Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/14/1999 Minutes of a Special Meeting January 14, 1999 Town of Los Altos Hills City Council Special Meeting Thursday, January 14, 1999 7:00 P.M. Bullis School, 25890 Fremont Road 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor Johnson called the Special Meeting of the City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. at Bullis School. Present: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Casey, Dauber, Finn and Siegel Staff: City Manager/City Engineer Jeff Peterson, City Attorney Sandy Sloan, Planning Director Curtis Williams, Assistant Planner Shaunn O'Connor and City Clerk Pat Dowd Press: Bruce Barton and Paul Nyberg, Los Altos Town Crier 2. STUDY SESSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR THE TOWN'S SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS • The Planning Director presented his staff report on the current site development review process and options for Council's discussion. This report was the result of the December 2, 1998 City Council Meeting at which time Council discussed whether or not they should review site development permit applications instead of the Planning Commission. The following four options were evaluated by staff as well as the current process: Option A: "Planning Commission Hearing": The current process of Planning Commission review upon staff recommendation. Some "enhancements" are suggested for consideration as a variation on the current process, such as providing more specific direction for Commission review; modifying codes to require findings for site development actions; and/or developing Council-adopted policies to clarify Council intent in interpreting the Code and guidelines. The current process as modified would allow for thorough review with extensive opportunity for public input, but remains "subjective" and potentially inconsistent with Council intent, unless the measures suggested narrow the level of discretion significantly. Option B: "City Council Hearing": City Council review (at a public hearing) of site development upon staff recommendation, eliminating Commission review of site development projects. The benefits of such an approach would likely be an expedited review process and assurance that the intent of the Council is met with regard to interpreting codes and policies. Extensive time would be required for Council review of all projects, however, to the likely detriment of other Town business, and it could be argued that the process would become more "political" with fewer checks and balances • than currently exist. January 14, 1999 Special City Council Meeting 1 Option C: "Staff Action - Council Hearing": City Council review (at a public hearing) of site development upon staff"action" after public notice and in some cases an initial hearing. This option would allow staff to resolve many smaller issues prior to Council review, while still assuring Council intent is met with regard to Code interpretations. While some of the time required for Council review would be reduced, staff time is likely to increase to prepare for public input at two stages, and there may be minimal incentive for applicants and neighbors to find common ground at the staff level if a Council hearing will be required anyway. Option D: "Staff Action - Council Consent": City Council "consent" review of site development upon staff"action" after public notice and in some cases an initial hearing,with staff discretion to refer items of concern to Council for hearing. This approach would allow staff to facilitate resolution of many issues of concern, and should expedite "clean" projects, reducing the need and time for Council review. Public input directly to appointed or elected officials would, however, be reduced, except upon appeal or referral. It could also be argued that staffs interpretations may not be consistent with Council's and/or that the staff lacks the review continuity of the Planning Commission. Option D-PC is a variation of this approach, which would designate the Planning Commission to review projects "referred" from staff due to their level of controversy or due to policy considerations. This alternative would allow for continued Commission oversight on more complex applications, but may result in infrequent review and less familiarity of the Commission with the review process. • Robin Robison, 27801 Edgerton, suggested the 500' notification limit may have to be reviewed. She was outside the 500' limit on certain projects which would still definitely impact her property. Roger Summit, 13390 Lenox Way, asked about the regulations concerning story poles and recommended that the Town require that they be put up early on in the process. Ginger Summit, 13390 Lenox Way,believed the entire community was impacted by projects and the Planning Commission protected the community concept of the Town. June Conlon asked if there would be any economic impacts to these options such as the necessity of hiring more staff. Eric Clow suggested putting information about projects on the webpage. Valerie Stitt, 25703 Lomita Linda Court, asked how Planning Commissioners were appointed and what their compensation was. She also believed a project was a view issue and not limited to a 500' area. Shelley LeFevre, Manuella,noted that staff time was a recurring theme in the options before Council but she believed when applications got delayed at the Planning Commission even more staff time was spent on projects. She also spoke as a former Planning Commissioner and stated that she knew of situations where commissioners had imposed conditions applying restrictions they personally supported. She supported Option C which she thought gave the Council the opportunity to carefully and completely review projects which was part of their responsibilities. Nancy Couperus, 13680 Page Mill Road, supported Option A but with the inclusion of staff action which would encompass a process of early notice of neighbors, an opportunity for staff to resolve issues of concern in an informal meeting setting and either approval of a project or referral of the project for public hearing where policy issues were concerned or where a substantial controversy was identified. James Vedder, 26355 Calle Del Sol, believed the Planning Commission was essential to the process and to provide continuity. He did not believe the Council had the time to review the projects. Kathleen Wiler,Fremont Road, noted that they had been through the January 14, 1999 Special City Council Meeting 2 building process in Town twice. She commented that they had wanted a dual driveway in • one of their applications but was told they could not have one by the Planning Commission even though they were allowed to according to the Town's regulations. She also stated that they were unaware of the appeal process. Ms. Wiler inquired if residents had input on Town codes,policies,paint regulations, etc. Gail Sullivan, Elena Road, stated that what they wanted was uniformity in decision-making, reduction of subjectivity and conformance with the design guidelines. Cary Hill, LaPaloma, stated that there were 38 homes in his neighborhood. He believed that increasing the notification to more than 500'.would be a hardship on an applicant. He also thought the process was a slow and painful one and there was an uneven application of the rules by the Planning Commission. The process needed to be speeded up and the subjectivity removed. Two issues which Mr. Hill believed exemplified the subjectivity issue were the unwritten La Paloma rule of not allowing two-story homes in the La Paloma area of Town and the height of chimneys. Colette Penne, 27080 Fremont Road, commented that it could be very expensive for applicants if the Council held the public hearing on a project and at that meeting and at that late date in the process made changes to the project. She also commented that this process would mean a lot more work for the Council. She recommended making the codes very straightforward and removing any Planning Commissioners who were arbitrary. Rick Ellinger, 28520 Matadero Creek Lane, commented that when he was on the Planning Commission he had seen approximately 700 agenda items, 400 of which involved visits to the sites. Of these most were in full compliance with the Town's regulations. He recommended establishing a checklist of basic requirements. If an applicant met these regulations, staff could issue a permit. This would fast track the easy • projects. Mr. Ellinger also noted that he had built in the Town. In his opinion it was important to establish the strategy then look at the organization. He also commented that there should be reasonable management and oversight but if the Council was overriding the Planning Commission decisions,the Commission would not like it. Taylor Vanderlip, 13851 Fremont Pines Lane, referred to her letter in which she indicated that the problem appeared to be that the ordinances were not clear thus resulting in wide ranges of interpretations. She supported establishing a subcommittee to review the issues and " report back to the Council on specific issues and problems. Mike Scott, 27856 and 27860 Black Mountain Road, asked what the rights of those building in Town were and suggested that a list be made available of what rights the homeowners had as well as what rights the Town had. He also believed the process should be parallel not serial. There should be a clear list of requirements at the beginning of the process so there were no surprise requests along the way for additional information, etc. Josh Korman, Altadena Drive, believed that the prevailing preference of many as shown in the design guidelines was for one story,brown,ranch-style homes and not everyone wanted this. Jitze Couperus, 13680 Page Mill Road,noted that there were two conflicting opinions being discussed: a simple checklist versus a public hearing. He believed the story poles were being put up too late. By this time in a project a lot of money had been spent. He suggested doing a general design and then putting up story poles to save money. Bill Maston, architect, commented on his experiences of working on applications in the Town. He believed continuity was important. He also supported the pre-application meetings with staff and commented that one had reasonable assurance from working through an application with staff who knew the regulations that approval would be granted by the Planning Commission. He further supported the impartial analysis of the • January 14, 1999 Special City Council Meeting 3 staff reports and referred to a suggestion made at an earlier meeting to have these reports • available earlier for applicant review. Maynard Stevenson,Prospect,referred to his experience of trying to get approval for an equipment shed and suggested that the process be made easier. Jean Struthers, 13690 Robleda, commented that in the 1980s site development meetings were held with representatives from the Planning Commission, Environmental Design, Pathways and staff as well as having the neighbors present and this system seemed to work quite well. Joan Schlenz, Paseo del Roble, supported the Planning Commission but she also recommended making the process go more smoothly. Gloria Chen, 26998 Beaver Lane, stated that they had been trying to get their project done for three and a half years and staff had continuously caused delays. Fred Osterland, 26238 Fremont Road, suggested that staff could provide a list of the easy projects they had reviewed for Council's information. Bob Stutz, 25310 Elena Road,referred to the comments made by Jean Struthers about the site development meetings taking place at Town Hall. He stated that this procedure did not work very well as applicants would wait until they got the Planning Commissioners they wanted on the rotation schedule to hear their applications. Sandy Humphries, 26238 Fremont Road,believed the planning process was a very important one that brought people together. She referred to the issue of chimney heights and commented that trees rather than chimney heights better protected neighbors on ridge lines. Luis Yanez, 26879 Moody Road, commented that he was a former Planning Commissioner and he was pleased that the process was being reviewed at this time. He believed that consistency in application of the Town's rules was needed and there should not be any subjectivity. His own example was an application for a two-story home on Fremont Road which was approved in 1989 but denied in 1994 because it was in the • LaPaloma Corridor. Libby Lucas, Los Altos, supported the Planning Commission's role. She urged the Town to carefully consider its drainage issues which had a direct impact on the neighboring communities. Carol Gottlieb, Planning Commissioner, read a letter to the Council on behalf of the Planning Commission. In part,this letter stated their support of the Planning Commission as the appointed body to oversee the Town's development. The letter also stated that'the experience and knowledge gained by the Planning Commissioners, sitting as the Site Development Authority, enabled it to do long range planning and code revision with significant understanding of development trends and concerns in Town.' The Planning Commission believed that applications would be subject to more political pressure if approved by staff and if they were reviewed only by the Council,the checks and balances would be eliminated. John Shea, Aric Lane, commented that he built a home in Los Altos Hills twenty five years ago and the process was subjective then. He strongly supported more objective approaches to projects. Mrs. Jain, Matadero Creek, believed there needed to be clear guidelines and checks and balances. They had lost a year in building their home in Matadero Creek because of confusion over the role of the subdivision's Architectural Review Board in their application. She further believed the ordinances should be very clear. Johnson supported a modified A-D option. He supported keeping the Planning Commission but developing a process to fast track certain applications. For example, if an application had staffs approval and no objections from the neighbors then it could go on the Council's Consent Calendar. Enhancements to this option which he believed would provide great predictablility and continuity could be worked out later. Dauber believed that the problems the Council was trying to correct needed to be identified. She • January 14, 1999 Special City Council Meeting 4 further believed that a parallel process was needed which was less confrontational and • less subjective. The applicant should hear all of the Town's concerns before too much money was spent. Dauber did caution however that if a process was too objective it also became quite rigid. She suggested that an applicant meet with the full Planning Commission, staff and representatives of the appropriate Town Committees to discuss their application in a relaxed atmosphere. Story poles would be up,neighbors would be notified and everyone would have the opportunity to express their concerns which would then be sent in writing to the applicant. Dauber further commented on the time constraints if Council reviewed applications for new homes and major remodels. She thought Council should review the process not become the process. Casey believed Dauber's suggestion involved designing homes by committee and was disastrous. She supported Option C and believed it was the Councilmembers' responsibility to take the time to hear these applications. She noted that the voters in the last election wanted the process streamlined and the details of Option C could be worked out later. She further commented that the Council needed to provide continuity. Casey supported a trial period of six months to a year keeping the Planning Commission in place but having the Council review new homes and major remodels. She also could support Johnson's suggestion but with more Council review. Finn believed that property rights came first. He also noted that the current ordinances were not always specific and were not evenly applied. The guidelines were contradictory and there was no consistency. The Council was not addressing the issues and they needed to take the planning process back to see where it was broken. Siegel believed it was too radical to abolish this area of responsibility for the Planning Commission but he did believe there was room for improvement. He supported Johnson's proposal of a fast tracking system for certain applications. • MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Moved by Finn, seconded by Casey and failed by the following roll call vote to approve Option C (Staff Action- Council Hearing). AYES: Councilmembers Casey and Finn NOES: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Dauber and Siegel MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Finn and passed unanimously to establish a subcommittee of two Councilmembers (Casey and Johnson)to work with staff on the establishment of a fast tracking system for certain applications and to report back to the Council in one month. This subcommittee's discussions would include the current system, suggested enhancements, criteria and noticing requirements. 3. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further new or old business to discuss,the City Council Meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Res ectfub itted, !=— Patricia Dowd City Clerk The minutes of the January 14, 1999 Special City Council Meeting were approved at the February 3, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting. January 14, 1999 Special City Council Meeting 5