters. This applies equally to all subject properties in the measure. Mattas added that he had conferred with staff counsel from the Fair Political Practices Commission and they were in agreement with the interpretation that Councilmember Warshawsky should recuse himself from this vote. The City Attorney briefly outlined the staff report on this item noting that Council should be aware that there were costs attached to a Special Election. OPENED PUBLIC COMMENT Elaine Nelson, stated that she was very dismayed that Councilmember Warshawsky was not able to vote on the item that was an important part of his platform. Nelson suggested that Council • seek a second opinion from the FPPC. Craig Brion, Portola Valley Planning Commissioner and member of the Audubon Society acknowledged that he had worked with the citizen's group to craft the document and urged Council to adopt the measure. Ginger Summit, 13390 Lennox Way, noted that this was an opportunity for the Council to show a new direction. Lee Ann Warshawsky, 27390 Altamont, requested clarification from the City Attorney on her husband's conflict of interest determination. She felt that the measure could actually have a negative financial impact on their property. Mattas stated that it did not matter if the property value went up or down, the conflict of interest ruling was still applicable if there was any impact on the property. CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT Councilmember Kerr thanked everyone who worked on the Initiative. He felt it had been a great community effort. He hoped Council would vote unanimously to approve the measure in the spirit of cooperation. Kerr added that the cost of a special election could conservatively cost $100,000. 7 December 19,2002 Regular City Council Meeting Councilmember O'Malley concurred with Kerr in his support of the Initiative. He was amazed with the success of the committee to gather the necessary signatures and approval by the Council was a good way to show the residents that Council listens to them. Mayor Pro Tem Cheng stated that she was in support of the measure also because the majority of the residents wanted this and she is always in support of Open Space. Mayor Fenwick stated that he was pleased to see public recreation was a part of this measure. He added that he has been assured by staff that all of the land use designations are correct and he will support the item. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kerr, seconded by Cheng and passed unanimously by those Councilmembers voting to adopt the Los Altos Hills Open Sace and Public Recreation Initiative. The City Clerk was directed to place on the agenda for the January 16, 2003 Council Meeting, the rescission of Resolution 95-02. 8.3 Consideration of Signature Verification for Referendum on Resolution 103-02 Related to the General Plan Amendment Adopting a General Plan Pathways Map and Consideration of Repeal of Resolution No. 103-02 or Submission of Referendum Measure to the Voters of Los Altos Hills City Attorney Steve Mattas explained to Council the election law as it applies to referendums. Council is required to take action by either adopting the Referendum or submitting it to the voters. Because the Resolution 103-02 was adopted by a bi-furcated vote, Council could elect to proceed in the same manner. However, if there were any inconsistency in that vote then the referendum would have to go to the voters. Mattas explained Council did have an alternative. They could choose who would vote by a random selection process of drawing straws. This is allowed to ensure there is a quorum of Council to vote. Mayor Fenwick, Mayor Pro Tem Cheng, Councilmember Warshawsky and Councilmember O'Malley all had conflicts of interest regarding this vote because they owned real property within 500 feet of a pathway. Council chose to draw straws with the long straws representing a member that would vote. Mayor Fenwick and Councilmember O'Malley joined Councilmember Kerr as the voting quorum. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED; moved by Councilmember O'Malley, seconded by Councilmember Kerr and passed unanimously by those chosen to vote based on a random selection process to repeal the adoption of General Plan Pathways Map and repeal Resolution No.103-02. Mayor Fenwick proposed that Council move forward with the pathway map. Councilmembers O'Malley and Kerr offered to work with a Council sub-committee to review the complaints of residents and to correct the map in a timely manner. 8 December 19,2002 Regular City Council Meeting Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill, commented that this will be a very time consuming project . and the members of the committee need to dedicate several days a week to ensure success. Dot Schreiner, 14391 Saddle Mountain, hoped that the new map would be more conceptual than the 2002 map. She feels that it is important that the new maps contain the conceptual paths that were shown on the 1981 map. Carl Cottrell, 13400 North Fork Lane, stated a need for a public process where people can talk about particular path corrections or general information. Cottrell feels that an accurate easement map would be beneficial Councilmember O'Malley stated that he felt it was imperative that the committee needs to be available to talk to the public. He cautioned that including conceptual paths might delay the map and the committee should work first to get an accurate off-road map pathway map. O'Malley would like to see this first step completed in the next two months. Mayor Pro Tem Cheng concurred with O'Malley. 9. COUNCIL-INITIATED ITEMS 9.1 Discussion of Billing of Town Legal Costs—Councilmember Kerr Councilmember Kerr explained that he had asked from staff how legal costs are recouped from projects. The City Manager explained the spread sheet of legal costs to Council. 10. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Rebecca Hickman, 26500 Purissima, stated that her husband was unable to attend this evening's Council meeting due to illness but had submitted an application for the "Town Hall Committee". She added that she hoped Council would support the Citizens' Open Space Initiative. Jane H. Turnbull, 64 Los Altos Square, Los Altos, representing the League of Women Voter's presented a resolution to Council in support of the Los Altos Hills Open Space and Public Recreation Citizens' Initiative. Shari Emling, 11853 Murietta Lane, spoke to the Council on the recent power outages in Los Altos Hills. She was particularly upset with the service of Davey Tree Service and their apparent minimal response to a downed tree on Moody Road. William Downey, 14330 De Bell,requested that the heat in chambers be turned down. Bonnie Finney, 11876 Murietta Lane, commented that she had been informed by PG&E that they were unable to respond more quickly to downed trees due to the Town's policies on tree protection. Staff explained that a live wire on the fallen oak prevented the timely removal of the tree. The crew had to wait for PG&E before the tree could be safely removed. Staff added that in emergency situations, PG&E has removed oaks in the past but under normal conditions, they must receive approval from the Town before doing any trimming of Heritage Trees. 9 December 19,2002 Regular City Council Meeting 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11.1 Adopt an Ordinance of the Town of Los Altos Hills Repealing Chapters 1, 1.6, 2, 3, 4, and 8 of Title 8 (Building Regulations) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code and Adding Chapters 1, 1.6, 2, 3, 4 and 8 to Title 8 to the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (Building Regulations) to Adopt the 2001 California Building Standards Code, and the 1995 Edition of the CABO One and Two Family Dwelling Code with Amendments. (Second Reading) MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Cheng, seconded by O'Malley and passed unanimously to adopt an Ordinance of the Town of Los Altos Hills repealing Chapters repealing Chapters 1, 1.6, 2, 3, 4, and 8 of Title 8 (Building Regulations) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code and adding Chapters 1, 1.6, 2, 3, 4 and 8 to Title 8 to the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (Building Regulations) to Adopt the 2001 California Building Standards Code, and the 1995 Edition of the CABO One and Two Family Dwelling Code with Amendments 11.2 Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to revoke the height variance (116-00-ZP-SD-GD-VAR) and deny the request for a Site Development Permit (179-02-ZP-SD) for a new residence/addition (maximum vertical building height 40 feet) (overall height 50 feet measured from highest ridge to basement pad). Lands of Campbell and • Ligeti, 13920 Campo Vista Lane Planning Director Carl Cahill began his presentation of the item with an historical overview of the project. On May 8, 2000, the property owner applied for a major addition and remodel. At the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 2000, the applicant's request for a site development permit for a major addition and remodel to an existing single family residence and a variance to exceed the maximum height limitation was approved. The approved addition included a 14,751 square foot addition to the existing home and the construction of a new +8,000 square foot basement with an underground parking garage. The height variance was granted on the finding that the Winbigler house was a unique historical structure as identified in the Town General Plan. The Planning Commission at the meeting also approved a secondary unit, a detached accessory structure, and swimming pool and tennis court. In July 2001, following review of the submitted construction documents by the Town Engineering, Planning and Building Departments, a building permit was issued by the Building Department for the proposed remodel and addition. On August 15, 2002, the property owner's contractor demolished the existing home and removed it from the site. This was in violation of Condition #6 of the Variance and Site Development Permit. The Planning Commission had conditionally approved the height variance and site development permit requiring the owner to return to the Planning Commission prior to any substantial change in plans including demolition, removal and relocation of the residence. Due to the failure to comply with the conditions of approval, the contractor was issued a stop work notice and instructed to return to the Planning Commission before any further site development. 10 December 19,2002 Regular City Council Meeting At their Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission on September 12, 2002, following a presentation by the property owner's architects that showed no visible remaining portion of the historic structure other than salvaged doors, windows and a few framing members, the Planning Commission determined that the owners had failed to comply with the terms of the conditional approval and revoked the height variance and denied the amended site development permit application. Cahill then proceeded with a visual presentation of project documents and plans. He noted that the applicants, their architects, and their agents repeatedly described the project as an addition to an existing residence. Temporary relocation of the dwelling to excavate the proposed basement was anticipated by staff and noted by the Town Geologist in the August 9, 2000 staff report. The original Planning Commission approval of August 2000, did not authorize the permanent relocation of the existing home or complete demolition and removal of the existing structure from the site In conclusion, Cahill stated that if at anytime prior to the actions taken on August 15, 2002, the property owner's architect had conferred with Town Planning staff on their apparent need for assistance in understanding the Town's Zoning Ordinance or the Conditions of Approval for the project, staff could have properly advised them. If a request or application for complete demolition and removal of the existing structure from the site had been submitted, the Planning Director would have directed the architect to first return to the Planning Commission in accordance with Condition#6 of the approved variance and site development permit. City Attorney Steve Mattas addressed the Council. He distributed a memorandum in response to the December 18, 2002 letter received by the Town from Nancy Chillag, the owner's attorney. In summary, he explained that the Planning Commission's actions were appropriate. The applicants were required to comply with Condition #6 and required to obtain a demolition permit under the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. For the record, all Councilmembers stated that they had visited the Campbell & Ligeti site at 13920 Campo Vista Lane and met with the property owners. Mayor Fenwick requested clarification regarding demolition details noted on the plans from the Planning Director. Cahill responded that the demolition plan submitted by the architect clearly denoted the areas to be demolished and those that would be retained. It did not reflect a total demolition. The plans also reflect that existing walls that would be incorporated into the remodel. Councilmember Warshawsky asked Cahill to explain the difference between original vs. revised plans. The Planning Director explained that the construction set of drawings is often sent out to plan checkers for review. Comments are made and in response, the applicant will submit a revised set of working drawings that reflect the changes requested by the plan checker. Councilmember Kerr asked Cahill to clarify "the basement" as it pertains to this project. Cahill explained that the basement for this project did not comply with the Town's definition of a • basement and is actually counted as floor area and considered a first floor. The home is three stories. 11 December 19,2002 Regular City Council Meeting • Councilmember Cheng commented that she attended the initial gathering of Council and neighbors at the building site when the project was first being considered and she is very familiar with the history of this application. Nancy Chillag, attorney for the applicant, informed Council that she and the property owner's architect would be making a dual presentation. She requested time for rebuttal following public comments. Chillag stated that she felt this was just a major misunderstanding adding that the applicant's intent was to retain the historical nature of the house. At the August 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the plans submitted by her clients clearly reflected new windows, stucco, new chimney, new paint and new wings and were approved conditionally. Chillag added that Condition #6 states "The existing home shall not be moved, relocated or demolished without prior site development review and approval by the Planning Commission," clearly noting review not hearing. Following approval by the Planning Commission, the property owners began an extensive investigation of the home and determined it was plagued with problems including asbestos and termites. As they prepared the plans for building submittal, demolition sheets were included. She added that existing fixtures to be salvaged were clearly identified on the demolition plans and the plans reflect new construction. Following the issuance of the building permit, the house was relocated and the process of salvaging began. Chillag added that the site is highly visible and this work was not done secretly. She stated that her clients have not violated the approved plans. Chillag asked Council to consider their options carefully: a landmark to be treasured and beneficial to the Town or the possible subdivision of the property with 5 or 6 new homes. • Jerry Loving, Architect for Gordon Campbell & Maria Ligeti, introduced himself to Council. David Bogstad, the project manager, accompanied him. Loving noted that his firm of Loving & Campos Architects has been in business for 29 years and has never before received a"stop work" notice. He proceeded with his presentation to Council, noting it would reflect the architect's perspective of the project's history. Loving exhibited numerous documents including: architectural renderings of the proposed home, a timeline of the project, building plans with demolition sheets and a plan for reconstruction. The Architect commented that upon relocating the Winbigler home and investigating its deteriorating condition, it was determined that the option of building a new home was preferable to supplementing the old structure with new structure. The architect's intention was to reconstruct the historical home using salvaged materials. The home was carefully documented for this process. He added that this is an accepted preservation strategy. Jerry Loving, in concluding his presentation, added that the applicant had relied on the Town's project approvals, site development permit to relocate the house and the issued building permit. Rarely would his firm ever have to return to the Planning Commission for a project. They have acted in good faith and been true to the historic design. He hoped that Council would reinstate the building permit or grant a new building permit and height variance and allow the project to continue. Mayor Fenwick questioned the architect on plan pages A.2.1 and A.2.2 where the existing • building is shown as being temporarily relocated. The architect said it had been their hope to save the house. The Mayor asked if the architect had not stated these were exact drawings and 12 December 19,2002 Regular City Council Meeting specifications and was told they had been prepared to the best of their ability as you start the • construction process. Mayor Pro Tem Cheng stated that the plans clearly state existing and new construction. Loving said they had hoped that portions of the house could be saved and incorporated into their remodel. Councilmember Warshawsky questioned why the applicant didn't provide the Planning Commission with their plans to demolish the home just to prevent any misunderstanding. The architect questioned whether they could have communicated enough. PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED: Jim Abraham, 12831 Viscaino Road, questioned why the plumbing lines were capped if the home was to be demolished. He feels this is an indication that they intended to demolish the home from the beginning. Steve Bristow, 12355 Hilltop Drive, commented that the difference between remodel and demolition is clear and easily understood. He feels that Condition#6 would be irrelevant if there was blanket permission for a demolition. Bristow hoped Council would only let the applicants rebuild the Winbigler home and ignore their threat to subdivide. Shari Emling, 11853 Murietta, was disturbed by the applicant's counsel's referral to the • demolition of the Winbigler house as being similar to it being destroyed by fire. Applicants should take responsibility for their actions. Michael Wagner, 28786 Robleda Court, professional witness, spoke to the home destruction by fire analogy used by the applicant's counsel. Wagner explained it was professionally referred to as an incomplete hypothetical and what is missing is the cause of the fire. If it were a case of arson, they would not be allowed to rebuild. This was an intentional act. He praised Planning Director Carl Cahill, for the work he has done on this project and for the Town. Nancy Kellog, Town resident, referred to the testimony of Maria Ligeti at the September 12, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting where she stated that they were surprised they had to demolish the residence and it had been an oversight that they did not pull a demolish permit. Michael Schoendoerf, 13145 Byrd Lane, commended Mayor Fenwick for his astute observations of the project. He feels the applicant was fully aware that the home would be demolished and questioned how much of the home was really salvaged. Would prefer 6 family homes to 1 estate home. Richard Lamparter, 12864 Viscaino Road, noted that at the Planning Commission meeting for project approval there was no evidence that significant parts of the home would have to be destroyed. He suspects the applicant was probably aware of the condition of the Winbigler home before they went to the Planning Commission. • 13 December 19,2002 Regular City Council Meeting Jim Steiner, 14195 Wild Plum Lane, feels that there is a substantial difference between the old • and new set of drawings. The second set of drawings clearly reflects all new construction and should have gone to the Planning Commission. John Radford, 13180 La Paloma, commented that he had just finished a new residence and did not have any communication problems with staff. Questioned what the real remedy is for this problem and what would be the most beneficial for the Town. He doesn't want to see the property subdivided and feels the design is very attractive. Hoped the Council would look at the long-term ramifications of their decision tonight. Bonnie Finney, 11876 Murietta Lane, praised the design of the architect but added that the inference that residents of Los Altos Hills couldn't appreciate a beautiful design was insulting. She hoped that Council would uphold the Planning Commissions decision, adding that a different vote would set a dangerous precedent. Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill Avenue, stated that she was a Planning Commissioner at the time of the project approval. At no time did the Commissioners think the house would not stay intact. She added that the height variance granted was 42 feet based on the historical finding of the house. Gottlieb feels that the plans have changed significantly since they were approved. CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT Nancy Chillag, attorney for the applicants responded to comments from the public. She does not • feel that reinstating the building permit would set a precedent. She reiterated her claim that this was just a misunderstanding and that the property owners thought they had all of the necessary approvals. She asked the Council to look to the City's future and the value of having this home as a part of the community. Jerry Loving, project architect, closed by saying they had acted in good conscience and would be willing to work with an historical architect to oversee the construction to reestablish the good will with the community. He added that the plans always called for the existing home to have a "new skin". Councilmember Mike O'Malley commented that he feels the requirements stated in #6 of the Planning Commissions conditions of approval were very explicit and the Town was correct in issuing a stop work notice. The question was where to go from here and what would be the best for the Town. O'Malley stated that the proposed house is very similar to the Winbigler home and will be a representation of the historical home. He would like to see an agreement that all legal actions be stopped and would vote to approve the request. Councilmember Dean Warshawsky stated that he would vote to uphold the Planning Commissions denial of the request for a site development permit and variance. He believes that the original variance was granted on the premise that the original Winbigler home would be kept intact and incorporated into the design of the home and not demolished. • 14 December 19,2002 Regular City Council Meeting Mayor Pro Tem Cheng expressed how excited the community was when they learned of the • project to renovate the Winbigler house. It was never presented as a demolition but as a remodel and this is clearly indicated on all of the plans. The variance was granted because they had proposed to keep the historical house and the demolition of the home is not acceptable. She added that it is the responsibility of the owner to inform the Town of changes not the duty of Town staff to police the building project. Cheng agrees with O'Malley that it is a nice design but the Town is very upset with the applicant. She recommended the owner accept responsibility for their actions and come forward to negotiate with the Town and work out a compromise. Cheng would be willing to vote continue this item to a future meeting to allow time for this process. Councilmember Breene Kerr agreed with Cheng's offer to the applicants and has been waiting for them to admit their error. He asked for direction from the City Attorney regarding the implications of a continuance. Mattas said if the Council wished to grant a continuance, they should have the applicant agree to the continuance on the record and then they could submit more information for consideration at the continued meeting and Council could allow additional public comment. At that point, Council could make their final decision. Kerr would prefer to see this home built on the site versus the property being subdivided but at this time without the admission of what has been done and the apparent deception, he would vote to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Mayor Fenwick commented that he found it difficult to believe that the applicant's were not aware of the condition of the Winbigler home. However, since there has been no objection from the community regarding the design of the proposed house but rather the circumstances that • surround the issue now, he would be willing to consider approval of the project at a later date but would first like to hear from the applicant regarding a continuance. Nancy Chillag, attorney for the applicant, noted that Council had two decisions two make. First, whether or not to remove the stop work notice and allow the project to continue and second, to consider the approval of the site development permit and height variance. She added that if Council decided to remove the stop work, no action would be needed on the second item. Her clients would like to see Council act tonight on the stop work and did not want a continuance but would be willing to continue the decision on the issuance of a new height variance. The City Attorney clarified the item before Council at tonight's meeting was consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's action to revoke the original height variance and the denial of a new site development permit that would allow the applicant to continue construction. He added that if Council granted the appeal and overturned the Planning Commission's decision, then the variance would still be in place and staff would lift the stop work order and the applicant could proceed with the project. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Mayor Fenwick, seconded by Warshawsky and passed by the following roll call vote to uphold the Planning Commission's decision to revoke the height variance (116-00-ZP-SD-GD-VAR) and deny the request for a Site Development Permit (179-02-ZP-SD) for a new residence/addition (maximum vertical building height 40 feet) (overall height 50 feet measured from highest ridge to basement pad). Lands of • Campbell and Ligeti, 13920 Campo Vista Lane. 15 December 19,2002 Regular City Council Meeting AYES: Mayor Fenwick,Mayor Pro Tem Cheng, Councilmember Kerr and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: Councilmember O'Malley ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CLOSED SESSION: Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation: MacDonald et al. v. Town of Los Altos Hills Case No. CV813186 At the conclusion of the closed session, Council provided direction to staff but no action was taken. Council reconvened into open session at 11:33 p.m. 13. ADJOURNMENT MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Cheng, seconded by Kerr and passed unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 11:34 p.m. • Res ctfully su mitte-d{,, Karen Jo t City Clerk The minutes of the December 19, 2002 Regular City Council Meeting were approved at the January 6, 2003 Regular City Council Meeting. • 16 December 19,2002 Regular City Council Meeting