Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/1997Minutes of a Regular Meeting November 19, 1997 Town of Los Altos Hills City Council Regular Meeting Wednesday, November 19, 1997, 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers 26379 Fremont Road 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, City Attorney Sandy Sloan, Planning Director Curtis Williams, Public Works Manager Jim Rasp, Finance Director Carol Ferrell, Planning Consultant Dain Anderson and City Clerk Pat Dowd Press: Carol Tiegs, Los Altos Town Crier 2. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 3. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT The Planning Director reported that the following applications were discussed at the November 12, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting: Lands of Wong, 12354 Priscilla Lane: request for a site development permit for a landscape plan - approved; Lands of Loughmiller, 25309 La Loma Drive: request for a site development permit for a new residence, a lot merger,variances to allow grading within ten feet of a property line and to exceed the allowable development area and a request for annexation - continued; and Lands of Breitbart, 11991 Hilltop Drive: request for a site development permit and a conditional development permit for a minor addition, a variance to exceed the maximum floor area and a variance to encroach into the front setback - approved. Upon hearing that one of the Commissioners abstained on the Breitbart vote, Casey stated that she thought reasons should have to be given for abstentions. The Planning Director further noted that on December 10' the Planning Commission would be hearing the application from the Montessori School for Morgan Manor on Stonebrook and the Commission had also scheduled a meeting for December 17'". In response to an inquiry from Council, the Planning Director said that he had spoken with Commissioner Jinkerson about his not voting on applications within 2,500 feet due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Jinkerson understood that reasons should be stated for such abstentions but he also intended to speak to the City Attorney about this issue. Related to this issue, Council asked the City Attorney if the letter had been sent to the Fair Political Practices Commission. The City Attorney responded that she was waiting to hear from Hillsborough as it was thought the letter would be more meaningful if sent by several cities including Atherton and Hillsborough. The City Council agreed that sending this letter should not be delayed. Due to a schedule conflict, Council agreed to change the date for the Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission to February 10". The Planning Director stated he would ask the Commissioners if this date worked with their schedules. November 19, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Item Removed: 4.1 — 11/5/97 minutes (Dauber) MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Hubbard, seconded by Johnson and passed unanimously to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar, specifically: 4.1 Approved Minutes: October 29, 1997 (Adjourned Regular Meeting) 4.2 Decided Not To Review the following Planning Commission Actions at its meeting on October 22, 1997: 4.2a Lands of Karimi, 26280 Elena Road: approved request for a site development permit for a major addition and remodel of an existing residence 4.3 Approved request for approval of sanitary sewer reimbursement agreement between the Town of Los Altos Hills, Jay Shideler, Jan Shideler and Wei Yen -- Reso #93-97 4.4 Approved amendment of Employee Deferred Compensation Plans — Resolutions #94-97 and #95-97 Item Removed: 4.1 Approval of Minutes: November 5, 1997 (Regular Meeting) MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Johnson and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of the November 5, 1997 City Council Meeting with the following corrections: Page 3, Item 4.12, first motion should state seconded and failed; and on Page 9, last two sentences of third paragraph should be changed to read: "Art Lachenbruch, 11820 Buena Vista, referred to the criteria used to decide if a proposed path was good or not. He also commented that the nexus should more closely match the size of the project." 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5.1 Status of Parcel Data Base The Planning Director reported that staff was not as far along with the parcel data base project as they had hoped because of inaccuracies and extraneous information received from the County files. The computer consultant planned to input data the following week. The Planning Director recommended that the County information not be included on an annual basis because of extraneous information. Rather someone could go to the County offices for changes every six months. Dauber referred to the recent Technology Improvement Committee meeting at which they suggested they receive the staff reports on such topics of interest as the parcel data base. Dauber also suggested that the parcel data base include a cross reference for street time changes and the Planning Director noted that a field for this could be established. Siegel inquired about the status of pathway easements in the parcel data base and the Planning Director commented that this section was fairly complete and current. Siegel further commented that on issues such as sewer reimbursement agreements, a note should be included in the parcel data base for the parcels involved that such an agreement existed. Siegel also asked about public access to the parcel data base but the City Manager responded that at this time there just was no room at Town Hall for public access. The Planning Director stated that he would like to see a three to six month test period for staff use of the parcel data base before public access was implemented. Casey recommended putting an article in the Town Newsletter on the parcel data base. November 19, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting 5.2 General Plan Process Council discussed the proposed review process for the General Plan. Casey commented that residents really wanted to participate and suggested reviewing the land use element first. She also reiterated her suggestion that a Town survey be done separately. She did not think it worked in conjunction with the General Plan review. Dauber recommended that the circulation element be reviewed first. Since this dealt with the private/public road issue, there would be quite a bit of public input. Siegel recommended reviewing the General Plan section by section. Hubbard noted that Casey continued to recommend a Town Survey. He stated that the majority of the Council had agreed not to undertake such a separate survey and therefore the issue required no further discussion. Council agreed on the following steps in the review process for the General Plan: 1) Establish a subcommittee of the Council, Planning Commission, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, Finance Committee, Pathways Committee and Safety Committee to provide oversight for the Circulation Element, to meet with the consultant and to review draft materials as needed; 2) Present an outline of the topics to be considered in the Circulation Element as well as an overview of the entire project to the Council at a regular City Council Meeting; 3) Sponsor workshops regarding the Circulation Element as well as an overview of the entire process with a newsletter notice to all Town residents and property owners; 4) Conduct a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission with the consultants to provide direction as a result of the workshops and to decide whether to initiate a Town -wide survey; 5) Conduct subcommittee meetings; 6) Conduct public hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council with notices sent to all residents; and 7) Follow a similar process for each of the elements of the General Plan. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To appoint William Siegel and Carol Gottlieb to the subcommittee on the Circulation Element and to request the committees to make recommendations for appointments which shall be made at a January Council Meeting. 5.3 Off -Road Pathway Plan Process Casey stated that she had asked that this item be put on the agenda so that she could request input from Councilmembers and residents as reference information for the recommendation she would be bringing to the Council on this issue after the first of the year. Dauber made the following recommendations: nexus and amount of pathway taken should be related; set how much path for 900 square feet; if giving a path a resident should not have to pay; use in lieu fees - equalize giving of pathway easements; re -think taking sections of paths; and make it clear that the Council is looking for input - the decisions have not been made. Dauber also publicly apologized to the Chairman of the Pathways Committee, Les Earnest, for the conduct at the last Council Meeting when the pathways were discussed. The entire Council was remiss in not speaking up to ensure that such disturbances (clapping, yelling out) did not occur at the meeting. Hubbard believed it was an unwieldy process. He suggested that smaller sections be addressed with neighborhoods being looked at one at a time. Siegel noted that the Pathways Committee was looking at an abstract pathway plan and the Council dealt with the public. If a neighborhood did not want a path and the Council agreed with them, this should not imply that the Council did not support the Town's pathway system. Council met with the Pathways Committee to hear their justification for paths: what easements were already there? Future subdivisions? Already developed?. The Pathway Committee should provide prioritization of paths to the Council. Casey stated that the residents were upset at not being asked for their input on the pathway issue. November 19, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting 6. 6.1 Los Altos Hills County Fire District Commission - Recommendations for Appointments Council was advised that two terms on the Los Altos Hills County Fire District Commission would be ending in January: Bob Stutz and William McGuigan. Mr. Stutz had stated his interest in being reappointed and no statement had been received from Mr. McGuigan. In addition a resident, William Smith, had sent a letter asking to be considered for appointment to this Commission. Council stated that the Board of Supervisors was the appointing body for this Commission and it was agreed that Mr. Smith should be notified that he should send his letter of interest to both the Fire District Commission and the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. It was also noted that the Council would only make recommendations for Councilmember appointments to this Commission. 7. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB -COMMITTEES, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES 8. STAFF REPORTS 8.1 City Manager 8. 1.1 December 3, 1997 City Council Meeting The City Manager reported that a draft agenda had been prepared for the December 3rd Council Meeting and it was very light with only one or two items and no planning issues. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Casey and passed unanimously to cancel the December 3r° City Council Meeting. 8. L2 Town Holiday Party The City Manager noted that since the December 3'd meeting had now been cancelled, Council might want to add to this agenda discussion of the Town Holiday Party. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Hubbard, seconded by Casey and passed unanimously to add scheduling of the Town Holiday Party to the agenda as an urgency item. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To hold the Town Holiday Party on December 12". 8.1.3 Little League The City Manager reported that the two local little leagues had merged which meant that the Town would review the funding level of the little league. In addition they were currently $6,000 behind in bills. The City Manager planned to authorize $5,000 payment to the little league to cover these expenses. This $5,000 was within their approved budget. 8.2 City Attorney November 19, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting 8.3 City Clerk 8.3.1 Report on Council Correspondence Dauber referred to the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Stevenson regarding drainage on their property. The City Manager responded that he was preparing a response and would copy Council on his correspondence. Dauber also referred to the letter from Mr. Grimes on drainage concerns. The City Manager reported that this was an issue between neighbors and not Town related. 9. COUNCIL -INITIATED ITEMS 9.1 Matadero Creek Architectural Committee (Mayor Casey) The City Attorney presented an overview of her report on the Matadero Creek Subdivision. The Town was the subdivider of this subdivision and the final map was filed in 1982. The conditions, covenants and restrictions included the formation of an architectural control committee composed of five members appointed by the Council. When the last lot was sold in the subdivision the Council relinquished its ability to appoint the Architectural Review Committee and had no further involvement with this committee. A document stating this should have been recorded when the last lot was sold but was not. This however did not change the outcome. The conditions, covenants and restrictions also state that once the Town had no involvement, then the record owners of 50% or more of the lots may elect and appoint an architectural review committee of three or more of the owners to assume and exercise the powers of the committee. The Town still processes any development in this subdivision under the Town's ordinances but does not enforce the conditions, covenants and restrictions. The City Attorney further commented that Planning Directors usually advise applicants that such conditions, covenants and restrictions might affect their projects as the neighbors' input is considered on such projects. However, an applicant does not need to receive approval from an architectural review committee before an application is processed by the Town. Mr. Jain, Los Altos, stated that as owners of a lot in the Matadero Creek Subdivision, there was much confusion over whether plans must be approved by the Architectural Review Committee before the Town would accept them. He further referred to the election process for this committee and questioned the methods. He believed terms should be set and appropriate documents should be recorded. Mr. Lefkowits, 28515 Matadero Creek Lane, stated that his wife was a member of the Architectural Review Committee and he believed it was unfair to attack the committee at this meeting. An appropriate election was held on May 27, 1996 and a unanimous vote was taken. According to the conditions, covenants and restrictions an owner had to have approval from the Architectural Review Committee. The Town was not legally responsible if an applicant came forward without approval from this committee. Mrs. Jain, Los Altos, also addressed her concerns about the election process. She further believed there was a conflict of interest issue since members of this committee often lived within 500 square feet of a project they were reviewing. She stated that her lawyer did not believe the Architectural Review Committee was following the conditions, covenants and restrictions. Bill Riffle, 28525 Matadero Creek Lane, referred to the confusion surrounding aspects of this subdivision and also referred to the additional restrictions regarding development and height for November 19, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting this subdivision. He expressed disappointment with parts of the City Attorney's memo on this subject and addressed the rights and responsibilities of the Architectural Review Committee. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Hubbard and passed unanimously to adopt Resolution #96-97 clarifying the Town's role with the architectural control committee of the Matadero Creek Subdivision. 9.2 National Mayors Conference in Washington, D.C. (Mayor Casey) Casey asked for authorization to attend the National Mayors Conference in January in Washington, D.C. She noted that she had not attended the League of California Cities Conference in October. In addition she noted that she would pay the airfare and the Town would only pay for the registration ($500) and the room charge (about $129/day). Dauber did not think it was necessary for the Mayor to attend this conference but the general Council agreement was that authorization would be given. 9.3 Flood Control District (Councilmember Dauber) Dauber reported that she had been informed that the Adobe Creek Reach V Project was now scheduled for completion in 1999. The Environmental Impact Report was still not final even though the comments were all in by January of 1997. The responses were still being reviewed. The Northwest Zone strongly recommended that this project be kept on completion target for the summer of 1998, noting that current bonds should be used and not another request for voters to fund. 9.4 Purissima Hills Water District (Councilmember Dauber) Dauber noted that California Water had made an offer to purchase Purissima Hills Water District. In part the offer included that all assets would get transferred and all employees would remain at the same or higher salary. A decision had not yet been made on this offer. 9.5 Technology Improvement Committee (Councilmember Dauber) Dauber noted that the Technology Improvement Committee had met on Monday night but it appeared that some direction was needed. Since there were no specific projects for this committee to review at this time perhaps they should meet on an as needed basis like the Finance Committee. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To direct the Mayor to send a letter to the Technology Improvement Committee advising them that it would be a more productive use of their time and experience if they met on an as needed basis like the Town's Finance Committee. 9.6 Town Code Update (Councilmember Siegel) Siegel inquired about the status of the Code Update project and was advised that Book Publishing had been given authorization to proceed and the project should be completed in January. 10. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR November 19, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11.1 Request for a Site Development Permit for a detached garage, minor additions and a major remodel of an existing residence, Lands of Ferrari, 12500 Corbetta Lane The Planning Director explained that this present house was on a fault and the question was should the Town allow practically a total rebuild on a fault when a new home would not be allowed. He also noted that a structural upgrade was needed for the present house. Ted Sayre, representing Cotton Shires & Associates, Town Geologist, stated that the surface fault ruptures could not be mitigated for this project. Mr. Steve Ferrari, applicant, stated that they were asking permission to retrofit their house and make it safer. The objective for the new roof was a safer house. They submitted a petition which stated support for their project. In addition Mr. Ferrari referred to letters submitted by both Cotton Shires and Associates (dated 9/17/97) and TEAC Consulting Engineers (dated 7/7/97) which agreed that the house would be structurally sounder with retrofiting. Bruce Lyon, representing Randy Finn Architect, supported this proposed project. He noted that a new home could not be built and they were presenting a plan which did not increase the nonconformity and which resulted in a safer house. John Gonia, Los Altos, referred to the rights of the property owners and supported the Ferrari's request. He believed putting on a new roof was a safety issue and it did not make sense to him to say the owners could not do this. If this was such a significant issue it should have been disclosed when they purchased the home. Joyce Clarke, 12544 Corbetta Lane, commented that she had lived next door to this property since 1973. In her opinion the Ferrari's home was not a moveable home. Mrs. Clarke also questioned the accuracy of the fault maps and noted that no home was out of danger in California from earthquake damage. Norman Blank, 12501 Corbetta Lane, commented that the Ferrari lot was a beautiful piece of property and they had made a lot of improvements. Dauber stated that this was a policy issue. A new home would not be allowed on this site but an expansion of the present house was before them. The applicant was asking the Town to approve such expansion if they (the applicant) stated that they understood the risk. She believed this was setting a precedent and noted that the geology experts hired by the Town did not recommend approval of this project. Siegel agreed that the Planning Director brought this issue to the Council. He noted that in years past earthquake fault research was not necessarily done on subdivisions. He believed this house should be allowed to be remodeled to increase the safety of the structure. Furthermore, future potential purchasers of this lot should be notified of the fault information. Johnson believed this was a unique, beautiful piece of property and the old home should be made safe enough to live in. This project also had strong neighborhood support. Hubbard reiterated that new homes should not be built on earthquake faults. However, in this case the house could be made safer and future purchasers could be notified of this fault information by way of a deed restriction. November 19, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting Casey supported the Ferrari's application. She stated that future buyers would be notified by State Law and there was a recent example of a new home being built in Town on a lot which experienced great earthquake damage. One could not tell where such damage would occur. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Siegel and passed by the following roll call vote to approve the request for a Site Development Permit for a detached garage, minor additions and a major remodel of an existing residence for Lands of Ferrari at 12500 Corbetta Lane, subject to conditions of approval including a hold harmless agreement on fault information. The final conditions of approval will be on the January 7' agenda for final approval. AYES: Mayor Casey and Councilmembers Hubbard, Johnson and Siegel NOES: Councilmember Dauber Dauber asked the Planning Director how he was going to interpret this vote. The Planning Director responded that he understood there could be no increase in habitable floor area but one could remodel on a fault. 11.2 Proposed Housing Element of the General Plan and Proposed Negative Declaration (Informational Meeting Only) Dain Anderson, consultant, presented an overview of his report on the housing element. He noted that the Housing Element was one of seven required elements by the State and the State mandated that this element be updated on a regular basis. He further noted that review of the 1988 Housing Element resulted in the determination that the Town had successfully implemented several of the programs in that element. Some of these programs were: addition of legalization of more than 400 residential units to the available stock of rental housing through the elimination of the prohibition on the renting of residential secondary units; the elimination of the requirement for the approval of a Conditional Use Permit prior to construction of a residential second unit; the addition of Town lands for development through annexations; and participation through Santa Clara County in the Federal Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program. Proposed programs in the current Housing Element included: an expedited review process for second units; reduction or waiver of fees for affordable second units; low interest loans for building affordable units; "in -lieu" fees for properties that "max out" without building affordable units; and expanded public information regarding the Town's regulations for building second units. Mr. Anderson further addressed population, household and employment trends as well as housing needs. Jack Elmberg, 26731 Taaffe Road, asked if one could build and live in the secondary dwelling while the main dwelling was being built and the answer was yes. Ben Hurley, 12201 Menalto Drive, commented that he was planning a secondary dwelling and would be interested in the low interest program. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain, believed the Town's Code needed to be clarified, specifically secondary dwellings needed to be defined. The Planning Commission was seeing more and more secondary dwellings of 1,000 square feet, with full basements, extended decks, enclosed garages and circular driveways. The Town seemed to be getting away from the original intent of secondary dwellings. November 19, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting `i Dauber suggested adding the following policy: Insure that secondary dwellings are subordinate to the main house so that the appearance of a subdivision is not there. She also recommended adding the following to the in lieu fee policy: for properties of adequate size. Casey asked if the State could approve the Housing Element before it was discussed at a public hearing. The Planning Director noted that the State had approved the draft Housing Element in concept last year. Casey also further recommended not making lots less than one acre by requiring road right of ways. Council discussed the in lieu fee option. Dauber supported this idea. She believed this provided strong encouragement for secondary dwellings which were the best way to achieve low income housing in the Town. Hubbard questioned whether the in lieu fee might not be a negative but it was agreed that this option would be left in the Housing Element for comment at the public hearing. The City Attorney recommended that the consultant check with Housing and Community Development regarding in lieu fees. Of late they had not been supportive of this option. It was agreed that the Planning Director's one page summary of the Housing Element and a cover letter would be sent in a Town -wide mailing for the public hewing. This summary would be reviewed by the City Attorney and the letter and summary would be placed on the January 7" Council agenda for Council approval before mailing. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further new or old business to discuss, the City Council Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. in memory of Frank Gillio who served the Town for many years as City Attorney. Respectfully bmitte_ d, Patricia Dowd City Clerk The minutes of the November 19, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting were approved at the January 7, 1998 Regular City Council Meeting. November 19, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting