HomeMy WebLinkAbout1475 Should be#1475 (see attached Minutes)
Changed 12/10/15
RESOLUTION NO. 1476
RESOLUTION APPROVING PARCEL MAP AND ACCEPTING
EASEMENTS, LANDS OF TOSSY
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of the Town of Los
Altos Hills, County of Santa Clara, State of California, that
WHEREAS, the City Council having read and examined the proposed
Parcel Map of the Lands of Tossy, entitled:
"PARCEL MAP, being all of Lot 1 and portions of Lots 2
and 11 in Block 38 as shown upon that certain Map
entitled, 'Map No. 6 , being a re-subdivision of a portion
of Block 38 of the Town of Los Altos ' , recorded in Book
"N" of Maps , -Page 66 , Santa Clara County Records and
lying partially within the City of Los Altos and Town of
- Los Altos Hills, California" ,
and wherein there has been eliminated the previously existing lot line
between the lots described, respectively, in Assessor' s Parcel Nos.
175-25-50 and 175-25-51, and having determined that the said Map is
in conformity with the requirements of Chapter 4 entitled "Subdivision"
of Title 9 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, ORDERED AND DETERMINED as
follows :
1. The City Council of the City of the Town of Los Altos Hills
hereby approves the above-described Parcel Map and accepts on behalf
of the public any streets, roadways, ways or easements offered for
dedication and delineated on the Map.
REGULARLY passed and adopted this 18th day of August, 1982.
ATTEST: By
Mayor
City Clerk
f
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -gust 18, 1982
E. SPECIAL ORDERS: Item 2 -- Reconsideration of Resolution #1471 (continued) :
ibw PASSEDBY CONSENSUS: To direct the City Manager to recommend an appropriate
pro-rata charge for the JPA at the next meeting.
3. Request for Parcel Map Approval, LANDS OF 'IOSSY, File SA #5-81
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved-by:Hillestad, seconded by Allison and passed
unanimously to adopt Resolution__#14.75-approving parcel map and accepting easements,
Lands of Tossy
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Allison, seconded by Proft and passed
unanimously to adopt Resolutiani#106-aproving and authorizing execution of an
agreement between the City of the Tawe of Los Altos Hills and Jerome D. and Tamara
Ann Tossy
4. Public Hearing:
a) Williamson Act Contract - Petition requesting cancellation of Kinkead
Williamson Act Contract - (continued from 7/21/82 Council meeting and
continued for sixty days at request of applicant)
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Allison, seconded by Hillestad and passed
unanimously to continue Kinkead petition for cancellation of Williamson Act
Contract for sixty days.
5. Consideration of appeal of Site Development Permit - Lands of Cooper , Lot 10 -
ir - Matadero Creek Subdivision
Frank Saul, 27977 Via Ventana, referred to his letter to the Council dated 8/18/82.
In his opinion the approval of this site development permit was not in keeping with
the preservation of the rural standards of the Town and would destroy the Town's
ability to regulate site development within reasonable bounds on steep lots. Mr.
Saul further questioned Council's decision to hear his appeal rather than having
it referred back to the Planning Canriission for consideration.
The City Planner commented on his staff report dated 8/13/82 noting in part that
the appeal appeared to be mainly pointed at the house instead of the grading and
drainage. He further noted that the design of the structure was not part of the
site development permit. A slide presentation was given which showed examples of
grading throughout the Town.
Mr. Cooper, owner of Lot 10 - Matadero Creek Subdivision, diagramed for Council
his plans for the house. Mr. Cooper emphasized landscaping, his attempt to preserN
the contours of the site, the visibility frau the road, his concern for the
neighbors and drainage. Mr. Cooper noted that at the Site Development meeting
the neighbors were present and were pleased with the plane he presented.
Council discussed the Site Development process in general and the appeal concerning
Lot 10 in particular. Proft requested clarification from the City Planner regardia
the type of foundation approved for Lot 10. van Tamelen noted that the Architect=
Committee established in the CC&Rs was not in effect nor had two Planning Co missic
lbw been present at the Site Development meeting.
-5-