HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/29/1964l`
CITY COUNCIL
and
PLANNING COMMISSION
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
June 29, 1964
.The Special Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission of
the Town of Los Alto's Hills was called to order Monday, June 29,
1964, by Mayor Wm B`. Clayton, at 8:10 P. M., at the Town Hall;
26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT.: Councilmen Aiken, Bowler,Fowls,
Henley, Mayor Clayton
ABSENT: None
PRESENT: Commissioners Alter, Ashby, Hawley,
Hibner, Mellquist, Chairman Garbett
ABSENT: Commissioner Prentice
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Santa ClCount y - Request for Inclusion in County
Federal Aid Secondary System.
rJ' The City Attorney reported this was a routine designation,
accepted County by County; to establish which of the roads in
the Counties will be eligible in the future as designated
-routes of the Federal Aid Secondary System in Santa Clara
County. If and when the Town is eligible, it will be the
responsibility of the Council to initiate the proceedings.
The City Attorney read, in its entirety, Resolution No: 275,
a Resolution Concurring in the Designation of Routes of the
Federal Aid. Secondary System in Santa Clara County.
ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. 275 as read.
NOTION: Henley; SECOND: Aiken
Mr. E. A. Breyman asked that this matter be postponed until
Item 2 on the Agenda (Standard Specifications for Roads and
Other Public Works) had.been resolved. However, Mr. Breyman
was advised the two items were entirely irrelevant and the
Question was called.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Aiken, Bowler, Fowle, Henley,
Mayor Clayton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
2. Standard Specifications for -Roads and Other Public Works.
The Mayor requested Commissioner Alter to present the
Planning Commission's recommendations (Study Session,
June 27W) on the Citizens' Committee Report. Commission-
er Alter complimented the Citizens' Committee for their
complete report .and cooperation.
CITIZENS' COMMITTEE PREFACE LETTER
Commissioner Alter read the Citizens' Committee preface
letter dated June 26, 1964, which accompanied their
report .and summary. On the whole, the planning Commis-
- sion concurred with this preface letter, with the follow-
ing recommendations:
1) That any title of the booklet for Standard
- Specifications should be marked "MINIMUM
(f� Standard Specifications for Roads.,, .etc."; _
-2) That a policy statement of the Town be in- _
cluded in the front of the booklet regarding
the necessity of maintaining the rural
character of the community in regard to the
use and. application of these standards;
3) That a statement be included that should
special cases of topography and terrain be
not satisfactorily covered in these standards
that the subdivider be encouraged to answer -
his special problems and submit his solution.
to thePlanning Commission and Council for
possible approval. If such ideas .are of value,
they -should be used; and
4) That the use of Cement Treated Base(CTB)
should be leftto the discretion of the
Town Engineer.
\.l -2-
:Specifications (Cont'd.):
reviewed the Citizens! Report, offering
ie recommendations. (the following: numbered'
)nd with the numbered recommendations of
"-l. PRIMARY ROADS:
The. Planning Commission did not agree completely as to cuts
and fills, and recommended.a minimum cut of 1,1i:1, and.
fill, .236:1, with the decision to be left to the Town Engineer.
The PlanningCommission recommended 8" of compacted rock base
rather than the 6" recommended by the Citizens' Committee,
and suggested .protection. to the edge of. the road,
Citizens'' Planning Com.
Plain Road Recommendations Recommendations
asphalt width 12' 11'
half -=width.. 12' 11'
:total width* 24' 22'
(Commissioner.Hibner recommended the 24' width)
rock shoulder 2' 2'': compacted rock base 6" 8"
:PMS : 236" 2'h".
Primary Road w/.rolled curb
asphalt width 10' 10'
half -width. 13' _ 13'
" total,width 26' 26'
Primary Road,w/ berme
asphalt width 11-3/4! 11'
half -width 13' 12'fz' '
total width -: ,26-'' 25'
Citizens' Committee did not suggest rock shoulder with rolled..
curb orberm - Planning Commission concurred'-..
The. Planning Commission is of the opinion that some serious.
though should be given to standardizing on a berm or curb :of
one type .and 'prohibiting the use ofall others. "Itwas '.their
suggestion the Town standardize the berm.
Also suggested was a note that standards may be waived by the
Council so''that a change can be made in the specifications in
special instances.
*. Total width always to the outside edge of road. -
A standard width should be set for all cul-de-sac roads,
other standards being the same.
On cul-de-sac roads serving 5 to 20 homes, a width of
16' to 18' is suggested, depending upon the length.
Under 5 homes, use the regular private road standards.
l -4-
OLD BUSINESS: -Standard Specifications
(Cont'd.):.
2. SECONDARY ROADS:
Citizens'
Planning Com.
_
Plain Road Recommendations Recommendations
asphalt width
10' P/C CONCURRED, but.
half -width
10' with 8" rock base.
totalwidth-
20'
Secondary Road w/ rolled .curb
asphalt width
8' -. 9'
half -width
11' 12'
total width
22' 24'
Secondary Road w/ berm
asphalt width
9-3/4' 10'
half -width
11'ill
total width
22' 22'
The Flanning Commission recommended
the following phrase be
- -added to the last paragraph on Page 2, Citizens' Report re-
garding rolled curb/berm: "To be
used only when absolutely
necessary.".
I/
3. PRIVATE ROADS:
The .Planning Commission concurred
withall recommendations
on the Private Roads (14' total width
with 6" rock base),
adding the following recommendations:
1) Because they are private
roads, they should
.not be second-rate, but built to the highest
possible standards.
2) On Private Road Standard
drawing, omit
- "Serving Five Lots or
Less"
A standard width should be set for all cul-de-sac roads,
other standards being the same.
On cul-de-sac roads serving 5 to 20 homes, a width of
16' to 18' is suggested, depending upon the length.
Under 5 homes, use the regular private road standards.
l -4-
�;'
Citizens'Rego"endations on.
P/C itecommm ndati.onsi
4.
CUL-DE-SAC DETAIL: No. change.
- Concurred.
-.'5.
STANDARD
CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER:
- Concurred
6.
STANDARD
A. C. JBERMi
- Concurred .
"7.
STANDARD ROLLED CURBS:
- Concurred, except Engineer
should decide degree of
compaction.
8.
STANDARD ISLAND CURB:
- Concurred, but only if the
coloring does not consti-
tute a. hazard.
9.
CONCRETE LINED CHANNEL: )
CATCH )-------`--
- P/C recommended decisions
.
10.
11.
BASINS'.
STANDARD CATCH BASIN HARDWARE)
by Town Engineer.
- ,_.•_
•
12.
STANDARD PRECAST MANHOLE: No change
- Concurred
13.
STANDARD BRICK MANHOLE: No'change
- Concurred
14.
STANDARD MANHOLE COVER & FRAME: No chg.- Concurred
lis•
STANDARD SEWER LATERAL: No comment
- No comment
16.
STANDARD BACKFILL,DETAILS:
- No comment_
'
19.
STANDARD SUBDRAIN: ' No change_
- Concurred,.
18.
STANDARD-STREETNAME.SIGN and
STANDARD REGULATORY SIGN:
- Concurred
19.
SECTION 18 Page 16, MISCELLANEOUS:
- Concurred
20.
STANDARD PATH:
Planning '.Commission agreed that
-a 4' path is sufficient.
.The'
It was also.of�the opinion than the
paths should not be _
shown in connection with aroadl drawing, as there is a path
drawing with all the necessary specifications. -
As.to the suggestion ofthe `Citizens' .Committee that paths
should be kept away from roads, the
Planning Commission felt
this posed some problems. It would
create a weed'. strip which
would result'. inexpense to the Town
keeping it clear.
- Althoughthe-Planning Commission isbasically.interestedin
.
the width of paths, it was their opinion considerable thought
should be given to the actual constructionand engineering of
paths.
21.
STANDARD ROAD BARRICADE:
- Concurred
22.
STREET MONUMENT:
-No comment
'23.-
STANDARD LOT CORNER. POST:.
-Concurred
:.
24.
STANDARD TRAFFIC STRIPES: No change
- Concurred
-5-
of
OLD BUSINESS: Standard Specifications(Cont'd.):
Citizens_'. Committee Planning Commission
Miscellaneous Recommendations: .Recommendations:
-1. 5ectiorc5, Control of Materials (p.6)- Concurred
2. Reference to CTB - Concurred
3. Road slopes - A matter of the Ordinance
4. Maintenance agreements - Concurred
5. Bridges - No comment
6.. Primary roads - Concurred
;. 9: City standards - F/C felt this was not
exactly true, but the Town should follow the same stand-
ards as required for builders
The Mayor thanked the Citizens' Committee for their complete report
and cooperation and the Planning Commission for its recommendations.
The.Mayor asked for comments from the Council and the concensus re-
flected that
e-flectedthat basically they were favorable to the recommendations and
in agreement that a road standard is desired that will be of the
highest, enduring quality that will keep the taxes down.
Councilman Henley suggested the Council refer the recommendations to
the Town Engineer when he is appointed and meanwhile announce the
1959 Standards shall control rather than the new ones.
-� .Comments were heard from Messrs. Toombs, Bullis, Vogler, Treat,
Toile, Rubin, Duveneck, Breyman and Masa Buneman, regarding the
.proposed standards and related subjects.
There was discussion on path .widths and cement treated base, and
the Mayor requested .the City Clerk to check on any changes in the
1959Standards by'ordinance or simple motion in order that the
Council may review them.
The Mayor further suggested aStudy Session following the July 6m
Council meeting to give the Council an opportunity to -review the
Citizens' Report and the Planning Commission's recommendations
ADJOURNMENT: - MOTION: Henley; SECOND: Aiken
MEETING ADJOURNED: 9:55 P. M.*
NEXT REGULAR MEETING: Monday; July 6, 1964, at 7:45 F. M.
at the Town Hall
Respectfully submitted,
W S
City Cl
6/29/64-mam Town of Los Altos Hills
-6 _