Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/02/1998N v Minutes of a Regular Meeting December 2, 1998 Town of Los Altos Hills City Council Regular Meeting Wednesday, December 2, 1998, 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 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Casey, Dauber 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 and Clyde Noel, Los Altos Town Crier 2. RESOLUTION DECLARING CANVASS OF RETURNS AND RESULT OF GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 3 1998 — RESO # The City Clerk reported the following results of the November 3, 1998 General Muncipal Election: Toni Casey, 1920; Stephen Finn, 1855; Jim Steiner, 1790 and Dot Schreiner, 1505. In addition Measure Y (term limits) passed: 2371 yes votes and 1106 no votes. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Dauber and passed unanimously to adopt Resolution #106-98 declaring the canvass of returns and result of General Election held on November 3, 1998. 3. ADMINISTERING OF THE OATH OF AFFIRMATION AND SEATING OF THE NEWLY ELECTED COUNCILMEMBERS The City Clerk gave the newly elected Councilmembers Toni Casey and Stephen Finn the oath of office. 4. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 4.1 Report by Gorilla Cook on the Millennium Project Gunilla Cook presented a report on the Millennium Project. A committee had been formed to work on this event which they hoped would be an interactive evening for both Los Altos and Los Altos Hills and would provide a legacy for the future. They were planning to hold it in downtown Los Altos with three different venues for dining (black tie, family and casual finger December 2, 1998 Regular City Council Meeting foods). A production company had been hired for the event. In addition the possibility of a time capsule was being discussed. The Packard Foundation had given the committee a $25,000 grant and the committee planned to come back at a future meeting and ask the Town for financial support. The Los Altos City Council would be discussing this issue at their next meeting. Council agreed to agendize the request for financial aid from the Millennium Committee when it was received. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT The Planning Director reported that the following items were discussed at the 11/10/98 Planning Commission Meeting: Lands of Scott, 27860 Black Mountain Road: request for a site development permit for a pond and a landscape plan - approved; Lands of Shorn and Teng, 24028 Oak Knoll Circle: request for a site development permit for a new residence and an indoor pool - approved; and a public hearing on the draft circulation and scenic roadways element of the General Plan — set for public hearing at the 12/2/98 City Council Meeting. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Siegel and passed unanimously to approve the Consent Calendar, specifically: 6.1 Approved Minutes: November 4, 1998 (Regular Meeting) 6.2 Approved Warrants: $341,272.92 (11/1/98— 11/24/98) 6.3 Accepted La Cresta Drive Landslide Repair Project, CIP98-99, Pavex Construction Company -- Reso #107-98 6.4 Adopted Ordinance #396 adding Article 3 (Term Limits) to Chapter 1 (City Council) to Title 2 (Administration) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code regarding City Council Term Limits 6.5 Authorized purchase of a replacement vehicle for the Building Official — Reso #108-98 6.6 Adopted a Resolution of Commitment: Silicon Valley 2010: A Regional Framework for Growing Together — Reso #109-98 6.7 Awarded Certificate of Appreciation: Betsy Bertram, Pathways Recreation and Parks Committee 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 8.1 Determination of roof color at 12840 Lucero Lane, Lands of Bulfer and Pope The Planning Director presented an overview of this application. In 8/97 staff approved a site development permit for an addition of 418 square feet, additional patio and decks, interior remodeling and a new roof There was no neighbor input as their only concerns were about the December 2, 1998 Regular City Council Meeting roof and they had discussed this with the applicants and agreed with their plans. In addition the neighbors were also relying on the Town's color board for the roof color. In 9/97 staff approved 40 the paint and roof colors for the project. In 9/98 the roof was installed but the neighbors expressed serious concerns about the color and reflectivity of the roof and did not believe they met the approved conditions of approval. The approved condition stated: "Exterior paint colors shall be chosen by the applicant and approved by staff in conformance with the Town's adopted color board, and shall exhibit a light reflectivity value of 50 or less. Roofs shall have a light reflectivity value of 40 or less... Staff stated that the color did have a light reflectivity of less then 40 although the material was highly reflective and there was some ambiguity as to how the color board applied to roofs. In addition there was uncertainty about exactly what was approved as staff had expected some form of coating which was expected to dull the finish of the roof but which was not applied and not intended to be applied according to the applicant's contractor. The Planning Director further noted that staff did not concur with the suggestion that the Town share in the cost of correcting this situation to everyone's satisfaction. Staff believed that this would be spending public money on a private project and would be precedent setting. Mr. Bulfer, applicant, explained their situation to the Council noting that they had hired experts to make recommendations on a roof, had tried to follow the Town's guidelines and had received approved plans from the Town. In good faith they had moved forward toward the completion of their project. However, he also commented that he did not want to be in a situation of arguing with his neighbors and believed there were were different options available toward solving this problem. He hoped it could be resolved and they could all move forward. Mr. Bob Rowe, 12800 Lucero Lane, noted that he had lived in Town for over twenty years and he was appreciative of the time staff and the Council was taking on trying to resolve this problem. Councilmembers had been to the property and/or seen the pictures and he believed (they understood the impact of this roof on their properties. Sarala Rao, 12835 Lucero Lane, concurred with Mr. Rowe's comments. Casey believed a mistake had been made by staff and it should be the Town's responsibility to pay to fix it. She also commented that because very few mistakes were made she did not think this would be precedent setting. Casey further noted that no resident input had been made on the Town's color board and she would like to see this issue agendized for early in 1999. Finn inquired whether any metal roofs should be allowed in Town. Dauber asked why this confusion took place and questioned whether the color of roofs should be controlled by the Town. She was not convinced that it was all staff s mistake. The architect had submitted a statement to the Town regarding the roof, its color, material, etc. The Town should see if this statement matched what was done to the roof. Dauber and Johnson did not agree with the Town paying to correct this project. Siegel stated that the applicant had been told in writing what the reflectivity should be for the roof An independent consultant should be hired to measure the reflectivity. If it met the condition, the roof conformed. If it did not, then the applicant had not met the conditions of approval for the project. He also did not agree with the Town paying for the correction of this problem. The City Attorney recommended that Council continue this item to a Closed Session at the end of this meeting to further discuss this issue. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue this item to a closed session at the end of the meeting on pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c ). December 2, 1998 Regular City Council Meeting MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Finn and failed by the following roll call vote to send the issue of the determination of the roof color at 12840 Lucero Lane back to the staff to arrive at a solution with the applicants and neighbors and to bring a proposal back to the Council in January. Staff would include in their discussion of options that the Town, due to its error, would pay to correct the situation at a cost of approximately $18,000. AYES: Councilmembers Casey and Finn NOES: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Dauber and Siegel MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Finn, seconded by Johnson and passed by the following roll call vote to send the issue of the determination of the roof color at 12840 Lucero Lane back to staff to work with the applicants and neighbors and to bring a mediated solution back to the Council at the second meeting in January. Staff would include in their discussion of options that the Town may pay the cost of part of the solution to the problem. AYES: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Casey and Finn NOES: Mayor Pro Tem Dauber and Councilmember Siegel Dauber stated that she thought the entire issue should be addressed including a clarification of the Town's ordinances on colors and reflectivity. 8.2 Introduction of Ordinance amending Section 2-6.07 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (FIRST READING) The City Attorney reported that governmental agencies were required to review their conflict of interest codes every other year. Due to a change in state law concerning the timing of disclosure statements when an officer or employee resigns, the current conflict of interest needed to be amended. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded b Siegel and passed unanimously to introduce an ordinance amending Section 2-6.07 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code regarding conflict of interest. 9. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES. SUB -COMMITTEES, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES 9.1 Council Appointments to Committees, Subcommittees and Outside Agencies PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue this item to the January 6, 1999 City Council Meeting. 10. STAFF REPORTS 10.1 City Manager 10.1.1 Webpage The City Manager reported that Pacific Bell would be installing the lines for the webpage and the transfer would take place December 18'". 10.1.2 Holiday Party The City Manager asked the Council if they wished to hold another holiday party this year. kw Council agreed and December 18" was chosen as the date. December 2, 1998 Regular City Council Meeting 10.2 City Attorney 10.3 City Clerk 10.3.1 Report on Council Correspondence Dauber noted that the letter received from the Abigail Company concerning the Lands of Rogez on Fremont Road had been sent to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for their information. 10.3.2 Annual Update of Emergency Handbook MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Siegel and passed unanimously to approve the following updates to the Emergency Handbook: page 8 delete Councilmember Hubbard and add Councilmember Finn; page 23 delete Councilmember Hubbard and Councilmember Finn; and on page 23 delete Susan Stevenson, Planner and Sheryl Proft, Assistant Engineer and add Shatu n O'Connor, Assisant Planner and Joshua Fiedor, Crew Member. 10.3.3 Completion of Roger Summit's term on the Los Altos Library Commission February 1999 —request for applications from interested residents. Council agreed to advertise in the Town Crier for interested residents to serve on this Commission. 11. COUNCIL -INITIATED ITEMS 11.1 Council consideration of changing the monthly meeting dates to the first and third Thursday of each month (Councilmember Casey) Casey noted that holding the council meetings on Wednesdays was difficult for her due to her business schedule and she asked if Council would consider changing the dates to Thursdays. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Casey and passed unanimously to introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 2-1.101(a) regarding the regular meetings of the Council by changing them to Thursdays. Council further agreed that this issue would be agendized for the first meeting in January for adoption and publicity on this matter would be included in the Town Crier and on the webpage if anyone wished to comment. 11.2 Reconsideration of Councilmember Siegel's 1990 proposal to have the City Council assume the site development review for new homes, major remodels and issuance of conditional development permits for a six month trial period (Councilmembers Casey and Finn) Johnson noted that this was a major issue but there was little documentation in the Council's packet for this meeting and there was no report from Casey or Finn on what they hoped to achieve. December 2, 1998 Regular City Council Meeting Casey stated that streamlining the permit processing was an integral part of their campaign. They supported the Council assuming the responsibility for approval of new homes and major remodels. The present process was not necessary if the ordinances were clear, there were no neighbor concerns and no problems with the project. Furthermore, they did not believe this would be a burden on Council since Council had cancelled five of their meetings in 1998. The Planning Commission would then be able to spend time on different issues such as review of the General Plan. Casey recommended a trial period of six months to see how this new process would work. Finn commented on the subjectivity of the present process, the cost and the length of time it took to get an application completed. He did not believe the Town's ordinances were equally applied and he also believed that the Planning Commission micromanaged projects too much. Johnson believed this would be too much of a burden on the Council. He pointed out that not only was there the time at the meetings themselves but also the review and examination of the properties under discussion. He believed a 90% reduction in the Planning Commission's responsibilities was too drastic and other options should be discussed. He also noted that presently the Planning Commission did not receive clear direction from the Council. Dauber reminded those present that at one time Planning Commissioners had served with staff as the Site Development Committee to review properties. This process was not found to be successful however as applicants would wait until the Planning Commissioners they preferred were scheduled to hear their applications. The City Manager suggested Council direct staff to prepare a list of recommendations and options with corresponding pros and cons. MOTION SECONDED AND WITHDRAWN: Moved by Johnson, seconded by Dauber and withdrawn to establish a committee of two Councilmembers, two Planning Commissioners and two staff to review the issues raised by Casey and Finn such as the architectural review problem and to establish a list of charges for the Planning Commission. This committee [ wood meet three or four times and if it did not arrive at any workable solutions, other options would be pursued. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED BUT WITH NO VOTE TAKEN: Moved by Casey and seconded by Finn to have the Council assume the site development review for new homes and major remodels for a six month period, with the Planning Director acting as the Site Development Authority setting a hearing, notifying the neighbors and making a recommendation to the Council. Tie following residents supported the recommendation that the City Council assume the Site Development review for new homes and major remodels for a six month period: John Vidovich, Lands of Quarry Hills; Katherine and George Alexander, 11600 Summit Wood Court; Bob Molinari, 13113 Foothill Lane; Sylvia Leung, 25386 La Loma Drive; Rhonda Abrams, 27500 La Vida Real; Jim Abrahams, 12831 Viscaino Road; Bill Carter, 25701 Tepa Way; Shabnam Jain, Matadero Creek; Lalla Carsten, 13761 La Paloma Road; and Jay Shideler, 27994 Via Ventana. They stated concerns raised during the recent election about the process in general. The outcome of the election in the seating of Councilmembers Casey and Firm showed support for the need for a change. They recommended that Council listen to the residents and give this plan a six month trial period. B was important to work toward cohesiveness and credibility and decrease local tensions. Lalla Carsten had also reported the results of a recent Civic Association survey in which 63 out of 68 responses supported Council review of major remodels and homes and the elimination of the Planning Commission review. The following residents supported the current process of Planning Commission review of major remodels and new homes: Sandra Humphries, 26238 Fremont Road; John Dukes, 27783 December 2, 1998 Regular City Council Meeting Lupine Road; Ginger Summit, 13390 Lenox Way; Viole McMahon, 27975 Via Ventana; Taylor Peterson Vanderlip, 13851 Fremont Pines Lane; Mary Compton, 27855 Via Ventana; Liz Dana, 25700 Bassett Lane; Jean Struthers, 13690 Robleda; and Nancy Couperus, 13680 Page Mill Road. They believed the process of Planning Commission review of projects worked the best and improvement could best be made in the process by clear direction to the Commission from the Council. Mike Scott, 27856 Black Mountain, supported the City Manager's suggestion about doing a staff report on the options; Johnson's suggestion for the formation of a committee; and Council review of a few projects to see how this new process would work. Tim Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, supported letting staff do a report on the options and pros and cons before making a decision. Johnson stated that he would consider the following an option: allowing a project to go directly to Council if staff recommended approval and there were no concerns raised by the neighbors. Dauber stated that she had heard references to the process taking longer in the Town than in other cities but she would like to get more specific information on this claim. Furthermore, she had also heard references to applicants who had clear staff recommendations for approval but who had been turned down by the Planning Commission. Once again she asked for specific information. Dauber believed there should be specific solutions to specific problems. Siegel did not believe the problems were procedural but that they were substantive. For example, what did the term `highly visible lot' mean? PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue this item to a Special City Council Meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 14' and to direct the staff to prepare a report on various options including pros and cons. 11.3 Ngs' Council Dinner— December 27" (Councilmember Casey) Casey reminded Council that again this year the Ngs would be hosting a Council Dinner at Chef Chu's at 6:00 p.m. on December 21"". 11.4 Housing Element (Councilmember Siegel) Siegel noted that the Housing Element had still not been accepted by the State and he suggested that the Mayor call the State and urge them to approve it. 11.5 Cities Association (Mayor Pro Tem Dauber) Dauber reported that the Cities Association had recently made the following appointments: Santa Clara Councilmember John McLemore to the Metropolitan Transpotation Commission; Sunnyvale Councilmember Julia Miller to the Bay Area Quality Management District Board of Directors; and Monte Sereno Mayor Suzanne Jackson to the Local Agency Formation Commission. 12. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Marge Mueller, 27860 Via Corita, noted that they had finished building the secondary dwelling on their property at Via Corita while working on the main house and they would like to move into the secondary dwelling unit for the holidays. They had received a checklist from the kwI December 2, 1998 Regular City Council Meeting Building Official but stated that they would not be able to get all of them done in a couple of weeks. They did not feel these conditions had any bearing on the main house and asked Council for permission to move in. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Casey and passed unanimously to add the Muellers' request to the end of the agenda as an urgency item. George Alexander, 11600 Summit Wood Court, wanted to be sure that when Council accepted Summit Wood Road as a public road that Summit Wood Court was not included. The City Manager assured Mr. Alexander that Summit Wood Court would not be a public road. Lisa Vellequette, 25505 Bledsoe Court, commented that she was representing the Civic Association and congratulated the newly elected Councilmembers. She also reported that the Civic Association was going to try to have a representative at each Council Meeting. Bob Molinari, 12133 Foothill Lane, referred to the application for a pond on the Lands of Scott at 27856 Black Mountain Road. He had submitted an appeal letter of the Planning Commission's approval of this proposal. He was hoping however that a Councilmember would appeal the approval so that he and the neighbors would not have to pay the $800. Mike Scott, 27856 Black Mountain Road, noted that he did not agree with one of the conditions of approval for his project and would pay the appeal cost. He asked that rather than having a public hearing be scheduled by the City Council, he be allowed to go back and work on this proposal with the staff and the neighbors in the hopes of reaching a solution. He also would like to review the entire operating procedure of submitting an application at Town Hall. Mr. Scott stated that he would also pay the related costs for this review. Council concurred with Mr. Scott's request. Ralph Cheek, 27525 Edgerton Road, commented that he thought Edgerton was a public road and therefore maintained by the Town. According to the City Manager however part of Edgerton was private while part was public. He asked if staff would look into this situation. Tom Nogrey, 27935 Roble Blanco, commented on two safety issues. The first was a broken light pole at Page Mill which was leaning and should be replaced. The second was the left tum onto Page Mill from 280. He recommended that the solid white line be extended by a couple of hundred feet. Dauber responded that they had contacted Caltrans and Caltrans was only interested in traffic getting onto the freeway. Concerning the light pole, PG&E had removed their lines from the pole but were waiting for other services (i.e. cable) to remove their lines. It was agreed Caltrans would be contacted again and would also be asked to remove the u -tum sign. Latta Carsten, representing the Civic Association, inquired if dates had been set for a Town Survey as well as hearings on the pathway issue. Council stated no dates had been set. 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS 13.1 Request for a Site Development Permit for a driveway modification, Lands of Shideler, 27994 Via Ventana Mr. Shideler, applicant, explained to the Council why they wanted a permit for a secondary a driveway over a private access easement. He showed pictures of the lower access road and �r December 2, 1998 Regular City Council Meeting kr addressed what he thought was a safety issue as well as an unsightly mess. The road was starting to soften and two inches of base rock was proving not to be enough. They wanted to be able to use the access which was ten feet wide for ingress only. They would leave the low tree limbs to keep the rural atmosphere and there would be no fancy gate or mailbox pillar. This would be a private road which would be used one way. Harry Price, applicant's attorney, addressed the easement laws and noted they were an important property right. Mr. Price further stated that actually the easement under discussion was presently an ingress and egress easement and the applicant was willing to give up their egress rights. The following residents spoke in favor of the Shidlers' request: Ray Capiaux, 27880 Via Ventura; Mary Compton, 27855 Via Ventana; Walter Babbitt, 27911 Via Ventana; Rhonda Abrams, 27500 La Vida Real; and Jerrell Thomas, 27993 Via Ventana. They believed the Shiders' plans would greatly improve the area, would be safer, would improve the drainage and would provide for better emergency access. They also noted that the Shidlers presently had egress and ingress rights for the road. The following residents spoke against the Shidlers' request: Pavel Curtis, 27990 Via Ventana; Sandy Humphries, 26238 Fremont Road; Kathleen Kells, 27990 Via Ventana; Katie Stella, 27975 Via Ventana; Victoria Gilbert, 27990 Via Ventana; Viole McMahan, 27975 Via Ventana; Robin Knutson, 27999 Via Ventana; and Martin Knutson, 27999 Via Ventana. They did not believe that an entire road bed was needed for the drainage and further believed that the Shidlers just wanted another driveway to their property. They also questioned the legality of the easement believing that it was obsolete and the residents at 27990 Via Ventana stated that the majority of the easement was on their property and this new use of the easement would greatly impact their privacy. They also commented that this paved road would not be in keeping with the rural character of the neighborhood and would be a serious safety issue. MOTION MADE AND FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND: Motion made by Dauber and failed due to lack of a second to state that this new private road would be permitted if there was a maintenance agreement and approval by all of the residents. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Motion made by Casey and seconded by Finn and passed by the following roll call vote to approve the Shidelers' request for a secondary driveway over a private access easement at 27994 Via Ventana subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission. AYES: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Casey, Finn and Siegel NOES: Mayor Pro Tem Dauber Dauber stated that it was current Town policy that private gated roadways shall not be allowed. She believed the approval for the Shiderlers' driveway was precedent setting. 13.2 Draft Circulation and Scenic Roadways Element of the General Plan, including proposed policies and implementation measures regarding: maintenance and dedication of private roadways; right-of-way widths; the aesthetic design of roadways; road capacities and traffic levels; regional traffic problems; roadway safety measures; emergency access routes; standards for drainage; reducing December 2, 1998 Regular City Council Meeting impacts of regional traffic; bicycles and other alternate transportation modes; and coordination with the Town's Pathways Element and pathway network; and proposed Negative Declaration Chris Clark, the consultant from the firm of Crawford Multari and Clark Associates, was present to answer any questions and clarify any issues. Walter Babbitt, 27911 Via Ventana, addressed the `standards of drainage' referred to the in the proposed element. He specifically referred to his property and what he considered the serious problem of sewer lines running alongside creeks and the erosion issue. The Planning Director stated that the element before Council was a policy document and did not address specific issues such as that raised by Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Pezzolo, 12215 Colina, raised the issue of private vs. public streets. He believed there was great confusion on the part of residents understanding whether or not they were on a private street with the result that no one understood who was responsible for maintenance. He supported alternative A (objectives) on page 9 which stated that "The dedication of private roadways to public ownership when requested by affected property owners„ when they have been upgraded to current Town standards and where all necessary dedications have been offered by adjacent property owners." Sharon Pezzolo, 12215 Colina, stated that their title report did not show that Colina was a private street. Marshall Cobb, 12226 Colina, emphasized the urgency of determining the status of Colina. It was important to establish who was responsible for the road before the damage got worse. Irene Fulton, 12238 Colina, stated that she had purchased her lot in 1963 and the developer had understood that it was a public street. A resident on Cumbra Vista Court also pointed out that there was confusion about their road as to whether it was private or public. Casey suggested that the objective concerning private/public roads be more flexible. The City Manager, however, noted that specificity was more appropriate in the Town's ordinances than in the General Plan. Casey also commented on the issue of private, gated roadways and recommended that the following objective on page 10 be eliminated because it was too subjective: "Driveways should be minimized within the required side yard setback area to provide for landscaping, to enhance privacy, and to maintain a safe distance between adjacent driveways." MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Casey and passed unanimously by all members present to approve alternative A on page 9 as follows: "The dedication of private roadways to public ownership when requested by affected property owners, when they have been upgraded to current Town standards and where all necessary dedications have been offered by adjacent property owners." MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Dauber and passed by the following roll call vote not to delete the following objective on page 10: "Driveways should be minimized within the required side yard setback area to provide for landscaping, to enhance t privacy, and to maintain a safe distance between adjacent driveways." �r December 2, 1998 Regular City Council Meeting 10 AYES: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Dauber and Siegel NOES: Councilmembers Casey and Finn W PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To add the following policy statement on pages 10 and 16: "Driveways should access the street where the address is." PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue the public hearing on the Circulation and Scenic Roadways Element to the Janaary 6, 1999 meeting. 14. REOUEST FROM THE MUELLERS TO MOVE INTO THEIR SECONDARY Marge Mueller, 27860 Via Corita, reiterated her request made earlier in the meeting to be able to move into their secondary dwelling before the Building Official's checklist had been completed. She felt that these conditions did not affect the completion of the main house and they really wanted to be able to be in the house by the holidays. Mrs. Mueller commented that they would not be able to complete all of the conditions in the next two weeks. The City Manager and Planning Director reported that additional fill was on the site which had not been permitted and there was a drainage swale issue which needed to be addressed. They further commented that this was part of the building process and could be handled by staff. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Finn and passed by the following roll call vote to allow the Muellers to move into their secondary dwelling at 27860 Via Corita prior to the holidays due to the special circumstances that it was Christmas and subject to the Muellers signing an agreement with the Town that they would work with the staff, complete conditions #3 and #8 before moving in and complete the remainder of the conditions as soon as possible. AYES: Councilmembers Casey, Finn and Siegel NOES: Mayor Johnson and Mayor Pro Tem Dauber 15. CLOSED SESSION: PENDING LITIGATION: PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(c ) —one case Council adjourned to a Closed Session regarding pending litigation at 1:10 a.m. and reconvened at 1:35 a.m. Council returned to open session to report, if necessary, any action taken. 16. ADJOURNMENT There being no further new or old business to discuss, the City Council Meeting was adjourned at 1:35 a.m. Respectfully Patricia Dowd City Clerk The minutes of the December 2, 1998 City Council Meeting were approved at the kftw January 6, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting. December 2, 1998 Regular City Council Meeting 11