HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/03/1999 Minutes of a Regular Meeting
June 3, 1999
Town of Los Altos Hills
City Council Regular Meeting
Thursday, June 3, 1999, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Johnson called the Regular Meeting of the City to order at 6:10 p.m. in the
Council Chambers at Town Hall.
Present: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Casey, Dauber, Finn and
Siegel
Absent: None
Staff: City Manager/City Engineer Jeff Peterson, City Attorney Sandy
Sloan, Planning Director Curtis Williams, Public Works Manager
Jim Rasp and City Clerk Pat Dowd
Press: Bruce Barton, Los Altos Town Crier
2. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
•
3. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
The Planning Director reported that the following issues were discussed at the 5/26/99 Planning
Commission Meeting: Lands of Green Earth, 27168 Moody Court: request for a site
development permit for a 7,273 square foot new residence including a two-car garage and a
three-car detached carport- continued; Lands of Laboskey, 12145 Edgecliff Drive: request for a
site development permit for a minor addition and remodel of an existing residence, and a
variance to allow a three foot roof height increase on a portion of the house that encroaches into
the side setback- approved; Lands of Hsu, 13620 Roble Alto Court: request for a site
development permit for a 3,059 square foot addition and remodel of an existing residence -
approved; and draft ordinance providing enhancements to the Site Development Review Process
and establishing a fast-track process for review of new residences an major additions -
recommended approval with recommended changes.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Item Removed: 4.2 (Finn)
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Siegel and passed
unanimously to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar, specifically:
4.1 Approved Warrants: $423,507.94 (5/12/99 -- 5/31/99)
4.2 Approved request to advertise for the 98-99 Pavement Management Project--
Reso #27-99 and approved the transfer of budget from the Pavement
Management Project CIP97-98 to CIP98-99 -- Reso #28-99
June 3, 1999
Regular City Council Meeting
1
4.3 Approved recommendation for approval of contract for interim City Manager--
Reso#29-99
4.4 Adopted resolution for endorsement of Route 85/US 101 Interchange Project--
Reso #30-99
Item Removed:
4.2 Award of contract for the Fremont Road Path Project, CIP97-98 -- Reso#
Casey and Finn asked for additional information on this project and the bids received.
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue this item to the next Council Meeting.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5.1 Request for consent to transfer cable tv franchise from Sun Country Cable to SunTel
Communications, LLC.--Reso#
Carl Pilnick, President of Telecommunications Management Corporation, commented on
his review of Sun Country Cable's proposed transfer of franchise. He specifically referred
to the upgrades being offered with this transfer. Mr. Pilnick noted that they were actually
modest upgrades. He believed Council should know that with AT&T recently purchasing
TCI and with other advancements,neighboring communities will have upgrades that the
Town will not be able to have with their cable provider. In response to an inquiry from.
• Finn asking if there was anything Council could do at this time to pave the way toward not
renewing this franchise agreement with Sun Country when the agreement was up for
renewal in about three years, Mr. Pilnick stated there was not. He went on to say that it
was very difficult, if not impossible,to not renew a franchise agreement.
Betsy Bertram, 11854 Page Mill Road, asked if the upgrades being discussed at this time
would preclude upgrades when the franchise agreement was up for renewal?
Dauber referred to the requirement in the franchise agreement that Sun Country shall serve
85% of homes within existing Town limits on the effective date of the franchise and asked
that this be included in the assumption agreement.
Mr. David Kinley, President- Sun Tel Communications, noted that in the current
assumption agreement Sun Tel agreed to comply with all of the franchise requirements.
Mr. Kinley further noted that they had met the requirement to serve 85% of homes within
existing Town limits on the effective date of the franchise. He also noted that upgrades
being offered a this time would not preclude other upgrades and would actually make them
easier to provide.
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To add a statement to the assumption agreement that Sun
would demonstrate their compliance with the franchise agreement requirement to serve
85% of homes within existing Town limits on the effective date of the franchise.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Finn and passed
unanimously to adopt Resolution#31-99 consenting to the sale and transfer of a non-
exclusive cable television franchise from Pacific Sun Cable Partners, L.P. to Suntel
Communications, LLC and authorizing execution of an assumption agreement.
June 3, 1999
Regular City Council Meeting
2
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Dauber and
passed unanimously to adopt Resolution#32-99 approving and authorizing execution of the
ground lease assignment and assumption agreement.
5.2 Status Report on Litter Control
Council discussed the option of placing anti-littering signs in Town but agreed that signs are not
really a deterrent to littering. Council noted however that in the FY99-00 budget money had
been approved for trash pick ups on the collector streets in Town twice a month. Council asked
staff to advise the Environmental Design and Protection Committee of this action.
5.3 Subcommittee Recommendation on Town's Color Board
The Planning Director was directed to prepare a draft of a notice to be sent to all residents on the
color board issue. This notice would include a brief outline of the current color board process as
well as options.
6. NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Interpretation of setback requirement from Hale Creek; Lots 5-10 of the Quarry Hills
Subdivision(Tract No. 8872)
The Planning Director presented background information on this issue for Council. The
subdivision condition of concern regarding lots 5 through 10 of the Quarry Hills Subdivision
• stated the following: "Dwellings on lots 5 through 10 shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet
from the reclamation planting along Hale Creek. Where a 100 foot setback is not possible, as
determined by the City Engineer, an additional 25 foot buffer of local native woody species shall
be planted adjacent to the reclamation planting along the creek. This shall be accomplished to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to issuance of building permits."
The Planning Director noted that the condition also allowed for some staff discretion to reduce
the setback. He stated that staff believed the 100-foot set back was unrealistic on all of these
lots, as it would consume more than half of the property on each lot and because for the most part
the properties drained toward the street,not towards the creek, once they are outside the
conservation easement. It was also noted that this would be contrary to the Town's preference
for greater setbacks from the street. The Planning Director offered the following three options to
address this condition of the subdivision: 1) 100 foot setback; 2) 25 foot zone of native planting
and 3) 10 foot extension of conservation easement. His recommendation was option#3.
Casey asked why the planting area could not be determined from the top of the creek bank. She
did not agree with requiring additional easements from these owners.
The Planning Director and City Attorney advised Council that this condition was a requirement
of the subdivision and the result of an environmental impact report. To make a substantive
change to this condition would require a modification to the EIR and public hearings by the
Planning Commission and City Council. If the owners of these lots wanted to follow this
process, they could but it would probably take several months to complete.
Sandra Humphries, 26238 Fremont, commented that native drought tolerant plants only needed
watering the first year.
June 3, 1999
Regular City Council Meeting
3
�i
Shelli Detrick, 14227 Amherst, noted that they owned lots 7 and 8 and commented on the impact
of these easements on the allowed development on their lots. She supported 10 feet from the top
of the creek bank for the planting area.
Carl Munsey, developer, commented on the proposed development plans and the impact of these
easements.
Harry Mulmer, owner of lot 6, asked for a definition of the top of the creek bank.
Bob Dykes, owner of lot 10, supported a 10 foot setback instead of a 10 foot planting easement.
Abbie Ahrens,realtor, spoke on behalf of her clients,the owners of lot 5. She thanked the
Planning Director for all of his assistance concerning this condition. He had recommended
taking a 100 foot requirement and reducing it dramatically and they were very grateful for this
recommendation.
The Planning Director reiterated that ethically he could not agree with any further reduction of
this condition beyond option#3. He believed this would be violating the EIR.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Johnson, seconded by Dauber and passed
by the following roll call vote to approve the following option for the Quarry Hills subdivision
condition concerning restraints on lots 5 through 10: "10 foot extension of conservation
easement: extend the conservation easement another ten feet on each lot, and require all area
within the easement to be planted with native vegetation."
AYES: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Dauber and Siegel
• NOES: Councilmembers Casey and Finn
6.2 Request for Approval and Authorization to Execute 1996 Measure B Pavement
Management Program Cooperative Agreement.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Dauber and passed
unanimously to adopt Resolution#33-99 approving and authorizing execution of 1996 Measure
B Pavement Management Program Cooperative Agreement.
7. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES,AND COUNCILMEMBERS
ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
8. STAFF REPORTS
8.1 City Manager
8.1.1 Los Altos Garbage Company
The City Manager reported that the number of unpaid accounts at LAGCO had been reduced to
18. Council had agreed to conduct a lien kublic hearing on these accounts and the time and date
for this meeting was 4:00 p.m. on July 15 .
8.1.2 Packard Project
The City Manager noted that Council had received a letter from the Packard Foundation giving
an update on their plans. They had also scheduled a meeting with the neighbors to discuss these
June 3, 1999
Regular City Council Meeting
4
plans. Council was invited to attend this meeting. The City Attorney noted that
Councilmembers were welcome to attend this meeting but in order to avoid a violation of the
Brown Act they would not be able to make any comments at the meeting. If they wished to
comment, a noticed meeting of the Council would be necessary.
8.2 City Attorney
8.3 City Clerk
9. COUNCIL-INITIATED ITEMS
9.1 Status of enforcement of leash law-Mayor Johnson
The City Manager gave an update of current enforcement of the leash law in Town. He noted
that he had talked with Animal Control in Palo Alto and outlined the procedure for establishing a
complaint file and scheduling appropriate hearings. The Mayor referred to a specific situation in
Town and the City Manager noted that Animal Control had been in contact with the neighbors
involved.
9.2 Fee Schedule (Councilmember Casey)
Casey, following up on an earlier discussion at the budget study session, asked that the fee
schedule be agendized for Council discussion. She noted that no staff report would be necessary.
Packet information would include the two relevant pages from the budget and the information
provided by the Finance Director on examples of current building permits.
• 10. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Dorothy Price, Community Relations Committee,thanked the Fire Department for their great
contributions to the recent Town Picnic. Council thanked the Community Relations
Committee for putting on an excellent event.
Betsy Bertram, 11854 Page Mill Road, asked for an update on the Hale Creek situation. Had Mr.
Vidovich fixed the pipe? In addition she commented on the clearing of brush at Central
and Altamont and the importance of the path link in this area.
Jim Abrahams, 12831 Viscaino Road, stated his concerns about the traffic problems (especially
speeding) on Viscaino and Concepcion. He recommended posted speed limit signs and
more enforcement.
Harry Emerzian, Pathways Recreation and Parks Committee,noted that the pathway walk the
da of the Town Picnic went very well and he thanked staff for clearing the paths for this
Y rY g
event.
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
11.1 Request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and for a variance to
exceed allowable maximum development area, Lands of Burger, 25850 Westwind
Way (continued from May 20, 1999)
June 3, 1999
Regular City Council Meeting
5
• This item was continued at the request of the applicant.
11.2 Introduction of ordinance providing enhancements to the Site Development
ReviewProcess and Establishing a Fast-Track Process for Review of New Residences
and Major Additions, and a proposed negative declaration(FIRST READING)
Council had before them a draft ordinance providing enhancements to the Site Development
Review Process and establishing a fast-track process for review of new residences and major
additions. This ordinance had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at their 5/12/99 and
5/26/99 meetings. A list of recommended changes to the ordinance by the Planning Commission
are listed below:
Planning Commission's
Recommended Revisions to Proposed Ordinance
May 26, 1999
j 1. P. 1, item (e), last phrase, revise to read: "...shall not be considered or altered by
the Site Development Authority, unless the Authority makes both findings listed
under subsection(f) below."
2. P. 1, item (f)(1), last phrase, revise to read: "...the proposed development would
substantially deprive an adjacent property or theeg n�public of the enjoyment
of their property ie".
3. P. 1, item (f)(2), first line, revise to read: "There is no other reasonable means,
preferable to t4e ,to mitigate..."
• 4. P. 2, item (a)(3), revise to read: "There is no substantive neighborhood
opposition to the project, ("substantive" is not based on the number of neighbors
objecting)."
5. P. 2, item (a)(4), revise to read: "The applicant agrees in writing to accept all of
the proposed conditions of approval,prior to the decision."
6. P. 2, item (b)(3), add, at the end of the paragraph: "...above, and to the Planning
Commission."
7. P. 2, item (b)(4), second sentence, revise to read: "The hearing shall take place at
the date and time specified in the notice, but the Director shall make every effort
to accommodate the schedules of all interested parties, including continuing the
day and/or time of the meeting if necessary."
8. P. 2, item (b)(5), first sentence, revise to read: "Environmental Design
Committee and Pathways Committee representatives may c"-a" be ; ;_vitoa to
participate..."
9. P. 3, item (b)(6), first sentence, revise to read: "An interim staff report shall be
prepared at least five (S) dvs prior to the hearing."
10. P. 3, item (b)(7), revise to read: "The hearing shall be conducted by the Planning
Director, and no other person may preside over the hearing unless so designated
by the Planning Director or City Manage :,oa by tie= of t4@
June 3, 1999
Regular City Council Meeting
6
11. P. 3, item (b)(7), add a new section (7a) to read: "In the event that the Planning
Director leaves Town employment, all projects otherwise eligible for fast-track
review shall be referred to the Planning Commission for a period of three (3)
months thereafter."
12. P. 3, item (b)(9), last line, revise to read: "...whether the opposition is supported
by facts or relevant information."
13. P. 3, item (b)(10), last line, revise to read: "...Planning Commission, a minimum
of ten(10) days prior to the end of the appeal period."
14. P. 3, item (b)(11), first sentence, revise to read: "The final staff report shall be
forwarded to the City Council on a consent calendar for a meeting to be held not
earlier than ten (10) days or later than twenty-one (21) days after the site
development decision lig;"
15. P. 3, item (b)(12), revise to read: "Appeals of the Planning Director's decision
may be made in writing by any impacteparty, including by any
Councilmember or any two (2,) Planning_Commissioners, not later than the date
and time of the City Council's consideration of the item on its consent agenda, or
not later than twenty-one (21) days after the site development decision lig in
the event that no Council meeting is scheduled."
16. P. 4, item (c)(3), revise to read: "There is substantive neighborhood opposition to
• the project("substantive" is not based on the number of neighbors objecting)."
17. P. 4, add a new #3 after (f), to read: "Not later than six (6) months after the
effective date of this ordinance, staff shall initiate a review of the effectiveness of
the ordinance. The review shall be made at a public hearing by the City Council,
subsequent to review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. Any
appeal during the 6-month initial implementation period shall not require an
gppeal fee."
Dot Schreiner, Planning Commissioner, addressed several of the changes and explained the
Planning Commission's rationale behind the recommendations.
Abby Ahrens,realtor, supported the fast track process but not the Planning Commission's
recommended changes. She was concerned about the feelings of the neighbors of a project and
wanted people to work together with no divisiveness.
Jim Abrahams, 12831 Viscaino Road, concurred with Abby Ahrens' comments. He believed the
applicants were tired of the Planning Commission making subjective comments on their projects.
Sheila Holland, 10699 Magdalena, asked if they could see a copy of what was being discussed.
Staff made copies available for the public.
Sandra Humphries, 26238 Fremont, commented on architectural review and the promotion of
bringing architects into Town eager to work on interesting projects.
Jim Granyou, 13105 Delson Court, noted that understanding what the expectations are of the
process to build in Town was important. Dealing with subjectivity was very difficult.
June 3, 1999
Regular City Council Meeting
7
Jay Shideler, 27994 Via Ventana, supported fast track but not the Planning Commission's
recommended changes. He believed subjectivity should be removed and the Planning
Commission should be mediators.
Valerie Stitt, 25703 Lomita Linda, noted that she was in the process of building a home in the
Town. She noted that the Commission tended to comment on matters of style rather than
compliance with the codes.
Rick Ellinger, 28520 Matadero Creek Lane, supported the fast track concept but reiterated his
suggestion of a parallel of process. To facilitate applications,reviews are conducted by staff,
Commission,Pathways Committee and/or Site Development simultaneously with a two-week
window to make comments.
Council reviewed the specific recommendations made by the Planning Commission. They noted
that recommendations#4,7,8,9,12,13 and 16 were non controversial and simply clarified the
ordinance.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Siegel and passed
unanimously to approve the following recommendations:
4. P. 2, item (a)(3), revise to read: "There is no substantive neighborhood opposition
to the project, ("substantive" is not based on the number of neighbors objecting)."
7. P. 2, item (b)(4), second sentence, revise to read: "The hearing shall take place at the
date and time specified in the notice, but the Director shall make every effort to
accommodate the schedules of all interested parties, including continuing the day
• and/or time of the meeting if necessary."
8. P. 2, item (b)(5), first sentence, revise to read: "Environmental Design Committee
and Pathways Committee representatives may ;hallhe :.,•.:toa +e participate..."
9. P. 3, item (b)(6), first sentence, revise to read: "An interim staff report shall be
prepared at least five(5) days prior to the hearing."
12. P. 3, item (b)(9), last line, revise to read: "...whether the opposition is supported by
facts or relevant information."
13. P. 3, item (b)(10), last line, revise to read: "...Planning Commission, a minimum of
ten(10) dqys prior to the end of the appeal period."
16. P. 4, item (c)(3), revise to read: "There is substantive neighborhood opposition to the
project("substantive" is not based on the number of neighbors objecting)."
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Finn, seconded by Casey and
passed by the following roll call vote to not accept the following recommendation: 1.) P.
1, item (e), last phrase, revise to read: "...shall not be considered or altered by the Site
Development Authority, unless the Authority makes both findings listed under subsection
below."
AYES: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Casey, Finn and Siegel
NOES: Mayor Pro Tem Dauber
June 3, 1999
Regular City Council Meeting
8
• MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Johnson, seconded by Casey and
passed unanimously to not accept the following recommendation: 2) P. 1, item (f)(1), last
phrase, revise to read: "...the proposed development would substantially deprive an
adjacent property or theeg neral public of the enjoyment of their property be iRjwieus
MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Finn and failed by the
following roll call vote to not delete 'preferable to the applicant'.
AYES: Councilmembers Casey and Finn
NOES: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Dauber and Siegel
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Johnson and passed by
the following roll call vote to insert the word 'other' and delete 'preferable to the applicant' on
page one,item(f)(2) first line.
AYES: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Dauber and Siegel
NOES: Councilmembers Casey and Finn
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Siegel and
passed unanimously to not approve the following recommendation: 5) P. 2, item (a)(4),
revise to read: "The applicant agrees in writing to accept all of the proposed conditions
of approval, prior to the decision."
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Johnson and
• passed unanimously to approve the following recommendation: 6) P. 2, item (b)(3), add,
at the end of the paragraph: "...above, and to the Planning Commission."
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Siegel and
passed unanimously to not accept the following recommendation: 10) P. 3, item (b)(7),
revise to read: "The hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Director, and no other
person may preside over the hearing unless so designated by the Planning Director or
City Manager aut4er-iged 1.y aratio , the City G,,,,,,,,;i "
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Finn and
passed by the following roll call vote to not accept the following recommendation: 11) P.
3, item (b)(7), add a new section (7a) to read: "In the event that the Planning Director
leaves Town employment, all projects otherwise eligible for fast-track review shall be
referred to the Planning Commission for a period of three (3)months thereafter."
AYES: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Casey, Finn and Siegel
NOES: Mayor Pro Tem Dauber
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Johnson and
passed unanimously to accept the following recommendation: 14) P. 3, item (b)(11), first
sentence, revise to read: "The final staff report shall be forwarded to the City Council on
a consent calendar for a meeting to be held not earlier than ten (10) days or later than
twenty-one (21) days after the site development decision heal4ng;"
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Johnson and
passed unanimously to accept the following recommendation with the one change that the
•
June 3, 1999
Regular City Council Meeting
9
word 'interested' stays in: 15) P. 3, item (b)(12), revise to read: "Appeals of the Planning
Director's decision may be made in writing by any impacted interested party, including
by any Councilmember or antwo (2) Planning Commissioners, not later than the date
and time of the City Council's consideration of the item on its consent agenda, or not
later than twenty-one (21) days after the site development decision hearing in the event
that no Council meeting is scheduled."
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Johnson and
passed unanimously to agree that not later than twelve (12)months after the effective date
of this ordinance, staff shall initiate a review of the effectiveness of the ordinance. The
review shall be made at a public hearing by the City Council, subsequent to review and
recommendation by the Planning Commission. In addition periodic reports will be made
to Council by the Planning Director. This motion is not to be a part of the ordinance but
rather direction from Council.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Dauber and
passed by the following roll call vote to add design guidelines to section 1.(e) at the end
of the first sentence.
AYES: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Dauber and Siegel
NOES: Councilmembers Casey and Finn
Casey and Finn believed the design guidelines were very subjective and should not be
referenced.
• MOTION MADE AND FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND: Motion made by
Dauber and failed due to lack of a second to add the following section 2(a)(5): "The
project is of average or below average size as compared with projects from the previous
year."
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Johnson, seconded by Casey and
passed by the following roll call vote to direct the City Attorney to revise the ordinance to
reflect the changes made by Council and to bring the ordinance back to the next Council
Meeting for first reading.
AYES: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Casey and Finn
NOES: Mayor Pro Tem Dauber and Councilmember Siegel
Siegel stated that if the enhancements and fast track were separated into two parts he
would vote for the fast track. However, he found the findings for the enhancements
difficult to make.
12. CLOSED SESSION:
12.1 PERSONNEL; PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, Government Code Section 54957--City
Manager
12.2 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION,
Government Code Section 54956.9(b) Significant Exposure to Litigation: ABAG
Recommendation for Mar Claim
June 3, 1999
Regular City Council Meeting
10
• The City Council adjourned to a Closed Session regarding personnel and anticipated litigation at
11:20 p.m. and reconvened at 11:40 pm. Council returned to open session to report, if necessary,
any action taken.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further new or old business to discuss,the City Council Meeting was
adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
Respectfullysubmitted,
Patricia Dowd
City Clerk
The minutes of the June 3, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting were approved at the
June 17, 1999 City Council Meeting.
•
June 3, 1999
Regular City Council Meeting
11