HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/1992 Minutes of a Regular Meeting
February 5, 1992
Town of Los Altos Hills
City Council Meeting
Wednesday, February 5, 1992, 7:15 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 7:20
p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall.
Present: Mayor Hubbard and Councilmembers Casey (arrived at
7:30 pm.), Siegel and Tryon
Absent: Councilmember Johnson
Staff: City Manager Les M. Jones II; City Attorney Sandy Sloan;
Engineering Consultant Jeff Peterson; Town Planner Linda
Niles and City Clerk Pat Dowd
Press: Don Brignolo, San Jose Mercury
2. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
3. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items Removed: 4.1 - December 18 minutes (Hubbard) and 4.3 (Siegel).
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Hubbard, seconded by Siegel and
passed unanimously by all members present to approve the balance of the Consent
Calendar, specifically:
4.1 Approval of Minutes: January 15, 1992 (Regular Meeting)
4.2 Approval of Warrants: $137,422.03 (1/20/92)
4.4 Certificate of Appreciation: Philip Dauber -- Pathways, Recreation
and Parks Committee
February 5, 1992
1
4.5 Proclamation: Vietnamese Community Week -- February 2-9, 1992
Ihrt
Items Removed:
4.1 Approval of Minutes: December 18, 1991 (Regular Meeting)
Hubbard noted that on page nine the motion should read 'motion seconded and
failed - not carried'. In addition Tryon asked that her statements be included as to
why she did not vote in favor of Lands of Forward.
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue the December 18, 1992 minutes to the next
Council Meeting to allow the Clerk the opportunity to include Tryon's comments.
4.3 Granting of Easement to Purissima Hills County Water District,
Rhus Ridge Property -- Reso #__
Siegel asked about the restoration of the path if this easement were granted.
Dan Alexander, President - Purissima Water District, noted that they were simply
putting in a pipe and the path would be restored.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Hubbard and
passed unanimously by all members present to adopt Resolution #1-92 approving
(kW
grant of easement to Purissima Hills Water District.
fit,' 5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Roger Burnell, member - Community Relations Committee, reported that they
were planning the first annual Spring in the Hills party to be held in May at the
Fremont Hills County Club. He noted that this party was for everyone in the
Town but new residents in Town would have an earlier opportunity to register
for the event. He had an advance flyer for the Council's review and he
commented on the food, entertainment, publicity and budget. Regarding the
budget he asked Council for $1,000 to help with the expenses of the event.
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To move forward on the agenda the item on
Reports from Committees so that Mr. Burnell's request for funding could be
considered at this point in the meeting.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Tryon
and passed unanimously by all members present to endorse the Spring in the
Hills event and to ask the City Manager to return with a budget transfer and
information on the liability issue.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
February 5, 1992
2
411W 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7.1 Approval of Wording of Advisory Ballot on Fire Retardant Roofing
for the June 2, 1992 Municipal Election
Council had two drafts before them on the wording for the advisory ballot and
agreed on the following in concept :
"Should the City Council adopt an ordinance which would require a
minimum fire-retardant roof classification of B on all new construction
and reroofing of existing structures?
Fire-retardancy roof classifications are those adopted by the International
Conference of Building Officials.
Examples of Class A roofs are: steel, cement-fiber, concrete or clay rile and
asphalt/fiberglass shingles.
Examples of Class B roofs are: steel tiles and some approved pressure-treated
cedar shakes."
Council did agree, however, that the wording should be elaborated upon,
including in part definitions from the Uniform Building Code. Siegel also
suggested directing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance at this time
on fire-retardant roofing so that as soon as the advisory vote was taken it
would be ready for adoption.
Bob Burns, Committee for Firesafe Roofing, commented on which cities in the
area had Class B roofing (a partial list included Cupertino, Saratoga, Gilroy,
Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Saratoga and Morgan Hill) and which cities would
probably have it in the near future (Portola Valley and Woodside). Mr.
Burns also noted that Millbrae required a Class A roof.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Tryon, seconded by Hubbard
and passed unanimously by all members present to direct the City
Attorney to prepare a proposed ordinance on fire-retardant roofing; to
state that the Council would submit the argument in favor of the advisory
vote with the wording to be agreed upon at the next Council Meeting and,
if all parties agree, the argument would be signed by the City Council, the
Fire Chief and the Fire Commission; and to choose the following draft for
the advisory ballot with the final wording to be agreed upon at the next
Council Meeting:
February 5, 1992
3
"Should the City Council adopt an ordinance which would require a
,{`, minimum fire-retardant roof classification of B on all new construction
and reroofing of existing structures?
Fire-retardancy roof classifications are those adopted by the International
Conference of Building Officials.
Examples of Class A roofs are: steel, cement-fiber, concrete or clay tile and
asphalt/fiberglass shingles.
Examples of Class B roofs are: steel tiles and some approved pressure-treated
cedar shakes."
8. NEW BUSINESS
8.1 Lands of Bellucci -- Adobe Creek Estates -- Moody Road
a) Request that Town Approve Site Development Design and
Issuance of Building Permits Prior to Acceptance of Project
Improvements
b) Request for Clarification of the Conditions of Approval of the
Tentative Map
The Consulting Engineer referred to his staff report dated 2/5/92 and noted that
the conditions of approval had not been met on the Bellucci Subdivision
4111ir and the applicant had requested staff to allow the design process to
proceed. As staff was not authorized to do this, the request was before
Council. Mr. Peterson addressed his recommendation that gravity drains
be installed in the area of the old landslide deposit prior to continuation of
the site development process of all affected lots.
Bill Kull, applicant's civil engineer, stated that all four lots had gone thru site
analysis and they were never advised that the site development process
would be put on hold. One of the lots was sold and three were in escrow.
Mr. Kull commented on the schedule of improvements, noting that they
were 80% completed. He referred to the creek improvements, the bridge
and the lot grading for the lot pads and stated that they would be
completed within the next two months. Mr. Kull did not believe that the
geologic concerns raised by Mr. Cotton's office were realistic since from
their work with two other geologists, the landslide did not prove any
additional threat. According to Mr. Kull, Mr. Cotton's office had said that
mitigation measures may not be necessary if their reports were found to be
correct. For these reasons they had not pursued the geologic issues but
February 5, 1992
4
they should be resolved in about a month. Mr. Kull reiterated their request
411W that they be permitted to proceed through the building permit process
while these improvements were being worked on to prevent additional
delay. Mr. Kull also noted that they needed direction on the conditions of
approval. There were conflicting conditions regarding the creek
improvements with Santa Clara Valley Water District requiring an 800'
section of the creek with 1/4 ton rock (about 20,000 boulders). However
they had had a report done by Nancy Hardesty on protecting the creek with
natural vegetation and they believed the creek as designed would handle
the 100 year storm. They were not planning on changing the design of the
creek but rather the armoring of the creek. He further noted that the
owners of the lots would be able to get flood insurance if the condition
from the Santa Clara Valley Water District was not met and he referred to
a three-year maintenance agreement and an additional bond. Mr. Kull
noted that the plans had been approved for the Francemont Bridge and
they needed a permit to construct during the rainy period. In the
meantime a temporary access easement had been created. Regarding
sewer improvements, Mr. Kull stated that they were completed.
Council discussed several issues which had been raised. Tryon stated that she
did not believe anyone had wanted a 20,000 rock lined creek as
recommended by the Water District. She did believe more input was
needed and stated that it would have been very helpful if someone from
4IW the Santa Clara Valley Water District had been present to explain their
position. She also believed there should be full disclosure to the
purchasers of the lots. Siegel did not support any construction on the site
until the Francement Bridge was in. He further believed the site
development process could proceed with a disclosure from the applicant
that the lots might change. Building permits would not be issued until
certain conditions were met. Siegel did not support the Santa Clara Valley
Water District's design for the creek and noted that the Council should see
the report done by Nancy Hardesty and Associates. Casey concurred with
Siegel's comments about the creek improvements. Hubbard raised the
question of bonding and the Consulting Engineer responded that the
project was 100% bonded.
The Consulting Engineer noted that if any changes were made to the creek
channel it would have to be looked at again and since the channel was
under construction, the rains were a real concern. He also stated that it
was important to find out from the Santa Clara Valley District ahead of
time what would happen if their design was not done. The tradeoff was
between protection and aesthetics.
February 5, 1992
5
iby
David Bellucci, applicant, commented on the creek improvements and the
recommendation for armoring the creek from the Santa Clara Valley
District. While he was not in favor of this alternative, he noted that if he
was going to incur great delays while this matter was being discussed, he
would proceed with their recommendation.
Jean Struthers, 13690 Robleda, did not support turning the creek over to the
Santa Clara Valley Water District. She believed the District wanted access
to the creek with their vehicles which was not appropriate and the
property was not such a risk that the Town had to do what the District was
recommending which was not an attractive alternative. Mrs. Struthers
also suggested that the Environmental Design and Protection Committee
review the creek plans.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Tryon
and passed unanimously by all members present to advise the applicant
that the site development process for all of the lots on the Lands of
Bellucci could proceed but no building permits would be issued until
certain of the conditions as expressed in the conditions of the subdivision
approval were met. In addition a complete disclosure would be made by
the owner of the lots to potential purchasers.
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To agree that the Council was not in favor of the
creek design as proposed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and to
advise the applicant that he could apply to the Planning Commission for a
change in the conditions of approval, with new filing fees waived.
8.2 Request for General Plan Conformance and Continguity/Annexation
Statement, Lands of Adams, 24460 Summerhill Avenue
Council had before them the Town Planner's staff report dated 2/5/92 which
noted that a request had been received from the County for review by the
Council to determine if the proposal to subdivide a parcel of 1.75 net acres
into 2 lots of less than one acre each was in conformance with the Town's
General Plan and whether the Town would request that the property be
annexed to the Town since it was directly adjacent to the Town's boundary
and within the Town's Urban Service Area.
Mark Costello, applicant's representative, referred to his letter to the Council
(on file at Town Hall) in which he noted that his parcel's gross acreage was
actually 2.116 acres and not the 1.956 gross acres previously recorded. He
Ir February 5, 1992
6
` also referenced other lots in the area which were less than one acre and stated
that he intended to apply for three lots in the County if the Town did not
approve the subdivision.
The Town Planner noted that the 2.116 figure was gross acreage which included
the access. The Town did not include the access in their figures.
Siegel discussed the annexation procedure and noted that the other lots in the
particular County area under discussion were one acre. He believed to
allow this lot to split would be an exception. Siegel did not believe the
County should allow the subdivision of this lot and the Town should
annex it. Tryon noted that there were standards of development which
needed to be met. Casey inquired about the counting of access easements
toward development area.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Hubbard
and passed unanimously by all members present to recommend that the
property be annexed to the Town; that it be determined that the proposed
subdivision within the Town's Urban Service Area was not in
conformance with the Town of Los Altos Hills General Plan; and that the
subdivision be denied and the property be required to develop in
conformance with the Town's Subdivision, Zoning and Site Development
Ordinances.
8.3 Ordinance # Amending Chapter 1 (Building Code), Title 8
(Building Regulations) To Require Fences Around Swimming Pools
Hubbard reiterated his concerns about not requiring fencing around pools. He
believed unprotected pools presented a real public hazard. Casey asked
what notification had been given to the public regarding this proposed
ordinance and she believed it was premature to discuss this at this time.
Tryon supported the ordinance in principle but believed sections needed
to be changed. Siegel suggested that during the site development process a
fence could be required for pools in certain areas, such as near a path.
Siegel also suggested that the ordinance include requiring the use of pool
water for fighting fires.
Elayne Dauber, 27930 Roble Alto, stated that she was not in support of the
proposed fence ordinance. She did not believe it was in accordance with
the philosophy of the Town (openness).
Max Osborne, Jr., 26050 Torello Lane, stated that he was a pool owner and he
had a pool cover which was strong enough for him and his grandchildren
to stand on.
February 5, 1992
7
Council agreed to continue this matter for further discussion, review by the
Safety Committee, opportunity for input from residents and scheduling of
a public hearing when it is heard again by the Council.
8.4 Request for Support of a Suggested Process as Proposed by the Tri-Valley
Council to Attempt Development of a Bay Area Cities Position on
Regional Governance
Siegel presented a brief report on the issue of regional government which was
in a state of flux. A committee comprised of three members each of the
Congestion Management Agency, Intergovernmental Council and the
Santa Clara County Cities Association had met to discuss the subject and a
draft for final amendments to be presented to the Bay Vision Commission
should be available later in the month. Siegel commented on the issue of
proportional representation and subregional organization. Concerning
costs, he noted that the Congestion Management Agency believed that the
Federal Transportation Act might pay for this kind of planning.
Tryon stated that a lot of time was being spent on the issue of regional
govenment and nothing else was getting done. She did not think that it
was necessarily bad that big business and environmental groups were at
time dissatisfied with local government. She believed it was time to get
back to business. Hubbard believed it was good to refine the bill but
` questioned whether it was a justifiable venture. Was what was in place
not working? Casey suggested that Senator Morgan or someone from her
office be invited to speak to the Council on this issue and Council
concurred with this suggestion.
No action was taken by the Council on this item.
9. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
10. STAFF REPORTS
10.1 City Manager
10.2 City Attorney
10.3 City Clerk
10.3a Report on Council Correspondence
February 5, 1992
8
thir
11. COUNCIL-INITIATED ITEMS
11.1 Aids in Reviewing New Residences -- Request for Adoption of
Procedure (Councilmember Siegel)
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Tryon, seconded by Siegel and
passed unanimously by all members present to adopt the following policy regarding
applications for new homes:
"To assist the Planning Commission, City Council, Town staff and the public
in review of your proposal, we request that you delineate the footprint of all
new structures on the site ten days in advance of the public hearing. Story or
height poles which identify the maximum height of the structure at
prominent locations must also be installed at that time. Those trees which
will be removed should be marked. If you have any questions about this
procedure, please contact Town staff for assistance."
11.2 Spirit of the Hills (Councilmember Siegel)
Siegel requested the Council to authorize including an article in the Town
Newsletter on the Spirit of the Hills event scheduled for the fall. He believed this
was an important social and charity fundraising event for residents of the Town.
Tryon commented that although she thought this was a wonderful event, there was
a policy against including private groups' events in the newsletter. As there were so
many charitable events in the Town, it would be difficult to decide which ones
should be included. Hubbard concurred with Tryon. Casey noted that only
residents of the Town were invited to attend the Spirit of the Hills Event.
Council took no action on this request.
11.3 Discussion of Earlier Council Meetings and No Council Meetings
Going Past the Hour of 11:00 p.m. (Councilmember Casey)
This item was continued to the next Council Meeting.
11.4 Request for Appointment of a Council Sub-Committee on
Architectural Control (Councilmember Casey)
This item was continued to the next Council Meeting.
` February 5, 1992
9
11.5 Breakfast Meeting with Don Phillips, Mountain View High School District
Board and the Councils of Los Altos, Mountain View and the Town
Tryon noted that this was a general meeting with an open agenda for discussion
purposes.
11.6 Gold Card Program
Tryon reported that several new businesses had agreed to participate in the Gold
Card Program and students from Los Altos, Mountain View and Pinewood were
joining the program. Tryon especially commended the work of Ami Mills at the
Los Altos Recreation Center for her work on the program's option of doing
community service instead of academic achievement to obtain a Gold Card.
11.7 Request for Council Sub-Committee
Casey noted that she had met with Drew Anderson and David Yewell to discuss
methods of communication in the Town and they had another meeting scheduled
for the end of March. She asked if Council would appoint her a sub-committee of
the Council to pursue these discussions. Tryon noted that this was one of the
', charges of the Community Relations Committee and this committee should not be
bypassed. Hubbard suggested making a presentation before the Community
Relations Committee. Casey noted that she did not want to have these initial
discussions include a lot of people but she did want Council to be aware she was
meeting with Drew Anderson and David Yewell to discuss areas of concern
regarding communication.
11.8 Closed Session - February 19, 1992
Hubbard noted that he had some information which he would be distributing for
the Closed Session scheduled for February 19th.
11.9 Yard Waste Site
Casey referred to a letter from a resident concerning not being able to have her
gardener take yard waste to the site on Purissima. She did not agree with this policy
and believed there should be other methods available to keep track of who used the
yard waste site. Hubbard noted that negotiations were underway regarding curbside
recycling. Tryon reiterated her belief that there should be controls to allow residents
to send others to the yard waste site.
February 5, 1992
10
Council agreed to ask the City Manager to report back on the yard waste site
including overruns and to ask Jon Angin of the Los Altos Garbage Company to be
present when this is discussed.
11.9 League of California Cities Conference on Growth Management
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To authorize attendance by any Councilmember at the
League of California Cities Conference on Growth Management scheduled for
February 20-21 in Sacramento.
12. CLOSED SESSION: PENDING LITIGATION: PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54956.9(a)
The City Council adjourned to a Closed Session for purposes of pending litigation at
10:35 p. m. and reconvened at 10:50 p.m.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further new or old business to discuss, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:50 p.m. to an Adjourned Regular Meeting at 6:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, February 19, 1992.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia Dowd
City Clerk
The minutes of the February 5, 1992 City Council Meeting were approved at
the February 19, 1992 Regular City Council meeting.
February 5, 1992
11