Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/04/1991 Minutes of a Regular Meeting 416. December 4, 1991 Town of Los Altos Hills City Council Meeting Wednesday,December 4 , 1991, 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, Johnson, Siegel and Tryon (arrived at 7:40 p.m.). Absent: None Staff: City Manager Les Jones, II; City Attorney Sandy Sloan; Director of Public Works Bill Ekern and City Clerk Pat Dowd Press: Don Brignolo, San Jose Mercury; Cristal Borlik, Los Altos Town ear Crier Mayor Hubbard reported that Bill Ekern had announced that he would be leaving the Town to begin employment with San Jose's Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Ekern had served as the Town's Director of Public Works for six and one half years and he was commended on his contributions to the Town. 2. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 3. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT 4. CONSENT CALENDAR 4.1 Request from the Chairman of the Pathways Recreation and Parks Committee to represent the Town at the December 10, 1991 Board of Supervisors Meeting regarding Santa Clara Trail Dedication Policy and a request that the Council send a letter in support of the Santa Clara Parks and Recreation document dated August 1991 without the amendments of September 5th Dot Schreiner, Chairman - Pathways Recreation and Parks Committee, reported that the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on December 10th planned to Sir December 4, 1991 1 review the Trail Dedication Policy as passed and amended by the Santa Clara County Planning Commission. She was asking Council at this time for authorization to share with the County such information from the Town as the Master Path Plan, its history, present maps and easement, dedication policies and the network of paths and trails throughout the Town. In addition Mrs. Schreiner was asking that Council send a letter of support of the Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Document dated August 1991 without the amendments dated September 5, 1991 which were approved by the County's Planning Commission. Mrs. Schreiner explained the proposed amendments and stated that they could have potentially devastating results on the trail system. She further noted that one break in the trail plan ruined the entire circulation plan. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Johnson, seconded by Hubbard and passed by all members present to grant the request from the Chairman of the Pathways Recreation and Parks Committee to represent the Town at the December 10, 1991 Board of Supervisors Meeting regarding Santa Clara Trail Dedication Policy and a request that the Council send a letter in support of the Santa Clara Parks and Recreation document dated August 1991 without the amendments of September 5th. 5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1 LANDS OF TUTTLE, 13660 Golden Hill Court, appeal of Planning Commission's denial of request for a variance to the maximum development area limitation of the Zoning Code and a site development permit for a swimming pool This public hearing has been continued at the request of the applicant. 6.2 Determination of whether or not the Town of Los Altos Hills should favor the annexation to the Town of 78 acres generally known as the Neary Quarry The Mayor thanked Councilmembers Casey and Siegel, the Council sub- committee on the quarry, for their report on whether the Town should favor the annexation of the Neary Quarry. Siegel referred to this background paper and highlighted certain sections. He noted that there were two sections to the property under discussion. The upper hill area of December 4, 1991 2 4 280 acres had been purchased by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and was designated open space. This section was not part of the annexation discussion. The other section was the quarry area of 78 acres and was the area being discussed for annexation to the Town. It was not part of the Urban Service Area of the Town and no property could be annexed to a city without the approval of the Local Agency Formation Commission. It was further noted that the owner of the property controlled whether or not he wanted to annex the property and also noted that the Town was under no obligation to provide sewer services to an area outside of the Town. Siegel suggested that there were four options for Council to consider: 1) Do nothing; 2) Insist upon annexation to the Town, allow sewer connections and apply to LAFCO for an urban service area boundary change; 3) Not favor annexation but cooperate with developer and provide sewers; and 4) support County's processing of subdivision and request County to condition subdivision to require annexation if the Town wants to annex at that time. Under this option the Town would want the County to take into consideration its concerns and the Town would not approve sewers until it was seen how the project was proceeding. Casey also suggested the property could be annexed after the lots were sold but Siegel questioned why they would do this as they would already have the sewers. Tryon noted that the developer could do other than residential development and she believed Council's decisions at this meeting could affect what he will decide to do. The City Manager commented that staff's recommendation would be for option #4 with the possibility of a development agreement. The Director of Public Works said there was the policy/political decision to make of whether a non urban service area of the Town should get Town services. He noted that there would have to be an amendment to the General Plan concerning a mining element and there could be a specific plan of development prepared for the quarry. He believed the owner of the property, the County and the Town should all work together on the project. The City Attorney explained that a development agreement was a contract between the city and the developer. It gave a developer vested rights and it gave the city advance knowledge of what a development would look like. Councilmembers made the following disclosures. Siegel met with Paul Hogan, Mr. Vidovich's attorney and Hubbard met with the applicant, Mr. Vidovich. Siegel and Hubbard met with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to discuss the terms of the sale of land of the upper 280 acres. December 4, 1991 3 Paul Hogan, Mr. Vidovich's attorney, stated that they did not object to annexing gibr to the Town but would like the processing done quickly. For this reason they suggested going through the County as there was a larger staff and less staff turnover. The problem with option #4 was that it seemed to be deferring judgment in his opinion. Mr. Hogan also commented that they would welcome clarification of the Town's position and would also welcome working with the Town and the County toward a resolution of the project. If this involved a development agreement that would be fine. Mr. Hogan observed that a development agreement would involve environmental review. Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill, supported option #4 noting that the Town could give guidelines to the County. Robert Nevin, Los Altos, commented that he was a retired civil engineer and he believed the safety and water supply issues needed more study. There were no water rights existing and he did not see that filling a quarry was a beneficial use. There was a detriment to Hale Creek due to the quarry and with the unstable soil and filling the lake there was a possibility of a slide. Dr. Howard Martin, 11666 Dawson, believed there were geologic hazards to the project even if the lake had been reduced in size. He also commented on the impact on Hale Creek, sewer problems, adequacy of road widths and adequacy of entrance. Dr. Martin stated that he supported option #4. Charles Latadie, 10933 Northcrest Lane, commented on his concerns which included geotechnical issues, flood plains, drainage and grading. He stated that he supported option #4. Hugh Graham, Senior Planner with Santa Clara County Planning Department, stated that presently the area under discussion was zoned hillside and Mr. Vidovich could probably get two lots. He was presently requesting a General Plan amendment and the probability of his getting this amendment would depend on whether or not he had services from the Town. In response to a question from Casey whether or not the County would be as concerned about the issues raised as the Town in their discussion of this project and whether or not the application would get the attention it deserved, Mr. Graham responded that they would be as concerned and would give it the attention it deserved. In response to an inquiry from Siegel about whether or not the County would require detailed conditions on the project, Mr. Graham stated that the application before them now was for a General Plan amendment for a twenty five lot subdivision. December 4, 1991 4 Libby Lucas, Los Altos, suggested that the conditions of the project include a continuous riparian corridor for Hale Creek, development according to FEMA standards and, regarding the lake management plan, care of what gets into the gravel water cascade. Nat Gorham, 15829 Stonebrook, stated that he was currently in the County and he had no personal preference as to whether he remained in the County or was annexed to the Town. He did believe however that the Town had handled this project very poorly and some resolution regarding the project needed to be made. There were not a lot of options for the land and in his opinion Hale Creek was dry not because of the quarry but because there had been no rain. Mr. Gorham knew Mr. Vidovich and believed the Town would be well represented with a project done by Mr. Vidovich. Mr. Gorham supported option #4. Fran Stevenson, 26989 Beaver Lane, inquired whether or not the Town would have a handle on the pathway issue with option #4. Johnson stated that he believed the overriding issue about annexation was that the Town would retain control over the development. With a new City Manager, new Planner and the Director of Public Works leaving there was no way the Town could annex the property. In addition if the Town did annex the staff would be so busy with the quarry project that nothing else would get done. He supported option #4 with the sewers going through the Lands of McCulloch and believed the Town would still have significant input on the project. Mr. Vidovich was asking that the County use the Town's one acre minimum and slope density formula. Johnson also noted that the sale of the property to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District might fall through if the project was delayed. Johnson also stated that he did not agree with a development agreement as he thought it was too restricting. As the EIR was still being done it was not at all clear how many lots Mr. Vidovich would get. Tryon stated that she was uncomfortable with option #4. She noted that the Council at one time had been uncomfortable with 19 lots and now they were considering more lots supposedly to save the sale with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. On this subject Tryon noted that the MROSD had voted to condemn the property; the agreement revolved around price. She was not sure any of the options were in the best interest of the Town and by the Council's decision they would be sending a message to the County for a twenty five lot subdivision. The Town should be developing what they want for the project and should be looking at the future responsibilities of the Town. ftilw December 4, 1991 5 Siegel stated that he did not agree with sewers going through Lands of McCulloch without discussion of full impact of options and other factors. He also noted, in response to Tryon's comments, that an application was before the County and it would proceed. Hubbard was impressed with the option of a development agreement. He noted that there was going to be a lot of pressure to accept the subdivision at a later time and he believed the specifics should be worked out now. He suggested that the County be asked to be the lead agency but the Town would work out a development agreement on such issues as number of homes, width of roads, pathways, setbacks, etc.. The Town's recommendation to the County would be deferred until the development agreement was available. Casey expressed her concerns about what the Council was doing. She believed this project had been going on for a long time and she had confidence that the County would scrutinize the project. Casey believed the Town should give the County some credit that they would arrive at a good plan. She did not believe the Town had the expertise and was not in favor of annexation. Furthermore, she believed the concept of you do the work and pay for it and we'll let you know if it is alright was preposterous. Casey noted that the project would have one acre lots and she believed the County would appropriately decide on the number of lots. She did not believe the Town should become involved in the liability of the subdivision and did not want to jeopardize the sale to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Casey referenced an issue such as fire hazard concerns and stated that there were many other matters the Town should be involved in rather than the Quarry. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Tryon and passed by the following roll call vote to state that the Town of Los Altos Hills was not prepared at this time to annex the Neary Quarry Property; to state that the Town will express its concerns regarding any proposal for the project; and hoped to develop a cooperative relationship with the developer and the County. If such cooperative relationship developed satisfactory to the Town, Los Altos Hills would cooperate to provide utilities to the development. AYES: Mayor Pro Tern Tryon and Councilmembers Casey, Johnson and Siegel NOES: Mayor Hubbard Mayor Hubbard stated that he believed this was a nebulous motion and it would make it more difficult for the public to share input on the project. V December 4, 1991 6 PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To state that the Town's sub-committee on the kir Neary Quarry would continue to follow the proposal and to identify areas of concern with the project. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES 10. STAFF REPORTS 11. COUNCIL-INITIATED ITEMS Casey noted that Walter Singer was very ill and it was agreed that the Town would send flowers or a basket of fruit to the Singers' home. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further new or old business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. kir Respectfully submitted, Patricia Dowd City Clerk The minutes of the December 4, 1991 Regular City Council Meeting were approved at the December 18, 1991 Regular City Council Meeting. kir December 4, 1991 7