HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/05/19849-29raLSi •n
t TONS] OF LOS ALTOS HI1dS
i 26379 Fremont Iniad
Ins Altos Hills, California
� w • •+ • is �
Wednesday, September 5, 1984
oc: Reel 159, Tr. I, Side I, 163 -end, Tr. I, Side II, 001-420
Mayor Allison called the Regular Meting of the City Council to order at 7:30 p.m.
in the Council C(&mbers at Town Hall.
Present: Mayor Allison and Councilmembers Dronkert, Pumnnan, Rydell and van Tamelen
Absent: None
Staff: City Manager George Scarborough, City Attorney Frank Gillio, City
Engineer Michael Enright and City Cleric Pat Dowd
Planning
Goan: William Siegel
Press: Florence Pallakoff, Los Altos Town Crier; Peter MCCornmick, San Jose Mercury
`• Item Removed: B.2 (Dronkert)
NOTION SECaMED AND CARRIED: Moved by Fuhrman, seconded by Dronkert and passed
unanimously to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar, specifically:
1. Approval of Minutes: August 15, 1984
3. Resolution for Adoption:
a) Resolution #88-84 of the City Council of the City of t;me Town of Los
Altos Hills setting the tine and place of hearing on proposed amendments
to the text of Chapter 5 of Title 9 of the los Altos Hills Municipal
Code entitled "Zoning Law of the Town of Ins Altos Hills," and con-
sisting of amending Sections 9-5.219 and 9-5.703, and consideration
of adoption of proposed negative declaration in connection therewith
(concerning secondary dwellings)
Councilmen tubers Rydell and van Tamelen abstained regarding approval of the
August 15, 1984 minutes since they were not present at the meeting.
C. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR: none
D. SPECIAL ORDERS:
1. Public Hearing:
4%w a) Final Report on the need and potential financing for improvements to
mutes 101, 237, 65 and 152 in Santa Clara County (proposal by the
Transportation Commission 2000 Steering Committee of Santa Clara)
CITY ocuNcIL MHVOTES - Septenber 5, 1984
D. SPECIAL ORDERS: Item l.a) Public Hearing (continued):
MOTION SECONDED AMID CARRIED: Moved by Fkku=an, seconded by Dronkert and passed
by the following roll call vote to support the resolution of the Transportation
2000 Steering Crnmittee acknowledging the need for new or additional construction
on routes 101, 237, 85 and 152.
AYES: Councilmenbers Dronkert, Fuhrman and Rydell
NOES: Mayor Allison
ABS'T'AIN: Councilnouber van Tamelen
2. Resolution # approving an amendment to Solid Waste Management Plan
for Santa Clara County to include the expansion of the Pacheco Pass Landfill
YDTION SECO= AMID CARRIED: Moved by van Tamelen, seconded by FUhnnan and passed
unanimously to adopt Resolution #89-84 approving an amerlmert to Solid Waste
Management Plan for Santa Clara County to include the expansion of the Pacheco
Pass Landfill
3. Resolution # approving and authorizing execution of an amended lease
between the City of the Town of Los Altos Hills and Purissima Hills Water
District
Council had before then a revised lease with the Purissima Hills Water District
as prepared by the City Attorney and dated 8/29/84, van Tamelen stated she would
rather have the lease include a $200/month credit toward the T'own's water bills
than a $200/munth rental fee paid to the Town. Dronkert co n vented that in her
�,. opinion the $200/month rental fee was the better option from a bookkeeping point
Of view.
Irma Goldsmith, 27330 Elena road, gave a brief history of the past relationship
between the Water District and the Town. Mrs. Goldsmuth stated her adniration
and respect for the Water District and com anted that she felt they had worked
with the Tann over the years in a fair and equitable manner.
Mr. Dan Alexander, President - Purissima Hills Water District, presented the
Council with a brief overview of the events between the District and the Tom
concerning the lease. In particular Mr. Alexander read into the record the trans-
cript of an excerpt from the Water District's Board Meeting of June 12, 1984.
(This document is on file at the City Clerk's Office at Torun Hall.) Mr. Alexander
reiterated the District's position that they would not agree to a year-to-year
lease. The District was in support of a ten year lease with ten-year options
subject to renegotiations kerning the rental amount.
Mr. David Janssen, 27440 Sherlock Court, expressed his concerns to the Council
concerning the proposed annual lease and the possibility of increased water rates
to the residents of the Town.
Mr. Marshall Smith, 26535 Weston Drive, also cemented that he felt that if the
lease were renegotiated on an annual basis, it would provide a built in opportunity
for an increase in the water rates.
( MOTION MADE AND FAILED BY TBE FnIJJDWSNG ROLL CALL VOTE TO CALL THE QOES`TION:
'1,' AYES: Councilmmber Fuhr an
NOES: Councilmembers Dronkert, Rydell and van Tamelen
PRESENT: Mayor Allison
-2-
ClTy COUNCIL MINUTES - Septenber 5, 1984
( D. SPECIAL ORDERS: Item D.3 - Lease with Purissima Hills Water District (continued):
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To amend the lease before Council as follows: page 2a, add
section 3.A.(4) to read: "Lessee shall pay lessor not later than June 30 of each
year an am mt equal to one-third of the maintenance costs for the driveway (to
the flag pole) by lessee and lessor."
Dronkert explained the reasoning behind the year-to-year lease. If it were a ten-
year lease and the price of water rose dramatically, this increase would not be
reflected in the rental change. Mrs. Dronkert also noted that the Town did not
receive a franchise fee fren the Water District and she did not think the Town
should subsidize the Water District.
NOTION MADE AND FA=ED BY THE FOLI[OWING ROLL CALL = TO CALL THE QUESTION:
AYES: Councilmeber Dronkert
NOES: Councilmamhars Fuhrman, Rydell and vanTamelen
PRESENT: Mayor Allison
Dronkert stated she world be willing to support an agreement of intent with the
Water District that the rent would be related to actual increases in the cost of
water; not a revenue source for the Town.
Mr. Dan Alexander, President - Purissima Hills Water District, reiterated that
e water District was not a prorit maKing organization.
M7rldN SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dronkert, seconded by FUhnman and passed
by the following roll call vote to adopt Resolution #90-84 approving and
authorizing execution of an amended lease between the City of the Town of los
Alms Hills and Purissima Hills Water District (amended lease according to the
terms set forth by the City Attorney in 8/29/84 report and as amended by Council
9/5/84).
AYES: Mayor Allison and Councilmanbers Dronkert, Fuhrmann and van Tmelen
NOES: Councilmenhar Rydell
4. Request for Lot Line Adjustment, IANDS OF PARNUS (Story Hill Lam)
van Tmelen expressed concerns that the driveway was right along the property line.
Although the driveway had been in place for some tine and there was planting along
the property line, van Tamelen comented that a new ordinance presently under
discussion would prevent such situations in the future.
MYTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Fuhruan, seconded by Dronkert and passed
by the following roll call vote to adopt Resolution #91-84 approving lot lira
adjustments between the Parnas property and the Love property.
AYES: Mayor Allison and Councilnmbers Dronkert, Fuhnnan and Rydell
NOES: Comncilmenber van Tamelen
5. Resolution # awarding contract for the re -roofing of Town Hall
Staff reported that as of the deadline on August 31, 1984, only one bid had
been received for this project from Adams Enterprises, Inc. (DHA Adams Roofing
Company) at $7,644.
Edward Barnes Chairman - Cammmnity Relations Committee, suggested that skylights
be put in the breezeway to provide additional lighting.
-3-
CTTY COUNCIL MIfAW - September 5, 1984
D. SPECIAL ORDERS: Item D.5 - Re -roofing of Town Hall (continued):
Dronkert did not think that extra finds should be appropriated for the roofing
project; however, she did ask that the City Manager indicate what line item of
the budget world be transferred. The City Manager responded that the fords were
available and would provide the Council with an accounting of the transfer; however,
he did suggest that in the future budget amendments be made prior to awarding contract
M3TICN SEMNDED AMID CAIU=: Moved by Fthxman, seconded by van Tamelen and passed
unanimously to adopt Resolution #92-84 awarding a contract for the re -roofing of
Town Hall (Adams Enterprises, Inc. - $7,644).
E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Payments under 1984 Solid Waste Disposal Participation Agreemnt
The City Manager presented his report dated 8/31/84 which referred to the Solid
Waste Disposal Participation Agreement with Mountain view to provide landfill
capacity for the Town for the next ten years. In connection with this agreement,
the Tbwn's FY 1984-85 operation and maintenance payments to Mountain View will
be $48,700 and the Town's debt service payments will be $65,358. There is also
a requirement that one -year's debt service be placed in reserve. The interest
earned on the reserve fund will be paid to the Tuan.
MDTICN SEQ7MDED AMID CARRIED: Moved by Dronkert, seconded by FUhxman and passed
unanimously to direct staff to prepare an addendum to the agreement with the Ins
Altos Garbage Company establishing the schedule for payment to the Thom by the
company of the funis required by the landfill agreement. This addendum to agree-
ment will be agendized for the next Council meeting.
1-Il'1'ION SECCNDED AMID CARRIED: Moved by Dronkert, seconded by Fuhrman and passed
unan musly to direct staff to prepare a budget amendment for the next Ceuncil
meeting appropriating the finds required by the landfill agreement during the
1984-85 year.
2. Planning Commission Expense Reimbursement ($50/month)
Commissioner Siegel reported that the Commission had discussed this matter at
their last meeting and were of the opinion that the present reimbursemat of $50
per month was reasonable and satisfactory. However, they did have the suggestion
that the representatives from the Pathway Committee and the Environmental Design,
Parks and Recreation Committee who sat on the Site Development/Subdivisions review
boards should also receive $50/month. Drcnkert offered to meet with a representa-
tive of the Planning Commission to discuss this recomnendation.
3. Int Line Adjustment Policy Reoomendation:
Council discussed the 8/31/84 report from Staff Planner Lytle on lot line adjust-
ment policy recommendation. In particular Council reviewed the statement that the
Planning Commission would act as the decision-making body, with the item being
referred to Council only on appeal, van Tamelen mm nennted that Council should be
aware of these planning matters and suggested lot line adjustu ants be placed on the
`� Consent Calendar,es following the same procedure now in place for variances and
v conditional use permits.
M7TICN EEOONDED AMID CARRIED: Moved by Dronkert, seconded by van Tamelen and passed
unanimously to adopt the Planning Commission's moommendation regarding lot line
-4-
CTPy came mHaTrES - September 5, 1984
E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Item 3 - lot line adjustment policy (continued):
`, adjustment policy as outlined in the 8/31/84 report from the Staff Plainer to
the City Manager, with the following anen1ment: add 8) to read: "An administrative
policy will be established placing lot line adjustments on City Council Agendas."
4. Items Renoved from the Consent Calendar:
a) Approval of Warrants: $70,413.05
Dronkert questioned warrant #1865 (water bills from Purissima Water District) and
hoped that this matter would be resolved by the next Council meeting. Fulumn
noted that there was a correction to the warrant list concerning the bill for the
carpeting of Town Hall. Warrant 41871 for $2,496.16 was deleted and warrant #1875
for $2,466.16 was added. This amount to Straus Carpet company was for $30 less
and reflected a credit that was due the Tuan.
MITION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dronkert, seconded by van Tamelen and passed
unanimously to approve the warrant list as amended = $70,383.05
F. SPECIAL REPORTS:
1. Reports from Standing Committee:
a) Finance Cammi.ttee
Q council accepted the 8/22/84 report from the Finance Conmittee.
b) Safety Ccnvdttee:
MITION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Vnved by Dronkert, seconded by Fuh man and passed
unanimously to approve the Disaster Plan Concept as presented by Chairman Cochran
to the Council in his 8/30/84 report (on file at Town Hall). Council noted it was
an excellent beginning, asked the Safety Committee to work with all appropriate
agencies, and asked Councilmmber Rydell to work with the Committee on the Disaster
Plan Concept.
2. Reports from Ad Hoc Committee: none
3. Reports from the Planning Cmr fission: none
4. Comments from the Council:
a) Fihxnan: City Council Meeting Procedures
Council discussed Fuhrnan's mend dated 8/10/84 on procedures at Council meetings
and the request that they be conducted in a less formal manner.
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: The Council will continue to conduct their meetings with
courtesy and consistency.
V -5-
cm Comm M N=S - Septenber 5, 1984
F. SPBCIAL REPOR'T'S: Item 4 - Cements frau the Council (continued):
`, b) Dronkert: Intergovernmental Council
Dronkert noted that IGC representatives had received the proposed 1984 County
General Plan Aendments which were scheduled to be discussed at the 10/4/84
IGC meeting. Dronkert reported that she had reviewed these amendments and
none appeared to impact the Torn. Prior to the meeting, Dronkert intended to
clarify sone questions she had concerning the anend�ts to ascertain that
the Torn would not be affected by the changes.
c) Dronkert: ICC meeting - September 13, 1984
Allison noted he would check his schedule and try to attend the IOC meeting on the
13th of September.
d) Study Session - Code Enforcement
Dronkert referred to the 8/15/84 request from the Planning Cartnission for a
study session with the Council concerning code enforcement.
PASSED BY COMSENSUS: To concur with Rytdell's suggestion that the Planning Commission
Chairman meet with the City Manager concerning the issue of code enforceuent and
to make a reooemiendation to the Council regarding the necessity of a study session.
It was further agreed to leave van Tamelen's suggestion of representatives from the
Pathway Crn ttee and Environmental Design, Parks & Recreation Cour ttee also
attending the preliminary meeting up to the Planning Commission Chairman.
Y f.M .IWS�.JF. 11.4 Yrs,\it �1M :�I� :wlv�. I�.Yiul�lUb'ii
1. City Manager:
a) Report on Stonebrook Path (oral report)
The City Manager reported that the crew had cleared enough brush to stake and
this staking would take place in the near future. Construction of the path would
take place one to two weeks after the staking was ompleted.
2. City Attorney:
a) Report on Private Property
The City Attorney presented an oral report on the issue of private property. He
noted that uphill property owners have a responsibility to downhill property owners;
n,4sen landslides occur fr ut private property onto public lards, the property owner
is responsible to clear the slide; and each occurrence of public funds expended
on private property should be reviewed on an individual basis to determine if the
requirerents for the expenditure of public funds are met. If a report is made
of dumping, it must be clearly determined who performed the dumping. When that is
determined, civil action could be filed and/or a bill for clearing could be placed
on the tax roll.
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Tb review the issue of private property at the time of the
meeting concerning code enforcement.
CITY CoLmcm MIN[71'FS - September 5, 1989
H. NEW BUSK ES,S^:
1. Recognitionof the Environmental Design, Parks and Recreation Committee
for the Town Booklet
Allison read the follaaing card he had received from Mr. and Mrs. Kaplan which
wras reflective of many aumuents he had received concerning the booklet: 'Please
convey to all responsible, our gratitude for the Tban handbook recently delivered.
It is beautifully constructed and greatly appreciated.'
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Certificates of Appreciation to those involved in the prepara-
tion of the Town Booklet would be presented at the next meeting.
2. Request frau Hidden Villa Ranch for installation of signs at the intersection
of Elena at Moody and Altamont at Moody
Council discussed the request before then from the Hostel Manager at Hidden Villa
for the installation of signs at Elena and Moody and Altamont and Moody to facilitate
navigating Moody Road not only during the day but particularly at night. Hidden
Villa would provide all materials and labor.
M7PIoN SEcamm AMID CARRIED: Mover by Fuhran, seconded by van Tamelen and passed
unanimously to approve the installation of signs at Elena and Moody and Altamont and
Moody with brmm backgrounds. A staff member will work with a representative from
Hidden Villa concerning the exact locations of the signs at these two intersections.
3. Matadero Creek Subdivision:
a) Lot #8 - request for adjustment to maximum development area
Council had before them an appeal frau the owners of Int #8 of the July 17, 1989
Site Development Committee decision to deny a permit for lot improvements. The
applicants were requesting an increase in the maacimum development area of their
lot from 8,262 to 10,988 square feet. Staff's reamnenxdation to the Council was to
deny the appeal, theme upholding the decision of the Site Development Committee.
Mr. Meise, applicant, addressed the Council concerning his request. He felt his
request was wrttim the concepts of the Town's development policy and was well below
the MDA's (maximum development area) allowed in other parts of Town. Mr. Meise
referred to his previous meetings with staff and noted there was confusion as to
the development standards for. the Matadero Creek Subdivision. Mr. Miss recomTende3
that the Matadero Creek Subdivision have the same development requirements as all
other subdivisions in the Thum.
Jeff Trant, attorney for the applicant, stated that his client had met with staff
regarding 41at eve opment could be done on Lot #8. He further noted that it was
their understanding that Site Development had approved the request for improvements
for Lot #8.
The City Attorney stated that the Site Development Committee did not have the
authority to approve an excess in the maximum development area. He further gave a
brief overview of the CC&Rs and Conditions of Approval for the Matadero Creek Sub-
division. All owners had been advised that the MDAs for the lots had been reroved
j4w from the CC&Rs and placed in the Conditions of Approval.
-7-
CITY COONCIL MIIVf= - September 5, 1984
H. NEW BUSINESS: Item 3.a) - Int #8, Matadero Creek Subdivision (continued):
Jim Viso, Chairman - Architectural Review C=ittee, noted that the Architectural
Review Committee's approval of plans were not binding, nor did they approve MTAs.
He did however refer to the 9/4/84 meeting of the committee and their remmiennda-
tion concerning Lot #8 that the MDA figure be adjusted to permit the additions of
a pool and stable. W. Viso camiented that there was a continuing problem at
the Matadero Creek Subdivision concerning not only the MDAs but also the 448
allowable building coverage for the lots. He strongly recamiended a study session
to review the entire issue.
Charles Chase, atthrnev for lot #20, noted that certain negotiations had taken
place in the past and questioned whether all owners were given the opportunity
to change their MMs. He further recmmerded that the Matadero Creek Subdivision
have the same requirements as all other developments in Town.
Council and the City Attorney stated that each previous change had been made on
an individual basis and all variations had been bargained for at the time of sale.
Concern for aesthetics, sensitivity of land and downstream drainagewere the
underlying reasons for the maximum development area restrictions. It was also
pointed out that there was a preliminary site approval process available to
potential owners of the lots.
Herman Spector, 27271 Ursula Lane, addressed the Council concerning the original
requirements imposed on the Matadero Creek Subdivision and stated that these
conditions should be adhered to. Peter Wallace. 27975 Via Vmttana, submitted a
letter to the Staff Planner stating that the OCRs had been adopted as standards
for the subdivision and should not be compromised.
Don Brandeau, architect for Lot #20, stated his opinion that if Iat #8 were
within the Tcwnn's ordinances regarding development the request, should be granted.
Alan lambert, developer for Int #20, suggested to the Council that the basic
problem before than was the fact that nothing can be pro -planned. He recanTended
that they consider whether it is a good plan, not whether it adheres to the letter
of the law.
Bruce Ropenhaaen, architect for Lot #8, stated that a lot of time and careful
attention had been spent on the landscaping for Lot #8 and he believed the
plans adhered to the original concept for the subdivision.
Jean Struthers, Plm nino Commissioner. suggested that perhaps issues relating to
Matadero Creek should go before the full Planning Coamission rather than Site
Development.
M TION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by van Tamelen, seconded by Fuhrman and passed
by the following roll call vote to derry the request for an increase in the nkodmmm
development area for Iet #8, Matadero Creek Subdivision, from 8,262 to 10,988
square feet.
AYES: Mayor Allison and Counci7members Dronkert, Fkku:man, and van Tamelen
NOES: Counncilmeber Rydell
�W MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dronkert, seconded by van Tamelen and passed
unanimously to go past the hour of adjournment of 11:30 p.m.
M -z
CITY CWWIL MINUTES - Septemdber 5, 1984
H. NEW BUSEI SS (continued):
kw 3. Matadero Creek Subdivision;
b) Lot #17 - request for adjustment to maximmam development area
Council had before them a request for an increase in the height limitation for
Lot #17 and an allowance to go outside the building site circle. Staff's reo=fleda-
tion to the Council was to deny the appeal by the applicant and to uphold the
8/14/84 decision of the Site Development Committee to deny the permit for the new
residence at Int #17.
Jim Moreland, architect for the applicants, explained that the 'leakage' outside
the site circle was being requested so that a large tree on the property could be
saved. Careful attention had been given to the orientation of the house, topo-
graphy and the location of the tree. The request for an increase in the height
limitation would allow for a roof line which the applicants felt would provide for
better drainage. The area of roof under discussion for the increase was 12 feet.
A slide presentation was sham to the Council showing the lot and the proposed .roof.
W
Jart�es Viso Chairman - Architectural Review Committee, explained why the comittee
approved these changes for Lot #17. It appeared there were three alternatives:
1) lower the house; 2) flatten the 12 foot section of the roof being discussed; or
3) ask the Council for an increase in the height limitation.
WTION SEC aMED AND CARRIED: Nbved by van Tmm len, seconded by Dronkert and passed
by the following roll call vote to allow 'leakage' out of the building site circle
for Lot #17 to preserve the tree.
AYES: Counc'm*enprs Dronkert, Fuhnmvn, Rydell and van Tamelen
NOES: Mayor Allison
MYTION SEMOED AND CARRIED: Moved by Rydell, seconded by Dronkert and passed by
the following roll call vote to increase the height limitation for Iot #17 to 540'
in that it will have no negative inpact on the subdivision.
AYES: Mayor Allison and Councilmembeis Dronkert and Rydell
NOES: Counci1nmbers Fubr an and van Tamelen
van Tamelen stated that she was Opposed to the increase in the height limitation
for Lot #17 because these limitations had been carefully reviewed and decided upon
after field trips to the property, etc. and she felt that in this particular case
there were the options of lowering the house or changing the slope of the roof.
c) Iot #20 - request for adjustment to maximm development area
Council had before them a request for an increase in the maxinam development area
for Iot #20 from 9,689 to 12,296 square feet to construct a front walkway and a
swimming pool with solar paving. Staff's recrnmendatrons to Council were to deny
the appeal filed by the applicant and to uphold the 8/28/84 decision of the Site
Develop ent Committee to deny the permit for lot improvements on lot #20.
Charles Chase, applicant's attorney explained to the Council what inprovements
�.
were being requested and specifically noted that the front walkway as proposed
would be concrete and would accomodate a wheelchair for the applicant's grancinother.
He asked Council to carefully consider the merits of the request before them.
W
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - September 5, 1989
H. NEW BUSINESS: Item 3.c) - IDte #20, Matadero Creek Subdivision (continued) :
�. Don Brandeau, applicant's architect, explained the owner's plans for the property
particularly for the pool withsolar paving. He also reviewed his discussions
with the Planning Department concerning the requirements and/or restrictions
concerning Iot #20 and expressed confusionregarding changes in the information
he had received.
Mr. Del Costello, applicant, explained that due to recent family events, his
grandmother would now be H—_ g with him and thus the request for the walkway.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by van Tamelen, seconded by DrCnkert and
passed unanimously to direct staff to prepare a modification for the Conditions
of Approval for the next Council Meeting which would allow for an increase of
approximately 510 square feet for the walkway for Iot #20 due to a hardship
situation and need for wheelchair access. The motion also included a denial of
the applicant's request for increased maxi=m development area for the pool and
solar paving.
I. ADJOUlaVE T:
There being no further new or old business to discuss, the City Council adjourned
at 1:05 a.m.
Respectfully sukmittel,
Patricia Dowd, City Clerk
-10-