Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/1991 (2) 01, Minutes of a Regular Meeting March 6, 1991 Town of Los Altos Hills City Council Meeting Wednesday, March 6, 1991, 7:15 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road 1. CALL TO ORDER,ROLL CALL, AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Siegel called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 7:20 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers Casey, Johnson, Hubbard and Tryon. Absent: None Staff: Acting City Manager Richard DeLong, City Attorney Sandy Sloan; Director of Public Works Bill Ekern; Planning Consultant Margaret Netto and City Clerk Pat Dowd Press: Cristal Borlik, Los Altos Town Crier; Mary Fortney, Peninsula Times Tribune MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Tryon, seconded by Siegel and passed unanimously to add the Report on the Byrne Preserve Walk-Around from the Adjourned Council Meeting held at 6:00 p.m. to this agenda. 2. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 2.1 Report on the Byrne Preserve Walk-Around Casey reported that she, Councilmember Johnson and Barrie Freeman had conducted a walk-around of Byrne Preserve at which time Mr. Freeman had pointed out his concerns. Barrie Freeman, 26922 Dezahara Way, noted that his criteria for the paths and the Town's were not aligned. There seemed to be a difference of opinion. He believed the paths should be as simple and easily maintained as possible. He also noted that Byrne Preserve was mostly used by equestrians and also expressed his concern about a tree house that had been built on the preserve. Mr. Freeman stated that he would be willing to go on another walk-around and was willing to work with the Pathways, Recreation and Parks Committee on these concerns. filar March 6, 1991 1 Johnson commented that Barrie Freeman went on the walk around as an equestrian and Casey went on it as a pedestrian. He noted that it was a question of an allocation of funds and commented that if a tree fell down on a path it should be removed but if it fell off a path then it should be left alone. Johnson also noted that there was a fence on Altamont which needed some money spent on it to fix it. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To state that it was not an individual resident's responsibility to correct problems and maintain the Town's paths on other residents' property. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT Commissioner Noel reported that the following public hearings were held at the 2/27/91 Planning Commission Meeting: 1) Lands of Wheatley, 26644 Purissima Road, request for a variance to allow a secondary unit to exceed the 1,000 square foot limitation of the zoning code - denied; and 2) Lands of Sun, 12444 Robleda Road, appeal of the Site Development Committee's approval of a driveway - denied. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Items Removed: 4.1 - February 20, 1991 Regular Meeting Minutes (Tryon) and 4.5 (Tryon) MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Johnson, seconded by Tryon and passed unanimously to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar, specifically: 4.1 Approved Minutes: February 6, 1991 (Regular Meeting) February 20, 1991 (Special Meeting) 4.2 Approved Warrants: $51,112.23 (2/28/91) $38,756.52 (3/1/91) 4.3 Rescinded Resolution #7-86 and Accepted Dedication of Right of Way of a Portion of Three Forks Lane from Lands of Raf fin -- Reso #10-91 4.4 Proclaimed - Week of the Young Child - April 7-13, 1991 Items Removed: 4.1 Approval of Minutes: February 20, 1991 Regular Meeting 11111, March 6, 1991 2 PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue approval of the February 20, 1991 minutes iir to the next meeting to allow for corrections to be made to several sections particularly regarding the issue of cable tv. 4.5 Appropriation of Funds from Unallocated Reserves for City Engineer to Develop Plans and Specifications for Taaffe Road Improvements Tryon asked why existing aerials could not be used for this project and Siegel inquired how this was being looked at budget wise - would the street budget be increasing? Casey asked if it was an approved capital project and stated that she would like to see three bids. The Director of Public Works stated that the improvements to Taaffe Road were in last year's budget. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Tryon, seconded by Hubbard and passed unanimously to appropriate $65,000 from unallocated reserves for City Engineer to develop plans and specifications for Taaffe Road improvements. 5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Judy Carico, 25311 O'Keefe, noted that she used to be a member of the Pathways, Recreation and Parks Committee and commented that the Fire Department used to ask the Town to dear dead trees. kir 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1 Request to Vacate Conservation Easement, Lands of Eshner, Tract 4897 -- Reso # Councilmembers made the following disclosures regarding the Lands of Eshner. Johnson read the following statemente into the record: "On March 4, 1991, I attended a meeting at the home of Mr. David Packard. I was invited to the meeting by Mr. Packard. Other persons present were some Packard family members, several of Mr. Packard's personal advisors, directors of the Packard Foundation, Mr. Richard McGowen, the City Manager, the Director of Public Works and another Councilmember. Councilmember Casey was present at the beginning of the meeting, but after Councilmember Tryon arrived, Casey departed, specifically to avoid a conflict with the Brown Act. Ms. Casey was present for only a few minutes of the meeting, and no substantial matters were presented while she was still there. Mr. Packard stated that the purpose of the meeting was to brief Councilmembers on the status of current planning for the dedication of a large part of this 87-acre estate, for the enjoyment and educational benefit of future generations of residents and visitors of Los Altos Hills. Mr. March 6, 1991 3 McGowen was present because there was a connection between this Ahr planning and the disposal of the Eshner estate. Mr. Packard gave attendeees a memordandum (on file at Town Hall) relating to the status of planning for his own estate. In the memorandum, Mr. Packard stated: 'It is the intention of the Trustees to take the necessary steps to implement these plans.' During the meeting, no undertakings were made to Mr. Packard by Councilmembers or Town staff." Casey stated that she had met with several of the neighbors including the Hortons, who had no objection to the vacation of the conservation easement, and Mr. Packard who had submitted the memorandum regarding his property as referenced by Johnson. One half of the Eshner estate was going to Childrens Hospital of which Mr. Packard was a major supporter. Hubbard stated that he had also met with Mr. Packard and the points of the meeting were well covered in Mr. Packard's memorandum which was a part of the public record. Tryon stated that she had received a call from Mr. Packard's office requesting her attendance at the meeting under discussion. She questioned the purpose of the meeting and was surprised that more than two Councilmembers were present. She was also surprised that Mr. McCowen was there. This was an unexpected linkage between the Eshner and Packard properties. Johnson noted that he also had been concerned about the meeting and upon calling the City Attorney was advised that they could not have a quorum at the meeting. Casey commented that she too had spoken with the City Attorney but apparently there had been a misunderstanding. She understood that if it was strictly an informational meeting, the Council could all be present. • Council had before them the Director of Public Work's staff report which included the recommendation that Council require an environmental impact report prior to the vacation of the conservation easement. Richard McGowen, attorney representing the Eshner estate, gave a brief history of the Eshner property, including an overview of the original 1971 subdivision of the Eshner property and an explanation for the conservation easement which was to protect the view of the Eshner's home. Mr. McGowen commented on the benefit to the public at large of the conservation easement as well as what benefit there might be for those in the subdivision. He also commented on the impact on those who lived on Julietta Lane. He believed the crucial issue was the acceptance of the conservation easement. They had revoked the easement because they owned it. In his opinion, the Streets and Highways Code did not apply to conservation easements. Mr. McGowen also referred to the March 5, 1991 letter to the Town from David Packard. In this letter Mr. Packard states his support of the vacation of the Ilie March 6, 1991 4 conservation easement on Lands of Eshner and also refers to his plans for 11110 his property (87.18 acres in the Town). Mr. Packard states his desire that the Packard property remain essentially in its present undeveloped state and notes the formation of the Packard Conservation Foundation for the express purpose of owning and administering open space lands and of holding conservation easements. In conclusion Mr. Packard states: ". . . if, despite my goal to preserve the open space land as described above, the Foundation should decide to sell the property and use the proceeds to fund other charitable programs, nevertheless, I am sure that two acres or more would be set aside as a conservation easement for open space purposes so that the elimination of the Eshner conservation easement of approximately 1.939 acres would not deprive the Town or its residents or the public of the benefit of such open space." Mr. McGowen commented on the friendship over the years between the Packards and Eshners and also noted their mutual interest in and support of Childrens' Hospital at Stanford. If the conservation easement was vacated and the Eshner subdivision was approved, Childrens' Hospital would financially benefit. Mr. McGowen commented on the offer by Mr. Packard of approximately 70 acres of open space versus two acres of conservation easement. If Mr. Packard did indeed ultimately subdivide into 35 acres, Altamont Road would become a freeway. He also stated that he had received the authority from Mr. Packard to address the Council on these issues. Dot Schreiner, Chairman - Pathways, Recreation and Parks Committee, commented that there were far-reaching effects to the decision regarding abandonment of the conservation easement and she believed this action would be setting a dangerous precedent. She referred to the original 1971 subdivision of the property and referred to the following sections of the agreement and covenants running with the land: " . . . .Whereas this agreement is executed by the Eshners in consideration of the formation by the Town of a sewer assessment district. . . .and that said property will not be divided into more than 16 building sites. . . ." Mrs. Schreiner asked that the conservation easement not be vacated. Carol Gottlieb, Member - Pathways, Recreation and Parks Committee, commented on the conservation easement noting that it protected the view from the Eshner home and fit in with the scenic road element of the Town's General Plan. She noted that this was a very visible area of the Town and the conservation easement was given in consideration of the establishment of a sewer district. Mrs. Gottlieb questioned the Town being asked to donate to Childrens' Hospital with taxpayers' money. She noted that there were special characteristics about this open space and urged Council not to vacate the conservation easement until a sound subdivision was in place. 7 March 6, 1991 5 Fran Stevenson, 26989 Beaver Lane, reiterated the comments made by Dot 161 Schreiner concerning the precedent setting nature of this decision. She noted that the Town did not have architectural control and very little design control. Mrs. McGowen, Julietta Lane, commented that there were five nieces and nephews involved in this estate and they would appreciate Council making a decision regarding this request for vacation of the conservation easement. James Jackson, representing Hilda Wong & Associates, commented that when his dient purchased the land she had not been aware there was a conservation easement as it was not shown on the owner's certificate. At this time, Mr. Jackson suggested that if the Council determined that an environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration was needed that it be added to the environmental impact report already being done on the proposed subdivision. Richard McGowen, attorney representing the Eshner estate, noted that the style and design of the homes in the subdivision, particularly along Altamont Road, could be restricted by the Town. He further noted that if the conservation easement were removed there would be two additional sites but this should not be used as a tool of planning. He suggested clear cut removal of the conservation easement and then proceeding with the subdivision. Siegel commented on what a spectacular piece of land the Eshner estate was and of his concerns for the Altamont Road area. An environmental impact report would address all these concerns which included design of homes (single story?), traffic and street access. It may be that a conservation easement in another location would be better for the overall design of the project. Tryon noted that the conservation easement was not only for view protection but also for slope control. She also commented that it was a land use decision and not based on gifts to foundations, etc. Tryon further stated that one could not say it was a mitigated negative declaration when one did not know what the mitigating measures were, such as the specific acreage of Mr. Packard's property to be dedicated as a conservation easement. Hubbard noted his concerns about traffic, drainage, etc. but suggested that a significant mitigating measure to these concerns was the offer from David Packard. He believed conservation easements were important but also believed one conservation easement area could be traded for another. Shr March 6, 1991 6 illy Johnson commented on the merits of case before them. He noted the emotional appeal to consider helping Childrens' Hospital but they were being asked to do something contrary to the General Plan. It was a land use decision and should be decided based on the land use ordinances of the Town. A trade off had been presented between the Packard and Eshner properties but the letter from Mr. Packard was vague, complicated and there was no definition of where the two acres of conservation easement on his property might be. Casey concurred with Hubbard's comments. Whether or not the conservation easement was dedicated, it had been on the property strictly for the preservation of the view. The conservation easement could be placed elsewhere on the property where it would be more beneficial. Casey referred to Mr. Packard's strong indication of a valuable gift to the Town and his intention that Childrens' Hospital would benefit. Casey believed that with the following mitigating measures and Mr. Packard's letter the conservation easement should be vacated and the proposed subdivision carefully scrutinized: no guarantee of any number of lots; the environmental impact report being done on the property would include the conservation easement; and a guarantee from Mr. Packard that the Town would not lose any conservation easement - a specific parcel of land of two acres or more dedicated from Mr. Packard to the Town. The City Attorney noted options before Council: vacate or not vacate the conservation easement, approval of a mitigated negative declaration. She did note that the Town had no enforcement over Mr. Packard and recommended that the Town get the dedication of the two acres or more from Mr. Packard at this time in the event his future plans for open space did not materialize. Richard McGowen, attorney for the Eshner Estate, stated that he needed to know that the Council supported him and this was the only way it would work with the offer from Mr. Packard. He urged Council to vote favorably on the vacation of the conservation easement at this time. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND: Moved by Casey to approve the vacation of the conservation easement based on the following conditions: no guarantee of any number of lots; the environmental impact report being done on the property would include the conservation easement; and a guarantee from Mr. Packard that the Town would not lose any conservation easement - a specific parcel of land of two acres or more dedicated from Mr. Packard to the Town and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate resolution. March 6, 1991 7 MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Siegel and failed by the following roll call vote to adopt a mitigated negative declaration based on the findings that there is substantial evidence that there is no signficiant impact because an equivalent amount of conservation easement was being given to the Town, an environmental impact report was being done on the proposed subdivision and there was no guarantee of the number of lots. AYES: Mayor Pro Tern Hubbard and Councilmember Casey NOES: Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers Johnson and Tryon Tryon stated that she did not believe the conditions were adequate; the Town already had the authority to limit the number of lots. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Tryon, seconded by Johnson and passed by the following roll call vote to appoint a Council subcommittee of Johnson and Hubbard to meet with David Packard to identify an equivalent piece of property for his dedication of a conservation easement, to direct the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate documents and to continue this request for vacation of the conservation easement on Lands of Eshner and negative declaration to the April 3, 1991 Council Meeting AYES: Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers Johnson, Hubbard and Tryon NOES: Councilmember Casey MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Tryon, seconded by Johnson and passed unanimously to go past the 11:30 p.m. hour of adjournment. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7.1 Town Logo (Councilmember Casey) Casey reported that she had received comments from Siegel and Tryon on the options for a new Town logo. Tryon commented on the logo shown on the cover of Belmont's budget book and requested that this be given to Casey as an example of hillside applications.. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue this item to the April 3, 1991 Council Meeting and to encourage all Councilmembers to submit their comments to Casey by that meeting. 7.2 Clarification by Council of Policy on Payment of Costs Incurred By Town In Respect Of Permit Appeals (Councilmember Johnson) March 6, 1991 8 PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue this item to the April 3, 1991 Council Meeting. 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMM1 t l EES, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES 9.1 Pathways Recreation and Parks Committee: Request from Chairman Dot Schreiner that the Committee Be Increased from Seven to Nine Members MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Johnson and passed unanimously to increase the membership on the Pathways, Recreation and Parks Committee from seven to nine and to request that the chairmen of the committee review the charges of their committees. 9.2 Community Relations Committee Tryon thanked all those who worked on the recent Town newsletter and noted that the new zip code, 94024, was missing from the mailing list. It was agreed that the Los Altos Garbage Company would be asked for a copy of (kw their mailing list to use for future newsletters. fir' 9.3 Safety Committee Tryon thanked the Mayor for attending the last meeting of the Safety Committee on her behalf. It was also noted that the Safety Handbook had recently been sent to all the Emergency Coordinators and a meeting of the coordinators was scheduled for Tuesday, April 9, 1991 at Town Hall. 10. STAFF REPORTS 10.1 City Manager 10.2 City Attorney 10.2.1 Report on Appeal Process PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue this item to the April 3, 1991 Council Meeting. 11111, March 6, 1991 9 10.2.2 Report on Town's Jurisdiction Over Other Local Agencies In response to a request from Councilmember Tryon, the City Attorney prepared a report summarizing the law with regard to the Town's jurisdiction over other local agencies, particularly the Foothill Community College District and the Purissima Hills Water District. This report, dated 3/1/91, is on file at Town Hall. It was noted that the Town would play a role in the decision regarding the proposed new fire station. 10.3 City Clerk 10.3a Report on Council Correspondence dated March 1, 1991 PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To send a letter denying the request from the Arts Council of Santa Clara County for financial support for the Hands on the Arts Festival. 11. COUNCIL-INITIATED ITEMS 11.1 Method of Discussion of Site Development Ordinance in Relation lop11.1 City Council, Planning Commission and Staff Prerogatives Regarding Architectural Design (Councilmember Casey) (continued from last meeting) PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue this item to the April 3, 1991 Council Meeting. 11.2 Council Approval of the Amended Bylaws of the Santa Clara County Cities Asssociation (Councilmember Johnson) MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Tryon, seconded by Siegel and passed unanimously to approve the amended bylaws to the Santa Clara County Cities Association, noting that the group should be referred to as the Cities Association, not SCCCA. 11.3 Designation of the Byrne Preserve Path from Byrne Park Lane to Moody Road as the "Artemas Ginzton Path" (Mayor Siegel) MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Tryon, seconded by Hubbard and passed unanimously to: designate the Byrne Preserve path from Byrne Park Lane to Moody Road as the "Artemas Ginzton Path"; to direct the Director of Public Works to install appropriate March 6, 1991 10 path signs and to direct the Mayor to arrange an appropriate ceremony to dedicate the path after the signs have been installed (late April). 11.4 Possible Financial Contribution to Midpeninsula Support Network for Battered Women (Councilmember Tryon) PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To consider contributing to the Midpeninsula Support Network for Battered Women during this year's budget discussions and to request the Midpeninsula Support Network for Battered Women to provide a financial statement, budget and other appropriate materials for review at that time. 11.5 Cost Accounting Procedures as a Basis for Determination of our Fee Structure (Councilmember Casey) PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue this item to the April 3, 1991 Council Meeting. Councilmember Casey left the meeting at 11:45 p.m. 11.6 Santa Clara Valley Water District Tryon noted that she was substituting for Councilmember Johnson at the March 11th meeting of the water district. This was a particularly important meeting as lifestyle judgements were being made. The next meeting of the Purissima Hills Water District was scheduled for March 13, 1991. Tryon suggested agendizing for a future Council meeting the issue of long term planning regarding water issues, including emergency contingency plans, with the Purissima Hills Water District. 11.7 Santa Clara County Cities Association • Tryon reported that the next meeting of the Santa Clara County Cities Association was scheduled for March 14th at which time there would be a report on Bay Vision 2020 11.8 Mr. Timothy Sandis Tryon commended Town resident, Mr. Timothy Sandis, on his recent election as President of the Statewide organization, the California Council of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors. 7 March 6, 1991 11 11.9 Lands of Bellucd, Moody Road Tryon referred to a letter from the Director of Public Works to Mr. Bellucci regarding a stop work order placed on his removal of trees in an conservation easement. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further new or old business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at midnight. Respectfullyulsubmitted, .,.. Patricia Dowd City Clerk The minutes of the March 6, 1991 Regular City Council Meeting were approved at the April 17, 1991 Council Meeting. March 6, 1991 12