Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/18/1999 Minutes of a Regular Meeting March 18, 1999 Town of Los Altos Hills City Council Regular Meeting Thursday, March 18, 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 Council to order at 6:05 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: Carol Tiegs, Los Altos Town Crier 2. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS • 2.1 Appointment of Youth Commissioner Patrick Neal, 13691 Old Altos Road, introduced himself to the Council and expressed his interest in serving as the Town's Youth Commissioner. He was a student at Los Altos High,worked on the student newspaper and had attended a couple of the Community Relations Committee meetings. Roy Woolsey, Chairman of the Community Relations Committee, suggested that the Youth Commissioner work with the Community Relations Committee on issues of mutual interest and that the Youth Commissioner be added to the mailing list for committee agendas and minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Dauber and passed unanimously to appoint Patrick Neal to the position of Youth Commissioner and to support his working with the Community Relations Committee. 2.2 Appointments to Utility and Information Systems Committee Council had received thirteen applications for the Utility and Information Systems Committee. Of the thirteen,Nino Cefalu and George Dill were not present. Marshall Bauer, 11665 Dawson Drive; Andrew Colman, 14440 Manuella Road; Raymond Egan, 12686 Roble Veneno Lane; Rick Ellinger, 28520 Matadero Creek Lane; Robert Fenwick, 28011 Elena; George Knight, 15421 Vista Serena; Robert Lefkowits, 28515 Matadero Creek Lane; • March 18, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting 1 Amir Rosenbaum, 10560 Blandor Way; Maynard Stevenson, 24785 Prospect; David Vellequette, 13944 Fremont Pines Lane; and Evan Wythe, 13826 Page Mill Road each addressed the Council expressing their interest in serving on the newly established Utility and Information Systems Committee. The referred to their experience and background in related fields as being y p g b ng helpful in serving on such a committee and further noted their support of pursuing advancements in the areas of utilities and information systems. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Casey and passed unanimously to appoint the following nine members to the Utility and Information Systems Committee each for two year terms: Marshall Bauer,Andrew Colman, Raymond Egan, Rick Ellinger, Robert Fenwick, George Knight, Robert Lefkowits,Amir Rosenbaum and Evan Wythe. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT The Planning Director reported on the following issues discussed at the March 10'h Planning Commission Meeting: Lands of Depuy, 14525 Miranda Road: request for a site development permit for a 2,241 square foot addition with a maximum height of 21 feet- approved; Lands of Lyons &Wiesler, 15833 Stonebrook Drive: request for a site development permit for a 770 square foot accessory structure and a variance to encroach into the front yard setback and to exceed the maximum floor area- continued; and Lands of Nextel Communications, Inc. (Lands of California Department of Transportation), 2350 Page Mill Road: request for a site development permit and conditional use permit for the installation of telecommunication equipment(two 15 foot high'tree'pole antennas and equipment shelter) on an existing maintenance yard site - set for public hearing at 4/15/99 Council Meeting). 4. CONSENT CALENDAR • Item Removed: 4.1 (Dauber) MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Finn and passed unanimously to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar, specifically: 4.2 Awarded Certificates of Appreciation: Roger Summit, Los Altos Library Commission; Members of the Technology Improvement Committee: Les Earnest, Ray Egan, Tom Giffiths, William Johnson, George Knight, David Milgram, Alex Peake and Michael Scott 4.3 Approved proposal for surveying services for Robleda Road Pavement and Storm Drain Improvements, CIP FY 98-99 --Reso#13-99 Item Removed: 4.1 Approval of Minutes: March 4, 1999 MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Finn and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of the March 4, 1999 City Council Meeting with the following corrections: page 5, Item 11.1, first paragaph, second sentence should read: 'She noted that staff s recommendation was for approval as requested by the applicant.'; page 6, add the following statement after Jitze Couperus' comments: 'Casey commented that she was offended by the misrepresentation of the photograph given to the Council by Mr. Couperus.'; page 6, the second sentence of Mrs. Jain's comments should read: 'It was not possible to please all of the March 18, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting 2 neighbors, compromises had been made and asked the Council to approve the appeal.';page 6 • correct the spelling of Mr.Noghrey's name; page 7, add the following sentence to Amir Rosenbaum's comments: 'Mr. Rosenbaum supported the applicant's appeal.';page 7, add the following sentence to Carl Cottrell's comments: 'He stated that he had visited the site and as an engineer did not believe a reduction of two feet would be noticed by the neighbors.'; page 8, first paragraph, last sentence, 27' should be 25';page 9, first paragraph after motions, add the following sentence to the Planning Director's comments: 'Specifically staff had sent the applicant a letter early on in the application process stating that a one story house should not be more than twenty three or twenty four feet.' and in the next paragraph add the following sentence to Dauber's comments: 'Dauber quoted Mr. Srinivasan's speech to the Planning Commission saying how pleased he had been with the process.'; page 10, in Mr. Riffle's comments correct the following sentences to read: 'He also noted that at that meeting Councilmember Casey stated that nothing in the Town's code required a certain amount of outdoor living area. In March of 1998 the Rutner application(Lot 7 -Matadero Creek Subdivision)was approved which allowed an increased development area because his property would have gotten this development area with either of the two interpretations being considered.'; and on page 10, change Ginger Summit's comments to read as follows: 'Ginger Summit, 13390 Lenox Way, commented on the total disrespect, disregard and intimidation of people addressing the Council by some members of the City Council. She believed there were some members of the Council who used this public input time as their own private debate time. Mrs. Summit thought this was very intimidating for those speaking and that Council should be more respectful of the audience. In response to an inquiry from Casey, Mrs. Summit stated that her comments were directed at her. Casey supported her position of asking questions about applications but Mrs. Summit believed these were confrontational situations. She further stated that people were addressing Council as a whole not just one Councilmember. • 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5.1 Resident input on Sun Country Cable and request for consent to transfer cable tv Franchise from Sun Country Cable to Suntel Communications, LLC. This item was continued to the next Council Meeting. 5.2 Recommendation for expenditure of AB3229 Cops Program Grant Funding -- Reso# The City Manager reported that the Town had approximately$25,000 available in COPS funds for new programs. One suggestion was for the Teleminder System which automatically called residents to advise them of emergencies, important information on everyday operations, check-ups on seniors, etc. Council had seen a presentation of this system last year and the Safety Committee had supported it but Council had requested more information on its effectiveness from cities which had the Teleminder System in place. Depending on the size of the Teleminder program, the cost ranged from $26,000 to $51,000. The City Manager also commented that the Los Altos Hills County Fire District was interested in the Teleminder System and had discussed it at their 2/16/99 meeting. Lt. Colla, Santa Clara County Sheriff s Department, supported the Teleminder system but only for emergency situations and not for general messages. Betsy Bertram, 11854 Page Mill Road, supported another deputy in Town, enforcement of traffic and bicyclists regulations and the neighborhood coordinator program March 18, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting 3 Casey and Finn did not support the Teleminder System and suggested looking into other options such as a radar truck. Council agreed to continue this item pending more information on the option of a radar truck. 5.3 Responsibility for tree maintenance - letter from Soren Johnson at Golden Hill Court and La Paloma Road This item was continued to the next Council Meeting. 5.4 Discussion of details in the 1998-99 Mid-Year Financial Summary This item was continued to the next Council Meeting. 5.5 Subcommittee recommendations for enchancements to the Site Development Review Process and for "Fast-Track" Review Council discussed the proposed enhancements to the site development review process and the Site Development Scope of Review. The suggested enhancements would require two findings to be made if the Site Development Authority(staff, Planning Commission or City Council)reduced the height, floor area or development area below the Code maximum or increased the setback above the minimum required by the Code. The two sub-findings were: a) creating highly visible structures on a ridgeline or hilltop site or b) substantially impairing scenic views from nearby property and/or from public or private roadways. The Site Development Scope of Review was intended to limit review of applications to the • items outlined.in the Site Development Code and not to design review considerations such as architectural style, chimneys, window treatments or skylights. Siegel stated that he supported the enhancements but believed it was too restrictive to limit the number of findings. He supported including a statement that the Site Development Authority would make findings rather than stating specific findings. Dauber stated that she would support the enhancements if the Town's ordinances were stronger. She specifically referred to the issue of the height of a single story home as an issue that needed to be addressed. In addition she did not think the privacy issue had been addressed and should be added to the findings. Finn did not agree with taking away a homeowner's property rights. Lowering the height of homes was not before Council for discussion. Both Casey and Finn supported leaving in the specific findings. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Finn and passed unanimously to approve the following enhancements to the Site Development Review Process: "Upon any required reduction in height, floor area, or development area below the maximum allowed by the Town's Zoning Code, or upon any required increase in setbacks in excess of the minimum required by the Town's Zoning Code,the Site Development Authority must make both of the following findings: 1) That, because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings,the proposed development would be injurious to adjacent property or to the general public; and 2) There is no other reasonable means, preferable to the applicant,to mitigate the expected impacts, such as: a) landscape mitigation,b)repositioning of the structure, and/or c) lowering the building profile through grading." March 18, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting 4 i MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Finn and passed by the following roll call vote to approve the following Site Development Scope of Review: "The Site Development Authority shall be limited in its review of site development applications to elements of the proposed development which are specifically addressed by provisions in the Town's Site Development and Zoning Codes. Design and architectural features, such as architectural style, chimneys,window treatment, skylights, etc. shall not be considered or altered by the Site Development Authority." AYES: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Casey and Finn NOES: Mayor Pro Tem Dauber and Councilmember Siegel Council then discussed the following proposed fast-track review process (staff with Council consent): 1. The Planning Director may"fast-track" new residences/major remodels which he/she determines: a. conform to the General Plan, the Codes, adopted policies, the Design Guidelines, and/or the conditions of a subdivision, as applicable; b. do not require variances or conditional development permits; c. do not have substantiated neighborhood opposition; and d. when the applicant accepts all conditions of approval in writing. The Planning Director's decision to "fast-track" or to refer an application to the Planning Commission is final. • 2. Staff shall process "fast-track" reviews as follows: a. story poles in place prior to notice being mailed; b. notice to all owners w/i 500 feet, when substantially complete application; c. staff schedules site development hearing for Tuesday afternoons (3:00 p.m.), consistent with established procedures for site development hearings, with the flexibility to schedule at night if necessary; d. Environmental Design and Pathways Committees invited to hearing; e. interim staff report("fact sheet")prepared with numbers (FA, DA, setbacks, height) compared to allowable and other basic info. re: site and proposal; f. Planning Director must conduct hearing,not delegate to other staff,unless as authorized by Council; g. staff approval if resolution of issues with neighbors and conformance with all applicable policies, codes, and guidelines; h. staff report amended with basis for approval, including discussion of any issues raised by neighbors, and including final conditions. i. staff Qualified approval if limited neighborhood opposition determined to be unreasonable or irrelevant(note opposition in decision); j. applicant must agree in writing to conditions of approval. 3. Fast-track projects shall be placed on the Council Consent agenda as follows: a. notice of approval and Council date to all neighbors and applicant; b. Council consent calendar minimum of 10 days after approval; March 18, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting 5 i sC. final staff report(as noted above) included in Council packet; d. appeal of staff approval goes directly to Council; e. if appealed, Council sets hearing date; Council decision final. 4. The Planning Director shall refer a project to the Planning Commission if he/she determines that: a. it does not conform to the General Plan,the Codes, adopted policies,the Design Guidelines, or conditions of a subdivision, as applicable; b. a variance or conditional development permit is required; C. substantive neighborhood issues are not resolved; d. the project presents unique planning issues that need greater discussion; or e. the applicant does not accept all conditions of approval in writing. Casey supported the proposal before Council. She noted there had been two public hearings on this issue and the proposal before Council represented a compromise. She believed this would be a good first start, a less intimidating process, safeguards were included and if it did not work it could be modified along the way. Dauber inquired if the process included staff going out to the neighbors to see if there was an impact on their properties from a proposed project. Jean Struthers, 13690 Robleda, commented that as a current member of the Environmental Design and Protection Committee and as a former Planning Commissioner, one could drive around Town rather than specifically go on a property to see its impact. • Sheila Holland, 10699 Magdalena, supported the fast track process. Amir Rosenbaum, 10560 Blandor Way, commented on the property rights issue and his support of the fast track process. He believed if a house was being built which was basically the same as the one you lived in you should not complain. Furtheremore, he believed one should be able to see the house from their own before they could comment. Varad Srinivasan, 27835 Lupine Road supported the fast tract process. He referred to his recent experience of having an application go through the process and he felt the procedure was quite subjective. He supported more objectivity. Katherine Alexander, 11600 Summitwood Court,recommended looking at the whole picture. She believed lots were individual and enjoyed the different architectural styles. Eric Bredo, Page Mill Road, believed there was currently a lack of clear authority in the current planning process. He also recommended sending out notices with enough time for those who travel a lot to respond. Mrs. Jain, 28510 Matadero Creek Lane, supported the fast track process. She believed the current process was not conducive to harmonious neighborhoods and often the process was political. Diane Barrager, 13220 Robleda Road, stated her concern about the Planning Director's role in the proposed fast track process. The current Planning Director was more than capable of handling this responsibility but this may not be true with future Planning Directors. March 18, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting 6 Betsy Bertram, 11854 Page Mill Road, supported the fast track process. She also commented on the issues of privacy,bulk and the importance of the story poles. Fred Osterlund, 26238 Fremont Road,believed the approach should be to step back from the maximums allowed on a project. Liz Dana, 25700 Bassett Lane, believed the involvement of the community was an important part of the Town. She also did not want to see the Planning Director have to do all of the work and believed he would appreciate some help from the neighbors. Sandy Humphries, 26238 Fremont Road, commented on support letters Casey and Finn had received during their campaign specifically on development rights. She did not believe that the fast track process would help those pushing the envelope on allowed development in any event. In addition Ms. Humphries was also concerned about silencing the input of neighbors in the Town. Luis Yanez, 26879 Moody Road, noted that he had lived in Town for 25 years and had served on the Planning Commission for eight years. This was the first time he had seen a Council try to make things easier and more cost efficient. He supported the fast track process if it removed the subjectivity element. Michael Duffy, 27474 Sunrise Farm Road, supported making ordinances clearer to protect property rights. Nick Dunckel, Cortez Court, supported the fast track process for those applicants not using the • maximums allowed on a project. Evan Wythe, 13 826 Page Mill Road, commented on their experience with building in the Town. They had gone through a neighborhood battle with people who, in his opinion, had their homes but did not want anyone else to have homes in their neighborhoods. He supported the fast track process as a change to this thinking. Richard Lamparter, 12864 Viscaino Road, supported the fast track process. He believed the safeguards were in place and Council should proceed in this direction. Charlie Ellinger, 28520 Matadero Creek Lane,read the following comments from her husband, Rick, who had to leave for another commitment: He commented on the importance of strategy preceding organization. Mr. Ellinger believed this included clarifying the process in order to streamline the process. The spirit should also be a factor and an application should be summarized as to how close it was to the guidelines not just whether it complied strictly with the requirements. Mr. Ellinger supported an attachment to the fast track process which would include a worksheet, a checklist of a one page summary of guidelines, ordinances, etc. and a timeline. Mr. Ellinger in conclusion supported the fast track process for single residence remodeling or for new construction going up within an existing neighborhood. Jim Abraham, 12831 Viscaino Road, supported the fast track process. He believed the current system was often driven by politics. Siegel stated his concerns about not knowing what was going to happen if this ordinance was adopted. He supported a more cautious approach by putting a limit on the applications that could be fast tracked. This limit would include those applications that used only 75% of the is March 18, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting 7 i . allowed floor area. Dauber concurred but suggested raising the limit to 80%. Johnson suggested putting a limit on the allowed floor area(i.e. 5,000 or 6,000 square feet) for the first six months to see how this process worked. Casey did not agree with putting on such limitations and could not justify imposing a penalty on those who wanted to use their allowed maximums. She supported the fast track process before Council. Finn concurred with Casey. He did not at all support placing limitations on those who could use the fast track process. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Finn and passed by the following roll call vote to direct staff to prepare an interim ordinance on the fast track Site Development Review Process as recommended by the Council Subcommittee and submitted in the Planning Director's March 18, 1999 staff report. AYES: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Casey and Finn NOES: Mayor Pro Tem Dauber and Councilmember Siegel Johnson stated that he voted yes on this issue because it was vitally important to him. While he was disappointed that they were unable to reach the four-fifths vote needed to put this ordinance in place immediately,he was hopeful the Council would continue to review and consider this fast track process. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Council agreed to direct staff to include in the.interim ordinance a statement that it would be a Council policy that no one would contact the Planning Director in an attempt to lobby for a particular application to be put forward on fast track. 5.6 Discussion and Prioritization of Goals and Objectives and Estimated Hours • This item was continued to the next Council Meeting. 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES 8. STAFF REPORTS 8.1 City Manager 8.1.1 Emergency Medical Transport Issue The City Manager reported that a meeting had been held today on this issue and there might be a report to the Council available for the April 15`h meeting. 8.1.2 Vacation The City Manager reminded Council that he would be out of the office March 29-31, 1999. 8.2 City Attorney 8.3 City Clerk 8.3.1 Report on Council Correspondence March 18, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting 8 • 9. COUNCIL-INITIATED ITEMS 9.1 April 1, 1999 City Council Meeting The Council agreed to cancel the April 1" Council Meeting. 9.2 Civility Code (Councilmember Casey) Casey asked if Council was going to establish a subcommittee to draft a civility code. It was agreed that Johnson and Siegel would work on a civility code for Council's review. 10. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR 10.1 Presentation by San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales thanked the Council for affording him the opportunity to address them. He looked forward to working together on issues of mutual interest. Mayor Gonzales also reminded Council that the League of California Cities Annual Conference in October was going to be held for the first time in San Jose. He hoped everyone would be attending. Toni Casey, 23600 Ravensbury, stated that she wanted to make a presentation to the Council as a resident, not as a Councilmember. She noted that she had checked with the City Attorney to make sure that this format was legal. Casey raised the following two issues which she suggested the Council agendize for their April 15"'meeting: public hearing protocol and adoption of a Council Civility Code. On the first issue, Casey stated that she did not agree with the Mayor's • direction at the last Council meeting that councilmembers should only ask questions of residents and not engage in dialogue. Casey felt this did not allow for clarification, correction or statement of an impression. Furthermore, she felt this approach was inherently confrontational. On the second issue, Casey referred to a 1997 memo in which she asked Mayor Pro Tem Dauber not to criticize her in Council meetings. At a joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commission at that time it had been agreed not to engage in such behavior. Casey stated however that at the last Council meeting the Mayor had allowed Dauber to publicly criticize her. Casey felt this behavior was unprofessional and.asked that Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Siegel work on a draft Council Civility Code to be discussed at the April 15'hmeeting. 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11.1 Solid Waste Issues: Resolution for extension of contract with the Los Altos Garbage Company, Los Altos Hills and the Los Altos Hills County Fire District for disposal of yardwaste; resolution to increase debris box rates; and discussion on collection of past due solid waste accounts -- Reso # The City Manager reported that the Los Altos Hills County Fire District Board and the Los Altos Garbage Company had agreed to extend the contract for disposal of yardwaste at Foothill College until March 31, 2001. This agreement was before Council for their approval. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Casey and passed unanimously to adopt Resolution#14-99 amending the agreement among 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. • March 18, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting 9 The City Manager commented on the issue of debris box services. He noted that the amount currently being charged by the Town was below the area average and he recommended that Council adopt the revised debris box rate structure to bring the revenues in alignment with the expenses. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Casey and passed unanimously to adopt Resolution#15-99 revising the rates for debris box services. The City Manager gave an overview of the issue of past due accounts. In 1996 the Council decided not to pursue the collection of past due accounts. The Los Altos Garbage Company had continued to carry these accounts but had been advised by their auditors to resolve these past due accounts. At this time staff was asking Council to consider whether to use the lien procedure on accounts which had been delinquent subsequent to the adoption of the new Franchise Agreement effective April 1, 1998 and which were payable to the Town and/or to use the lien procedure on accounts delinquent after June 18, 1993 and before April 1, 1998 which were payable to the Los Altos Garbage Company. Betsy Bertram, 11854 Page Mill Road, asked if the number of trips to Foothill College was limited and was advised they were not. She also questioned the limitation on the number of allowed trips on clean-up days. Mrs. Bertram noted that LAGCO had refused to pick up her thirty gallon containers when she had filled them with paper. Now she uses her recycling cans but since there were no lids the paper flew around. She did not believe in paying for services which one did not get. Jim Abraham, 12831 Viscaino Road, concurred with Mrs. Bertram's comments. He also believed • there should be competitive bidding and the delinquent bills should be paid. Mark Jensen, 26225 Purissima, commented that he was one of the ones listed with a delinquent account. He did not agree with paying for services he never used. Furthermore, he referred to Portola Valley as having lower rates than the Town. Siegel stated that he supported using the lien procedure on the accounts due to the Town after April 1, 1998 but not on the accounts due to LAGCO since June 18, 1993. Bill Jones, General Manager of the Los Altos Garbage Company, did not think that it was fair to pursue the accounts due the Town and not those due LAGCO. Concerning the number of trips allowed for clean up days he said he would look into this matter. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Casey and passed by the following roll call vote to use the lien procedure on accounts delinquent after June 18, 1993. AYES: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Casey, Dauber and Finn NOES: Councilmember Siegel March 18, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting 10 • 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further new or old business to discuss,the City Council Meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Patricia Dowd City Clerk The minutes of the March 18, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting were approved at the April 15, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting. • • March 18, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting 11