Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/1996Minutes of a Regular Meeting %W November 20,1996 Town of Los Altos Hills City Council Meeting Wednesday, November 20, 1996, 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers 26379 Fremont Road 1. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Hubbard called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Mayor Hubbard and Councilmembers Casey, Dauber, Johnson and Siegel Absent: None Planning Chairman Doran and Commissioners Cheng, Finn, Gottlieb, Jinkerson, Schreiner and Stutz Commissioners: Staff: City Manager/City Engineer Jeff Peterson, City Attorney Sandy Sloan, Planning Director Curtis Williams, Public Works Manager Ed Taylor, Assistant Engineer Sheryl Proft, Planning Technician Susan Manca and City Clerk Pat Dowd Press: Clyde Noel, Los Altos Town Crier 2. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 2.1 Presentation by Fire Marshall Dan Dunlap on Fire Code Requirements Dan Dunlap, Los Altos Fire Marhshall, addressed the Council on the current Fire Code, specifically the 14' driveway requirement. He presented sketches which depicted why the fire equipement needed a certain amount of room. This 14' number could be reduced for geologic and/or topographic reasons such as oak trees. The owners had options such as more turnaround area or shoulders. Mr. Dunlap also commented on the sprinkler issue and explained how different the sprinkler systems were in residences as opposed to commercial buildings. Council thanked Mr. Dunlap for his clarification of these matters. November 20, 1996 Regular City Council Meeting 3. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT 4. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Johnson, seconded by Casey and passed unanimously to add the following proclamation as an urgency item to the Consent Calender: Commending the Heritage Trails Fund and the National Park Service for sponsoring the 1996 Juan Bautista de Anza Historic Trail Commemorative Relay. Item Removed: 4.1 (Hubbard) MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Johnson and passed unanimously to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar, specifically: 4.2 Approved Warrants: $347,848.16(10/31/96) 4.3 Accepted grant of easement for pathway and emergency access and approved the vacation summarily of the pathway on Lands of Cherkassky, 28138 Story Hill Lane -- Resolutions #97-96 and #98-96 4.4 Accepted grant of Open Space Easement for Pathway, Lands of Roth, 12113 �ko Foothill Lane -- Reso #99-96 4.5 Accepted grant of Pathway Easement, Lands of Lloyd, 26707 Tanglewood Lane — Reso #100-96 4.6 Issued Proclamation: Commending the Heritage Trails Fund and the National Park Service for sponsoring the 1996 Juan Bautista de Anza Historic Trail Commemorative Relay Dauber referred to the pathway easement given by Mr. and Mrs. Roth and noted that this was an historic Consent Calender. The Roth's easement completed the first pathway in Town donated by residents. Item Removed: 4.1 Approval of Minutes: November 6, 1996 MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Hubbard, seconded by Siegel and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of the November 6, 1966 City Council Meeting with the following correction: page 7, second motion change the word "roofs" to "walls". `r November 20, 1996 Regular City Council Meeting 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5.1 Approval of Agreement with Metricom, Inc. to allow installation of Wireless Data Equipment -- Reso #_ Casey reiterated her opinion that to impose a franchise fee for this service was an unfair tax to the residents. The City Attorney responded that legally franchise fees are not taxes. They are payment for the use of rights of way. The other option was to charge a percentage of gross revenues. Dauber suggested that the fees were appropriate because the service resulted in a slightly less attractive Town with boxes on the poles and was a service used by a small percentage of residents. Christopher Sinclair, Metricom, Inc., addressed the Council on the franchise fee issue as well as the address issue which had been raised at an earlier Council Meeting. He explained how the the franchise fee was passed on to the customers. On the address issue, he concurred that it was confusing with the Town having the same zip code as Los Altos and County areas. Basically they were relying on residents honestly stating where they lived. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Johnson and passed unanimously to adopt Resolution #101 granting to Metricom, Inc. a nonexclusive franchise to attach, install, operate and maintain a wireless digital (� communications radio network in, on, over, upon, along and across the public right-of-way in the Town with the stipulation added to the agreement that Metricom shall be responsible for determining which billing addresses are within the Town to the satisfaction of Los Altos Hills. Casey stated that she reluctantly voted in favor of this motion. While she wanted these services to be available to the Town's residents, she did not support the franchise fee, believing it to be an unfair tax to the residents. 5.2 Report on private/public road issue The City Manager referred to his staff report which included alternatives for funding additional street maintenance and capital improvement projects. The report further addressed the level of funding which should be undertaken and included the cul-de-sac issue. One of the issues under discussion was whether to continue with the interim policy adopted in March, 1996 or adopt a new policy. The interim policy regarding public/private roads stated: "If there is clear title, a minimum of 40' right of way, the improvements are in an accetable condition and constructed to Town standards, and the residents want it to be public, the Town shall accept the road as public." November 20, 1996 Regular City Council Meeting Casey recommended that more time was needed to review this report and further suggested that it be sent to the Finance Committee for their review and recommendations. In response to her inquiry as to the number of streets under discussion, the City Manager responded approximately twelve. She asked what the names of the twelve streets were and where they fit into the priority list. Dauber inquired if the Town was in a position to accept streets that were in B or B+ condition. Hubbard suggested that the staff provide a priority list showing those streets, for example, with no easement problems, those with offers of dedication not accepted by the Town and those with fewer repair needed. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue this item to a future Council Meeting and to direct the staff to provide the additional information requested. 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES. SUB -COMMITTEES, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES 7.1 Community Relations Committee 7.1.1 Presentation by Roger Burnell of the Web Page and recommendation for change in agenda format Roger Burnell, Chairman of the Community Relations Committee, gave a presentation to the Council on the web page being prepared for the Town. This project was being worked on with the Town Crier. The web page contained such items as Council agendas and minutes, Planning Commission agendas and minutes, rosters and general information on the Town. Concerning the general information, most of which was taken from the Town's Handbook, Mr. Burnell stated that he would provide Council with copies of the proposed information for their approval. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To change the format of the Council agenda as follows: Replace the statement 'Please Note: Presentations from the Floor and Public Hearings are scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m: with "Presentations from the floor and public hearings are scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m. The agenda will be interrupted at 7:00 p.m., or after completion of any agendized item then under discussion, and the floor will be opened for public comments and the scheduled public hearings. When these are completed, the formal agenda will be resumed at the point of departure." 8. STAFF REPORTS 8.1 City Manager �w November 20, 1996 Regular City Council Meeting 8.1.1. Los Altos Garbage Company The City Manager reported that Bill Jones, the new General Manager of the LosAltos Garbage Company, had met with the two Councilmembers on the Solid Waste Subcommittee (Sid Hubbard and Elayne Dauber). In addition a meeting of the subcommittee, staff and Mr. Jones was scheduled for next week. 8.2 City Attorney 8.2.1 Voting Process The City Attorney reviewed the voting process as outlined in the Town's Code. 8.3 City Clerk 8.3.1 Report on Council Correspondence Council referred to the letter from Foothill College concerning a meeting scheduled for January to discuss issues of community interest. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To agree that the Mayor would represent the Town at the January meeting at Foothill College to discuss issues of community interest. Concerning the letter from Dr. Cervenka concerning a 'hidden driveway' sign, it was noted that this was located in the County and she would be so notified. Regarding the letter from Stephen Pahl concerning his dispute with a false alarm charge, it was agreed the Mayor would discuss this matter with the City Manager during the agenda setting meeting. 8.3.2 November 5,19% General Election The City Clerk reported that the certified election results should be available the second or third of December. The seating of the newly elected Councilmembers was scheduled for the December 4, 1996 City Council Meeting. 9. COUNCIL -INITIATED ITEMS 9.1 Fire Protection (Councilmember Siegel) �w November 20, 1996 Regular City Council Meeting Siegel reported that the Los Altos City Council, on a 3-2 vote, had agreed to go with Central Fire District for fire protection. This option had been recommended by the Los Altos County Fire Protection District as the better option for increased fire protection. 9.2 Proposed Changes to Planning Policies and Ordinances " PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To agendize the issue of how to proceed with the review process for the proposed changes to planning policies and ordinances for the next Council Meeting. 10. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Mr. and Mrs. Albert Augustine, 24752 Olive Tree Lane, showed pictures of their street to reinforce their opinion that the street was quite messy because of the trees. Olive Tree Lane was a private street but they believed it should be public and the Town should trim the trees. Council explained that they would need to get the agreement from the other owner/s on Olive Tree Lane to pursue the change to a public street. Also, Council pointed out that even if it were a public street, it was highly unlikely the crew would clean the street. The Town had such a small crew that this would be very low on the priority list. Greg McCandless, 26777 Alamden Court, referred to the public/private road issue and noted that the Town had been maintaining private streets for decades, some even prior to incorporation of the Town. As an example of this, Almaden Court was resurfaced five years ago. Mr. McCandless had submitted a petitition to Council from all of the residents on Almaden Court requesting that it be named a public street. He further urged that this steet which meets public standards and requires no title searches, be reviewed before other streets with problems such as complicated easement issues. Stephanie Munoz, 13460 Robleda, expressed her opinion that it was unfair of the Town to require private streets to be thru streets but not to maintain them. She further referred to a letter she had submitted on planning issues but she understood it was received too late to be considered during this joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commission. 11. POINT MEETING: CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION A. Roles and Relationship of Council, Planning Commission and Staff 1. City Council 2. Planning Commission 3. Staff wr November 20, 1996 Regular City Council Meeting The City Manager presented an overview of the roles of the Council, Planning Commission and staff. In particular, he noted that although different views are expressed during Council discussions on policy issues, the majority vote of Council on an issue ultimately provides the Planning Commission and staff with direction. Councilmembers and Commissioners discussed in general their roles, noting that several specific issues would be addressed in the following discussion on procedural issues. Commissioner Schreiner suggested the following issues be addressed: the Planning Commissioners' relationships with each other at their meetings and the Chairman's handling of these relationships. Commissioner Stutz referred to the role of the Planning Commission Chair. She particularly noted that the Chairman was only to vote to break a tie. Also, Stutz commented that the Chairman should never let the audience get out of hand. Councilmember Johnson stated that according to Robert's Rules of Order, the Chairman and/or Mayor was only supposed to vote to break a tie. However, he recommended that the current practice in the Town of the Chairman and/or Mayor voting on all issues be continued. B. Procedural Issues I. Council involvement at Planning Commission hearings 2. Commission involvement at Council hearings (including Planning Commission reports) L 3. Voting procedures 14W 4. Visiting sites and contact with applicants 5. Interaction with applicants/public at hearings 6. Attendance at meetings The City Attorney stated that Councilmembers should not speak at Planning Commission Meetings. If present, they should have an observer's role. The City Attorney further commented that Planning Commissioners should not speak at Council Meetings as Planning Commissioners. If they wanted, they could identify themselves as a resident and speak to an application. Hubbard raised the issue of appearance in both of these cases. He thought it inappropriate for Councilmembers to sit with or have any contact with applicants during Planning Commission Meetings. He also thought Commissioners should be judicious in their approach when speaking at the Council Meetings. Casey did not think it was appropriate for the Commissioners to speak to applications at Council Meetings. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that sometimes Council was seeing applications that were totally different from those seen by the Commission. Dauber believed that Council should be seeing the exact same application as Planning Commission. She also raised the issue of an applicant getting approval at the Planning Commission and then appealing to the Council to get approval of a different set of conditions. This issue should be carefully reviewed by Council at a future meeting. �4w November 20, 1996 Regular City Council Meeting PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To agree that the Planning Director would give the report from the Planning Commission Meetings rather than a Planning Commissioner. This report would be oral. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To state that Councilmembers shall not speak nor sit with applicants at Planning Commission Meetings. Concerning voting procedures, the City Attorney stated that it was important for the Chairman/Mayor to vote; however, their opinions on an application should be given last. Roll Call Votes were not required unless taxes were involved. Voice votes could be used instead. If members were not quite ready to vote on an issue, they could ask the chair for more discussion on the subject. On the subject of visiting sites and contact with applicants, the City Attorney stated that Councils make two types of decisions: legislative and quasi-judicial. Quasi- judicial proceedings are ones in which the Council determines the application of an ordinance or statute to a specific set of existing facts, such as in subdivision map, variance and use permit applications. Legislative actions are the actual formulations of ordinances or statutes, such as zoning or general plan amendments. Disclosures should be made by Councilmembers and Commissioners during the public hearing process but after it is closed to the public. Disclosures should include notations of visiting the site as well as all information received during such visits. The City Attorney further noted that all evidence should be heard before decisions are made. Regarding interaction with applicants/ public at hearings, the City Attorney commented that the public hearings should be opened and closed with no dialogue among the Council or Commission; however, questions could be asked of the applicant. Dauber stated her opinion that Council should not discuss a project with an applicant until the planning process had been completed. The issue of appeal costs was discussed. Casey and Stutz did not think there should be appeal costs for applicants. Dauber recommended that if Council overturned a Planning Commission decision, it should be required of the Council to provide a written statement of the reasons for their changes to the Planning Commission so that the Commissioners would understand why the changes were made. Councilmembers disagreed with this suggestion noting that the reasons were included in the minutes of the Council Meeting. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: If an applicant approaches a Councilmember regarding their project before they have completed the planning process, the Councilmember should tell the applicant that he/she should complete the planning process before any discussions are undertaken. At no time should a project be discussed with the applicant before it is voted upon by the Planning Commission. However, it would be appropriate to discuss with the applicant their method of presentation. 1/ November 20, 1996 Regular City Council Meeting PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To agree that there shall be no public criticism at Planning Commission and City Council Meetings. Also, to understand that different philosophies do not represent a split on the Council or Commission. A good cross section of opinions can be educational and helpful when reviewing an application. Council discussed the issue of whether or not they should attend Planning Commission Meetings. Siegel noted that at one time the Council had a regular schedule for attending Planning Commission Meetings and this method could be undertaken again. Johnson suggested that if Council went to the Commission meetings they sit in the back of the room and there be no regular schedule. Dauber thought it important to attend so that Councilmembers could better understand the trends and issues being discussed at the Commission Meetings. Hubbard thought Councilmembers could be interested in certain issues in which case it should be appropriate for them to attend but he did not support a regular schedule. Casey believed it was the responsibility of the Council to evaluate the Planning Commission. To achieve this goal, she agreed with the approach that a regular schedule could be followed as well as the approach that a Councilmember could attend those meetings which were of special interest. Commissioner Stutz commented that if a Councilmember wanted to know how a Planning Commission Meeting went, they could listen to the tape of the meeting. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To agendize the following items for Council discussion: 1) Issue of Councilmembers attending Planning Commission Meetings; 2) Discussion of criteria for appeals; 3) Issue of Council reviewing the same application as seen by the Planning Commission; 4) Issue of Planning Commission obtaining applicant's approval of the conditions of approval before approving a project. Due to the hour, it was agreed to discuss Items C and D at a future joint meeting. C. Site Development/Design Review 1. Site Development review - grading, siting, driveways, landscaping, outdoor lighting, etc. 2. Design review - height, mass, color, materials, architectural features (windows, eaves, skylights, etc.) 3. Reliance on Codes and Design Guidelines 4. Visibility of Structures D. Topics for Future Discussion 12. PUBLIC HEARINGS November 20, 1996 Regular City Council Meeting %, 13. ADIOURNMENT There being no further new or old business to discuss, the City Council Meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. /Respectfully submitted, Patricia Dowd City Clerk The minutes of the November 20, 1996 City Council Meeting were approved at the December 4, 1996 City Council Meeting. November 20, 1996 Regular City Council Meeting 10