Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/30/1997Minutes of a Regular Meeting September 30, 1997 Town of Los Altos Hills City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 30, 1997, 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers 26379 Fremont Road 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor Casey called the Regular Meeting of the City to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Mayor Casey and Councilmembers Dauber, Hubbard, Johnson and Siegel Staff: City Manager/City Engineer Jeff Peterson, Acting City Attorney Dan Siegel, Planning Director Curtis Williams, Public Works Manager Jim Rasp and City Clerk Pat Dowd Press: None 2. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 3. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT The Planning Director reported on the following items from the September 24, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting: 1) Lands of Starve, 14555 Miranda Road: request for a site development permit and conditional development permit for a minor addition and variance to exceed the allowable floor area and to encroach into the side yard setbacks - approved; 2) Lands of Hill, 13870 La Paloma Road: request for a site development permit for a new residence - denied; 3) Lands of Simmons, 26350 Esperanza Drive: request for a modification of a condition of approval of an approved site development permit requiring construction of a pathway - denied; and 4) Lands of Loughmiller, 25309 La Loma Drive: request for a site development permit for a new residence, a lot merger, and variances to exceed the maximum development area and to grade within ten feet of a property line and request for annexation - continued. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Item Removed: 4.1 (Casey) MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Hubbard and passed unanimously to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar, specifically: 4.2 Decided Not To Review the following Planning Commission Actions at its meeting on September 10, 1997: 4.2a Lands of Shukov, 14440 DeBell Drive: approved request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and spa September 30, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting 4.2b Lands of Liu, 25861 Estacada Way: approved request for a Site Development �1, Permit and Conditional Development Permit for a minor addition and variance W to exceed the allowable development and floor area and to encroach into the rear and side yard setbacks 4.2c Lands of Lyman, 13770 Wildflower Court: approved request for a Site Development Permit for a secondary dwelling unit with a basement 4.3 Accepted grant of Conservation Easement, Lands of Chao/Pang, 25701 Lomita Linda Court — Reso #72-97 4.4 Accepted grant of Pathway Easement, Lands of Groff/Taylor, 28625 Matadem Creek Court — Reso #73-97 4.5 Adopted Additional Town of Los Altos Hills Bench Marks — Reso #74-97 Item Removed: 4.1 Approval of Minutes: September 17, 1997 (Regular Meeting) Casey expressed concerns about the wording in the draft minutes of Jean Struthers comments particular as they related to the General Plan. She suggested alternate wording which she felt more correctly stated the comments made. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Hubbard, seconded by Siegel and passed by the following roll call vote to make the following change to the September 17, 1997 minutes: Page 9, third paragraph, should read as follows: "Jean Struthers, 13690 Robleda Road, gave a ` brief history of this particular area of Town and emphasized the importance of open space in Los Altos Hills. Mrs. Struthers believed this project had a negative impact not only on the open space but also on the local plant life and further noted that it was the upper site which had the building restrictions, not the lower site. She referred to the Town's General Plan and she stated that houses should not be built on ridge lines." AYES: Mayor Casey and Councilmembers Dauber, Hubbard and Siegel NOES: None ABSTAIN: Mayor Pro Tem Johnson MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Johnson, seconded by Hubbard and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of the September 17, 1997 City Council Meeting as amended by Council. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5.1 Proposed Policy Regarding Outdoor Lighting It was noted that policies carry out ordinances. Therefore, this item was continued until after the public hearing on an ordinance to add a purpose statement and clarifying language on outdoor lighting. 5.2 Recommendation for extension of franchise agreement with Los Atos Garbage Company to allow for additional investigation of yardwaste collection options -- Reso # i September 30, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting The City Manager reported that the resolution before Council allowed for a four-month extension of the current contract. This would allow time for the Council subcommittee, %r staff and representatives of the Los Altos Garbage Company to further discuss the various yardwaste collection options. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Hubbard and passed unanimously to adopt Resolution #75-97 approving an amendment to the franchise agreement with the Los Altos Garbage Company extending the term of the agreement. 5.3 Recommendation to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with ABAG Power for the purchase of electric power — Reso #_ The City Manager reported that although the savings to the Town of entering into this agreement were not large at this time, there could be large savings in the future. Kenneth Moy, Legal Counsel for ABAG, was available to answer any questions Council might have on this agreement. He did comment that each jurisdiction had a representative on the Board and an executive committee would be created from the board. The entire board would only be meeting once or twice a year. Council stated that they did not think the City Manager should participate on this executive committee. There was not enough of a monetary return to the Town to justify the use of an excessive amount of the City Manager's time. If it did result in such a staff commitment, the agreement should be terminated. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Hubbard and passed unanimously to adopt Resolution #76-97 approving a Joint Powers Agreement with "ABAG POWER" for the purchase of electric power for a minimum of one year. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Request by Matadero Creek Architectural Review Committee to review Resolution No. 1559 regarding allowable building coverage The Planning Director referred to his 9/30/97 staff report which addressed the issue of Resolution #1559. This resolution which was adopted in 1983 allowed flexibility to increase building coverage by up to 2, 000 square feet if such square footage was not utilized for second floor development. The resolution did not grant an increase in allowable floor area or development area on a lot. Of the twenty lots in the Matadero Creek Subdivision, two were left for development approval and both applicants were using Resolution #1559 in their planning. The Matadero Creek Architectural Review Committee however had reported that it did not know of this resolution nor did the owners of the developed or in the process of being developed other eighteen lots. The Committee was asking Council to rescind this resolution so that the regulations for building in the subdivision would be equitable for all. Robert Ramer, the owner of Lot 7 in Matadero Creek Subdivision, stated that he did not understand why he could not use Resolution #1559 just because other owners chose not to use it. Mr. Jain, owner of Lot 5 in Matadem Creek Subdivision, did not think it was fair to make them change their project which had used Resolution #1559 just because others did not know about it. September 30, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting Bob Lefkowitz, 28515 Matadero Creek Lane, did not agree with rescinding Resolution #1559. *4W The rules should be the same for the remaining two lots as they were for the other lots. w Pong Ng, project architect for the owner of Lot 7, did not understand why this was an issue. He knew about this resolution and they had received a letter of approval from the Architectural Review Committee. Their completed application had been filed in July. Mrs. Nagpal, 28555 Matadero Creek Court, did not object to Resolution #1559 but believed that if it was applied to the remaining two lots the other eighteen lots should also be given the option of an additional 2,000 square feet. Mrs. Romer, owner of Lot 7, stated that they were willing to work with the Architectural Review Committee and the Town as they did not want to delay their project. Rick Ellinger, 28520 Matadero Creek Lane and member of the Architectural Review Committee, did not understand why no one knew about Resolution #1559. However, the conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs) of the Matadero Creek Subdivision were the defining statement and did not include this resolution. The Matadero Creek Subdivision furthermore had stricter regulations that elsewhere in Town to preserve its open space. He did not think it was fair to the other eighteen owners in this subdivision to make the rules different for the owners of Lots 5 and 7. Dan Siegel, Assistant City Attorney, stated that Resolution #1559 was a validly adopted resolution of the Town and as such it would take a public hearing to discuss rescinding it. Casey supported keeping this resolution in place. It was a valid resolution and there was a process in place which included project review by the Architectural Review Committee as well as the Planning Commission. Dauber suggested sending Lot #7 back to the Architectural Review Committee. Hubbard was also not in favor of rescinding this resolution but if the Architectural Review Committee wanted it rescinded at a later date they could request it. He did not agree with rescinding it with two remaining lots to develop. Johnson believed it was unfortunate that there were two lots left to develop when this issue came up but he noted that they could not legally rescind this resolution at this meeting. He believed the Architectural Review Committee had the controls it always did to appropriately review and recommend proposed development in the subdivision. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Hubbard, seconded by Casey and passed unanimously to concur with the staff recommendation to continue to utilize the provisions of Resolution #1559, subject to appropriate design review pursuant to the site development review process. 6.2 Comment on League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions Dauber commented that she was the only Councilmember planning to attend the League Conference and she inquired if anyone had any comments on the conference resolutions. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Council agreed to not support the resolution relating to emergency medical services and to leave the decision on the resolution relating to solid waste adjustment methodology up to Councilmember Dauber. September 30, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting 7. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB -COMMITTEES, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES 8. STAFF REPORTS 8.1 City Manager 8. 1.1 Rogez Subdivision — Fremont Road The City Manager reported that construction was beginning on the Rogez subdivision. The sewer line would be going through Edith Park and the contractor would be responsible for any damage to the park. 8.2 City Attorney 8.3 City Clerk 8.3.1 Report on Council Correspondence 9. COUNCIL -INITIATED ITEMS 9.1 Letter from Mr. McKee on reflectors (Councilmember Dauber) Dauber inquired about the status of this request and was advised that staff was handling this matter. 9.2 Emergency Preparedness Council (Mayor Casey) Casey noted that she was unable to attend the Emergency Preparedness Council Meeting scheduled for November 9'". If anyone else could attend, she asked that they let her know. 9.3 Proclamation (Mayor Casey) Casey asked if Council would agree to issuing a proclamation at the request of a resident. Apparently this proclamation had been issued in the past and the request was being made again this year. Since no information was available on this proclamation and it was unclear what it was for, Council did not agree to issuing this proclamation. In the future, Council should have the opportunity to review such proclamations before approval. 10. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Jack Elmberg, 26731 Taaffe Road, referred to his four lot subdivision on Taaffe Road. He had received an extension for completion of improvements to October 30, 1997 and had received a letter from the City Manager stating that the bond on this subdivision would be pulled if the improvements were not completed by that date. Mr. Elmberg was asking Council for another extension because of a variety of circumstances. Council agreed to agendize this request for the October 15, 1997 City Council Meeting. September 30, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting Roberta Garland, 27555 Purissima Road, asked Council to please consider an alternative site for the yardwaste center. She distributed pictures emphasizing her complaints of increased traffic and debris over the past six years. 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11.1 Amendment to Article 10-2.10 (Outdoor Lighting) of the Site Development Code to add a purpose statement and clarifying language (SECOND READING) John Knox-Sieth, 27741 Via Cerro Gordo, believed the lighting regulations were too restrictive and supported the nuisance abatement approach if there was a problem. Robert Molinari, 12133 Foothill Lane, did not support more restrictive lighting regulations. He believed excessive lighting and being a nuisance should be avoided but he also did not think it was the role of city government to regulate wattage of light bulbs. Furthermore, he suggested that the vision of the Town as promoted by this ordinance and policy may not reflect current trends in the Town. Hanna Wiseman, Birch Hill Way, commented that lighting had changed over the years and adequate lighting to enjoy one's home should be allowed. Paul Simon, 12271 Windsor Court, emphasized minimizing intrusiveness on neighbors. He thought Los Altos Hills was rural not suburban. R. C. Hill, 13870 La Paloma Road, suggested that the primary purpose of this ordinance should be the following in an order of priority: safety, enjoyment of one's home, and keeping light from not being seen from off site. He further commented that he preferred using the nuisance abatement vehicle as he did not think this ordinance placed enough emphasis on the enjoyment of one's home. Herbert Cabral, 25325 Elena, stated that intrusiveness was an issue Emily Cheng, 24595 Voorhees Drive, believed safety was an important issue. Residents should not have to use flashlights to get around their property in the dark. Shelley Doran, 14850 Manuella, suggested a better definition of adequate was needed in the ordinance and the impact of the lighting policy on new homes be considered. She further noted that the nuisance abatement process was difficult to enforce. Sandra Humphries, 26238 Fremont Road, commented that the size of homes was much larger now and there was not as much space between lots. She did not think that there were actually many residents at this meeting complaining about this ordinance and most people had trust in their elected officials and volunteers. Jim Downey, 26000 Newbridge, referred to the mailing he had received on this issue from the Los Altos Hills Civic Association and supported such communication on major ordinance changes. He thought the purpose of the ordinance was incorrectly stated. Residents lived on properties to enjoy them and while they should not be intrusive they also should not be dictated by regulations. September 30, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill, addressed the Council on behalf of Mary Stutz, 25310 Elena Road, who was unable to be present. Lighting should not be intrusive and there was not enough staff to enforce this issue. Therefore, a strong Town policy and ordinance was needed. Erica Indaco, 13721 La Paloma, referred to the problem of emergency vehicles trying to find homes that had insufficient lighting. Safety was an important issue. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To amend the proposed ordinance to read, in part, as follows: Purpose Statement shall read: "The purposes of this article are: 1) to assure that outdoor lighting, both on the exterior of structures and along walkways, driveways, and landscape features, maintains the openness and quiet atmosphere of the Town and minimizes excessive use of energy; 2) to provide lighting for safety and adequate lighting for the enjoyment of outdoor use areas, such as around patios and pools; and 3) to prevent lighting which is intrusive and which imposes on the privacy and quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties.'; delete the reference to "no light sources me directly visible from off the site (relating to lighting of pools and spas); add that high intensity lighting is prohibited; and include the following section on general outdoor lighting: "Outdoor lighting should use the minimum number and wattage lights which will safely illuminate the area. Outdoor light sources shall be shielded so as not to be directly visible from off site. No more than two lights shall be allowed in setback areas (as defined in Chapter 2 (Zoning) of the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code). Additional lighting may be permitted where it is determined to be necessary to safely illuminate the area." MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Hubbard and passed unanimously to waive further reading and introduce an ordinance amending Article 10-2.10 (Outdoor Lighting) of the Site Development Code to add a purpose statement and clarifying language. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Johnson and passed by the following roll call vote to adopt the following policy on outdoor lighting: Code Sections and Design Guidelines: Article 10-2.10 of the Site Development Ordinance outlines criteria for outdoor lighting. In particular, Section 10-2.1003 indicates that outdoor lighting should use "the minimum wattage lights which will safely illuminate the area" and that outdoor light sources "shall be shielded so as not to be directly visible from off-site." Page 30 of the Design Guidelines suggests that exterior lights be carefully placed to prevent light from shining onto neighboring houses and that light sources most not be visible from off-site. The Zoning and Site Development Ordinances limit lighting within the setbacks to "driveway light fixtures, limited to one fixture on each side of a driveway, for a maximum of two (2) fixtures per lot," but additional fixtures may be approved if necessary for safety. Intent The purpose of Code and Design Guideline provisions regarding outdoor lighting is to assure that the open and peaceful character of the Town is maintained, that adequate lighting is provided for the enjoyment of outdoor use areas, and that lighting does not intrude on the privacy of neighbors. The intent of this policy is to clarify more specifically the types and numbers of lighting fixtures that the Town feels are generally consistent with the Code provisions, but to allow flexibility for additional lighting when it is necessary for safety purposes or where it is not visible from off the site. September 30, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting Policy: 1. The number of lights on the exterior of a structure should be limited to providing for one light per doorway, with the exception of two lights at the main entrance, at double doors or garage doors, etc., and additional lights only where the Planning Director or Planning Commission determines they are needed for safety. 1 Pathway and driveway lighting should be restricted to low -height fixtures and should be spaced the maximum distance apart which will still provide for safe use. In order to avoid a "runway" appearance, it is recommended that lighting be placed on only one side of the driveway or walkway, or alternate from one side to the other. Recessed louvered lights are suggested for walkways and steps. 3. Generally, lighting fixtures should be shielded downlights for which the bulb is not visible from off site. Exceptions may be permitted in limited locations (entry, garage, etc.) or where the fixtures would not be visible from off site. 4. Downlighting from trees is acceptable if provided for safety or for outdoor use areas, where minimal in number, and where the bulb is not visible from off site. 5. Uplighting of trees is generally not allowed, unless it is clearly demonstrated that the number of such lights are minimal and the glow of the uplighting would not be visible from off site. 6. Spotlights should be limited in number, and directed away from clear view of neighbors. Shielding of spotlights with shrouds or louvers is suggested. 7. High intensity discharge lighting, such as mercury vapor, high and low pressure sodium, and metal halide lighting, is prohibited. 8. Lighting in setbacks is limited to two driveway light fixtures only, for the purpose of locating and identifying the site. No lights are allowed in side or rear yard setback areas, except where determined to be necessary for safety. 9. The Planning Commission and/or staff may allow lighting different than that outlined above when the proposed outdoor lighting is determined to be necessary to safely illuminate the area, or where the size of the property and/or extensive screening will assure that lighting glow and fixtures we not visible from off site. AYES: Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and Councilmembers Dauber, Hubbard and Siegel NOES: Mayor Casey Casey thanked Council for making changes to the proposed policy which she believed made it better. However, she still could not support it. She believed this policy was very difficult to regulate and government should not be involved in this matter. September 30, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting 11.2 Proposed Ordinance amending Section 10-1.505(A) of the Zoning Ordinance to limit backup and turnaround areas within required setbacks. (FIRST READING) Casey stated that she did not think it was appropriate to change this ordinance without the opportunity for public input. She had received several phone calls from concerned residents. Mr. John Knox-Seith, 27741 Via Cerro Gordo, questioned the driveway regulations as related to this ordinance. R.C. Hill, 13870 La Paloma Road, commented that to enjoy one's property might include siting the house in such a way that the driveway would be in the setback. Dot Schreiner, Planning Commissioner, stated that encroachments into setbacks was a very important issue to her. Preserving the setbacks allowed for privacy and open space. Emily Cheng, Planning Commissioner, questioned how many homes presently had turnarounds in setbacks. Hubbard referred to the number of large homes being built and stated that the protection of setbacks was important. The setbacks were becoming recreational areas which was having a negative impact on neighbors. Dauber concurred with Hubbard stating that this issue could be addressed at the time of house design. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Hubbard and passed by the following roll call vote to waive further reading and introduce the Ordinance amending Section 10-1.505(A) of the Zoning Ordinance to limit backup and turnaround areas within required setbacks. AYES: Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and Coucilmembers Dauber, Hubbard and Siegel NOES: Mayor Casey MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Siegel and passed unanimously to agendize the second reading of this ordinance as a public hearing at the October 15, 1997 City Council Meeting. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further new or old business to discuss, the City Council Meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. (/Resppeeccttffully submitted, """`— Patricia Dowd City Clerk The minutes of the September 30, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting were approved at the November 5, 1997 City Council Meeting. September 30, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting